Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:14 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Burger King Votes With It Feet Back to Topics
mudtoe

Champion Author
Cincinnati

Posts:13,833
Points:1,875,785
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2014 12:11:27 PM

Burger King Buys Canadian Doughnut Company


Burger King announced today that it was buying Canadian doughnut company Tim Hortons and will be moving its corporate headquarters to Canada, a country with a 26% corporate tax rate as opposed to the 40% combined rate in the U.S.

To all liberals who say that people or businesses won't vote with their feet to escape liberal taxes, keep telling that whopper.


mudtoe
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:23,708
Points:3,771,390
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 19, 2014 10:11:34 AM

"But Buffett insisted that the more than $11 billion Burger King paid for Tim Hortons significantly outweighed any tax relief the company will receive by relocating to Canada."

That remark by Buffett was directed toward the 75% (or more) of the population that has no clue regarding business and/or investing.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 19, 2014 9:56:26 AM

"...but I am sure the $8.1 million per year in tax savings sure won't hurt. ;)"

Certainly a nice perk... but to portray it as mudtoe did is to pervert the reality of why the deal was made.

"I guess that declaring the move isn't designed to lower tax liability is a good PR move, I would do the same."

Of course. Perception is King - they know there could be possible blow-back for taking advantage of this perk (as any responsibly run business would do).

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 9/19/2014 9:56:49 AM EST]
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,029
Points:2,314,485
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 11:44:18 PM

Yeah, Burger King isn't moving it's corporate headquarters to Canada to help save tax expenses, but I am sure the $8.1 million per year in tax savings sure won't hurt. ;)

I guess that declaring the move isn't designed to lower tax liability is a good PR move, I would do the same.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 1:40:34 PM

"But Buffett insisted that the more than $11 billion Burger King paid for Tim Hortons significantly outweighed any tax relief the company will receive by relocating to Canada."

Exactly. This deal had nothing to do with BK 'voting with its feet' as incorrectly implied in the OP.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,884
Points:16,785
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 10:10:27 AM

SocialistSteve: "But some have their head so far up their prejudice they can't muster an original thought."

You resemble that remark...
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,344
Points:2,427,800
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 10:00:12 AM

Warren Buffett stands by Burger King deal



"“It is a corporate inversion and many corporate inversions are tax driven,” he conceded. But Buffett insisted that the more than $11 billion Burger King paid for Tim Hortons significantly outweighed any tax relief the company will receive by relocating to Canada. Critics have insisted that the purchase was largely motivated by the company’s desire to avoid paying high corporate taxes in the U.S."

"Buffett over the years has emerged as an ally for President Barack Obama’s message of “economic patriotism” and tax fairness, urging higher rates for individuals and companies to pay their fair share. Buffett has made headlines for advocating for cracking down on millionaires who pay taxes according to the lower capital gains rate, noting that his secretary has paid higher rates than him. The president has often touted the so-called Buffett Rule named after the investor — a proposal that would ensure millionaires pay a minimum tax rate at least equal to that of middle-class people.Buffett’s involvement in the Burger King deal provided complications for the White House, given its increased attention to clamping down on corporate inversions."

It's been a long while since I went to Burger King...



[Edited by: reb4 at 9/18/2014 10:00:24 AM EST]
Profile Pic
owt
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:10,326
Points:1,592,070
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2014 4:17:09 PM

Possible that the government should RAISE the corporate tax rate.....then more of the so called "EVIL' big companies will leave. Now wouldn't that be great, then what would the libs whine about, not enough of the others peoples money to give away
?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2014 1:52:28 PM

"So now their latest ad is about changing the US $5 bill. Okay... What next? Maybe including the Queen with the King?"

Certainly a bit of irony there.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,846
Points:890,075
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2014 9:14:23 AM

So now their latest ad is about changing the US $5 bill. Okay... What next? Maybe including the Queen with the King?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2014 8:59:56 AM

Well put, I75.

I've been trying to tell people the FairTax is a nonpartisan concept but some are so extreme they refuse to get it.

All they have to do is actually read the full proposal themselves and and decide for themselves if they like it and they will see.

FairTax

But some have their head so far up their prejudice they can't muster an original thought.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,848
Points:3,038,945
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2014 8:45:28 AM

Steve: AMEN !!!!!

Same with IRS/tax exempt org scandal, targeting audits such as against Dr. Ben Carson (and Herman Cain got his too), and struggling companies getting into trouble with the IRS by not sending in tax withheld from employees' pay (and employers matching share of FICA). If the companies were not forced to be the tax collector for the government, many companies that struggled and went out of business might still be in business today, employing people.

If we do keep an income-based tax, I would be in favor of having companies NOT withhold anything from any person's check, and that every person would have to mail in a check (or pay at a bank, etc.) for their tax burden once a month directly to the IRS. Then you would see real outcry about high taxes. People would refigure their proper withholding, and instead of having too much withheld and getting a very large tax refund (which they blow frivolously next February) they would pay as little tax as possible out of pocket and settle up next April 15.

The FairTax would end all these nightmares!
Profile Pic
herbiepopnecker
Champion Author British Columbia

Posts:15,965
Points:3,063,210
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2014 11:50:16 PM

May BK enjoy all the success of Yarget in Canada....
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,174
Points:1,524,820
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2014 10:54:10 PM

Gocat - tax dodging??? Explain you terms - are they doing anything that is illegal?

What they are doing is what the cons have been saying people and companies will always do when they feel that the tax burden they are supposed to pay is too high - they take whatever steps are legal to avoid paying the high taxes. Its just really that simple.

There are consequences of making it ever harder to do business in a locality. One of the consequences is gradually business moves out of that locality.
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,665
Points:2,042,625
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2014 10:37:55 PM

Have It Your Way!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2014 10:48:36 AM

FairTax solves this and many other tax-dodging problems.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,036
Points:3,135,410
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2014 9:35:43 AM

Excusing tax dodging companies that made mega bucks in America is inexcusable. With higher profits comes higher taxes.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2014 9:07:56 AM

"Looks like both of the above posters should read the entire article (link below the excerpts) and learn the facts rather than parrot talking points."

Speaking of parroting talking points...

Do you really understand the purpose of mergers/acquisitions? It seems that answer is evident, I just want to check and see how truthful you are with yourself...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2014 9:00:20 AM

"A nice one at that..."

I'm sure it didn't hurt BK's feelings any.

"Has it been repaired yet;????Has it been repaired yet;????"

Nah, it is most likely going to be condemned... ;)
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,029
Points:2,314,485
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2014 3:34:33 AM

Accepting that you have a problem is the first step to recovery.
Profile Pic
urban_dweller
Champion Author Orlando

Posts:2,028
Points:78,655
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2014 3:02:27 AM

Btc1: Aug 28, 2014 9:42:57 AM : "You know, only the corporate headquarters are moving to Canada. And there will still be a corporate office in Miami. And are they moving all those profitable stores and franchisees to Canada? No. So they will still be paying tax on profits earned here. And so will the employees and the suppliers, etc... Is it as big a deal as you want it to be? No."

And Weaslespit: "Anybody who thinks BK bought TH to move their HQ thus avoiding taxes, I got a bridge to sell ya!"

Looks like both of the above posters should read the entire article (link below the excerpts) and learn the facts rather than parrot talking points.

"A Reuters analysis of Burger King’s regulatory filings in the U.S. and overseas, which was also reviewed by accounting experts, shows that it has been making major efforts to reduce its U.S. tax bill for some time.

....The chain’s effective tax rate of 26 percent over the past three years compares with rates above 31 percent at McDonalds Corp, Starbucks Corp and Dunkin Brands Group Inc .

....The accounting experts say the Canadian move will allow Burger King to double-down on those efforts as it will open up new tax-saving opportunities for the company. It could, for example, apply the tax structures it currently employs in major markets like Germany and Britain, and which allow the group to operate almost tax free in those places, to its business in the United States, they said.

And that could mean Uncle Sam will lose corporate tax income that Burger King would have to pay under its current structure.

“I would be surprised if in five years’ time, their tax rate does not come down reasonably dramatically,” said Professor Stephen Shay, from Harvard Law School, who has testified to Congress on corporate taxation.

TAX FREE IN GERMANY

Burger King also operates a tax-efficient operation overseas. By channeling income through Switzerland it has managed to pay an effective tax rate of 15 percent on foreign income over the past three years, company filings and statements show.

Experts said this arrangement could become a template for how Burger King, as a foreign company, could shave its U.S. tax rate further.

EMEA operating profits for 2011 and 2012 totaled $356 million. Yet, Burger King Beteilligung GmbH – the entity which consolidated earnings for the group’s main German operating units - reported losses in 2011 and 2012, totaling over $10 million and recorded a net income tax credit of more than 200,000 euros." Link to Reuters Article
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,833
Points:1,875,785
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2014 12:43:42 AM

flyboy: "Does anyone ever think that maybe libs should wake up and listen and see what is happening....... "


They can't acknowledge that obvious fact. In their delusional minds people never take advantage of the freebies being offered in return for votes, and the people paying for the freebies never react in any way to having what they worked for confiscated. We are all one big happy socialist family giving to each according to their need and each selflessly contributing according to their ability, all in perfect harmony.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 9/3/2014 12:44:56 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,174
Points:1,524,820
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 2, 2014 10:40:07 PM

How many times have cons said that there are consequences for actions? How many times have cons said that people and companies will respond to high taxes by leaving the high tax area or taking other steps to avoid the high taxes? How many times have cons said that the responses people and business take to high taxes, fees adn overregulation will not be what the libs say they want or would happen?

Does anyone ever think that maybe libs should wake up and listen and see what is happening.......
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,527
Points:692,610
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Sep 2, 2014 8:46:29 PM

What happens if Walmart makes the decision to do this type of Tax Inversion? A few more major corporations? We brought this on ourselves. When our President puts the word out that he wants to increase the taxes on businesses, they look for a new place to incorporate.
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,344
Points:2,427,800
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 2, 2014 4:53:33 PM

"It was a fringe benefit..."

A nice one at that...






"I got a bridge to sell ya!"




Has it been repaired yet;????

[Edited by: reb4 at 9/2/2014 4:54:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,833
Points:1,875,785
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Sep 2, 2014 4:46:47 PM

tt: "Actually, the FIRST thing I would do is hire a REALLY GOOD tax attorney and map out a strategy for minimizing my tax hit... BEFORE I cash the ticket."


Yes, that would be very wise. It would also be wise, if possible, to hide your identity, say by creating a trust or something to be the legal entity cashing in the ticket. A friend of mine's mother won $75,000 in the KY lottery about five years ago, and almost every one of her deadbeat children and grandchildren came out of the woodwork hands outstretched (not my friend as he and his wife are self sufficient and wouldn't think of hitting her up for money), even ones that never talked to her or went to see her. She ended up giving nearly all of it to them.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 9/2/2014 4:50:31 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 2, 2014 4:14:31 PM

"Topic: Burger King Votes With It Feet"

Anybody who thinks BK bought TH to move their HQ thus avoiding taxes, I got a bridge to sell ya!

It was a fringe benefit...
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,359
Points:827,710
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 2, 2014 3:44:56 PM

LOL, thanks mudtoe, just burst my lottery fantasy bubble! Of course, the odds are greater that I'll be hit by lightning than win millions.

Actually, the FIRST thing I would do is hire a REALLY GOOD tax attorney and map out a strategy for minimizing my tax hit... BEFORE I cash the ticket.

I have had lightning strike close enough to knock me down. Does that mean the lottery's next, or do I have shark attack and snakebite first?

Maybe it means the guy NEXT to me will win?!

[Edited by: teacher_tim at 9/2/2014 3:47:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,884
Points:16,785
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Sep 2, 2014 9:42:10 AM

sgm4law: "TD, you have a very unclear idea of what constitutes an open mind."

No, I just have a very clear idea of liberal doublethink...
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,833
Points:1,875,785
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Sep 1, 2014 11:42:55 PM

tt: "If I hit the lottery, I would certainly change my state location from Maryland before I cashed it."


Be careful. There are lots of bear traps there. First, don't buy your lotto tickets in Maryland. Most states have a law that if you win a lottery with a ticket bought in their state you owe their state income tax no matter where you live. You might also owe state income taxes in your home state as well. Second, there is some sort of residency requirement in almost all states. For example, in Ohio you are considered a resident for income tax purposes if you have lived in the state for 90 days in a calendar year. Therefore, if I bought a lottery ticket while I was in FL (a no income tax state), and it was say July and I'd already been in Ohio for 90 days, it wouldn't matter if I moved to FL before cashing it in that same calendar year. I'd have to move first and wait until the next calendar year to cash it. However, most lottery tickets expire after six months, so if it's between April and June there would be no way to avoid the tax.

The reason I know all this stuff is that when I retired from my corporate job I had to cash out all my stock options at once. I was looking to see if I could move to Texas for a year to avoid the state income tax on all those options, as the state tax bill would far exceed my living expenses in Texas for a year. Unfortunately as this was about mid-year I'd already been in Ohio for 90 days and the strategy wouldn't work unless I waited until the next year.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,081
Points:2,982,330
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Sep 1, 2014 10:39:25 PM

TD, you have a very unclear idea of what constitutes an open mind.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,359
Points:827,710
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Sep 1, 2014 9:37:51 PM

If I hit the lottery, I would certainly change my state location from Maryland before I cashed it.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,884
Points:16,785
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Sep 1, 2014 8:00:48 PM

sgm4law, you have to read any book with an open mind.

Which is why you and SemiSteve, as liberals, will never understand a book like Atlas Shrugged.

Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,081
Points:2,982,330
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Sep 1, 2014 7:52:17 PM

"Of course, none of them have ever read Atlas Shrugged."

I read that hefty chunk of propaganda years ago and found it unpersuasive.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,029
Points:2,314,485
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 1, 2014 7:08:19 PM

Steve, that post does nothing to address the premise of this thread of our government taxing corporations more than anywhere else in the world, causing them to give up on being located in America. As a matter of fact, you also ignored my earlier counterpoint when you were originally on topic. BK is relocating their headquarters to Canada and even though you have stated in the past that conservative argument for jobs and tax revenue leaving the country was nonsense, here we have a quite visible example that you were indeed wrong.
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,440
Points:561,500
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Sep 1, 2014 6:46:18 PM

"But it sounds great to doe-doe-brains"

Female deer?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 1, 2014 5:56:10 PM

AC302: "Strong Government Regulation" of the markets has resulted in utter economic failure. "

That is nothing but opinion. You can't prove it; and the evidence you offer is conjecture more than convincing. The majority believe our market failure is caused by selfish greedy capitalists wielding too much power over government. This prevents government from executing the will of the governed.

The thing is that you, like so many conservatives, simply resent being governed.

You must accept government as the price of a secure market.

People simply can not be allowed to run around and do what ever they please if that means oppressing the desperate. It is rightly government's role to protect the most vulnerable and weakest among us from those who see them as nothing but industrial machery to be bargained for under a seriously lopsided disadvantage.

Decrying more regulation in general is too vague and simplistic. (But it sounds great to doe-doe-brains) Each regulation must be considered on an individual basis.

What if some greedy capitalist began selling gas by the 9/10 of a gallon? His prices would look great but it would be a hassle to do the math to really compare them. And then what if others followed suit and began advertising great sounding prices for various fractions of a gallon of gas? It would quickly piss people off when they got the math wrong and ended up being ripped off.

What if some other creative mind made gas prices into derivatives of other market features? It would be nearly impossible to tell a good price from a bad one.

We would need a regulation to protect the unsuspecting from the ruthless and greedy.

Just like we do in so many markets.

Which is why markets work better with government intrusion.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,144
Points:3,447,945
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Sep 1, 2014 12:52:54 PM

TrollerDiesel - I actually made an agreement with SemiSteve a few years back. I'd read "The Audacity of Hope" by Barack Hussein Obama, if he'd read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. He agreed, and we both did our reading. I read Obama's book. In it, he does concede some problems with his own party and their strategies, but in the end his argument is always: "..but..but the Republicans are worse!" (in effect).

Now, SemiSteve felt "taken", since Audacity of Hope was only like 300 pages, where Atlas Shrugged is 1078 pages. And it wasn't my intention to make him read a lengthy tome. It was my intention to introduce him to the concepts, basically of Libertarianism. He read "Atlas", but kept complaining that "it's impossible..it can never be.." But be that as it may, we are seeing these very same things even as we speak. In the book, the President makes rules that cannot be followed, and does so using executive orders, unconstitutional or not. Compare that to what we see now. The president was in violation of the law when he made that hostage swap, then informed Congress AFTER the fact. He was supposed to do so 30 days before, so that Congress (or the right committee) could say "yea" or "nay". He's had other appointments made while Congress was in recess that are also unconstitutional. So what SemiSteve said could never happened, is perfectly plausible. It is particularly so in light of the fact that Obama seems to want to make is how rules, contrary to law.

I also wanted SemiSteve to see the logical effects of the dismantling of capitalism and replacing it with socialism. The book does a pretty good job of this. And it is pretty representational. Think about it - Rand lived through this very change, when the Tsarist government was kicked out, revolution occurred and the Communists took over and confiscated/nationalized everything. She lived through it, she knew.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,884
Points:16,785
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Sep 1, 2014 12:40:30 PM

Liberals have a complete and total insability to comprehend the law of unintended consequences and no ability to think things through to their logical conclusion.

Therefore, left-wingers like SocialistSteve actually THINK that they're helping the poor by punishing the rich. Of course, none of them have ever read Atlas Shrugged.

Or watched Monty Python...

[Edited by: Troller_Diesel at 9/1/2014 12:44:19 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,833
Points:1,875,785
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 31, 2014 9:27:16 PM

TD: "I wish I had a 6 foot pry bar and a jackhammer to remove the socialist-colored blinders from SocialistSteve's eyes:"



Food for thought: Do you believe semisteve's real purpose to help the poor, or simply to punish the wealthy?


mudtoe
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,029
Points:2,314,485
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 31, 2014 5:22:25 PM

So I am getting the message that this move was indeed a non-objectionable action for the management of BMP to have made, as there is virtually no rational argument that condemns this action.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,884
Points:16,785
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 31, 2014 2:24:03 AM

I wish I had a 6 foot pry bar and a jackhammer to remove the socialist-colored blinders from SocialistSteve's eyes:

Does the Welfare State Help the Poor?



[Edited by: Troller_Diesel at 8/31/2014 2:24:17 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mnrick041
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:17,623
Points:1,974,035
Joined:Jun 2009
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2014 7:42:31 PM

Good for them but I do not eat there and have no plans on starting to.

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,144
Points:3,447,945
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2014 7:33:48 PM

SemiSteve said: "I don't see how that could possibly work without something else. I don't know what. Strong govt regulation of markets that's what. But you're against that. So there's no way you can take away all those socialist things including public education, welfare and min wage and expect the poorest to be better off."

--SemiSteve - again, "Strong Government Regulation" of the markets has resulted in utter economic failure. The former Soviet Union is a prime example of that. Even China, in all it's Maoist Communist glory as abandoned it's Communistic system for a capitalistic one, and has managed to pull itself up by it's own bootstraps into being the next second-superpower. Strong government regulation doesn't work. I do admit that some regulations of markets is needed. But generally speaking the market needs LESS regulation, and government's role ought to be more geared towards resolution of business disputes, rather than telling people or companies what they can or can't do.

Another example you and others have brought up time and time again is pollution. Obviously one shouldn't dump mercury into rivers. WE had that at one time, and it wasn't illegal, or wasn't strongly enough punished. Nobody is saying it should be legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But I think we have WAY too many regulations that kill business. I heard of one CEO who spends 80% of his time on Dodd-Frank regulations. It's too much. I think SOx is also burdensome, as often even small companies need to hire someone to manage it full time. Not cool.

And just like you proposed raising the gas prices through taxation by 2X or 3X - maybe what we do is wean people off of welfare over, say, a 20 year period. We cut it down by 5% a year for the next 20 years, meanwhile offering useful and practical education to those willing to accept it. It's only through education that we can reduce poverty. Handing out welfare checks since the 50's or 60's hasn't done "squat" for us, except that we're now entering the 4th generation of welfare recipients for whom the word "work" is something other people or families "do". None of these folks GRANDPARENTS have even known the satisfaction of earning their daily bread - it was handed to them, too.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2014 3:04:35 PM

AC 302: "I think if we were to unfetter capitalism from the pall of socialism, that it would do more for America, and consequently, most of the 99% would do better as well. "

I don't see how that could possibly work without something else. I don't know what. Strong govt regulation of markets that's what. But you're against that. So there's no way you can take away all those socialist things including public education, welfare and min wage and expect the poorest to be better off.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,144
Points:3,447,945
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2014 2:51:13 PM

SemiSteve protested: "What a crock of a memory, you have AC302. The idea was poor houses and nobody would be required to take part."

--Voluntary or not, it's still collectivization. And I hear you, and am not necessarily opposed to the idea, though it would need to be developed further. All I'm saying is that there are some who might suggest some of your solutions (such as that) could be construed as implementing socialism. That's a more direct example of something that could be interpreted that way. Do you not see this? Would you not agree that this is a logical interpretation of what you have proposed in the past? Again, I'm not trying to bust your chops on this. I'd say I have an above average memory for what I read, but I wouldn't call it "a crock". Or are you trying to suggest that what I remember is a "crock of faecal matter"? Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Be plain.

Now, I also don't disagree with you that many institutions could be interpreted as "socialistic". Welfare, food stamps, social security, medicare, the VA.. are but a few.

I also find it interesting that you are saying that the socialist/capitalist world is 'working for the 1%'. But I thought we both agreed that the 1% have no need for these social programs. I rather thought they benefited, generally speaking, the lower reaches of the 99%. Would you not agree?

I think if we were to unfetter capitalism from the pall of socialism, that it would do more for America, and consequently, most of the 99% would do better as well. Unleash our economy to SOAR and watch our standard of living go up with it. I long for the day when REAL unemployment (not Obama's made up numbers) is well under 5%, with low inflation. But we're not going to see that any time soon. Sure, the 1% will make bank. So what? That rising tide that even Obama talked about will lift all boats, not just they mega yachts of the 1%.

Now Troller Diesel - I don't want to call Steve as "communist", etc. Those names have ugly implications and historical connotations. We don't want to call a fellow citizen as what we used to call our certain of our enemies, and I will refrain from so doing. I think Steve is a left-wing liberal, and sees government as a solution, not as a problem. There is, for you, Steve, a fundamental difference between folks who are liberal, in their outlook, and the rest of us. And again, I'm not a traditional "right winger". Libertarian is probably a better description of my political outlook - more freedom and less government intervention. Having read Ayn Rand, and knowing i mostly AGREE with her, ought to tell you a whole lot about what I'd think of any issue. I'm not entirely sure you DISAGREED with Rand, so much as you kept claiming: "but..but.. it's impossible.. nothing like that could EVER happen." Yet if you think CRITICALLY, it's already happening. Obama makes presidential edicts (executive orders) that are circumventing the law. Some of Obama's edicts have come down as unconstitutional. He's usurped authority that was reserved for Congress, and he cannot do that. The hostage trade was one. Certain judicial appointments were another.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,884
Points:16,785
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2014 11:26:34 AM

AC=302, theTower, it's pretty clear that SocialistSteve is a neo-Marxist.

And, a unicorn-fart-and-rainbow Utopian.

And, now the occutard rant about the "99%".

Fuggedabout it!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2014 7:36:54 AM

What a crock of a memory, you have AC302. The idea was poor houses and nobody would be required to take part.

And this predeliction of some conservatives to label things or people with the dreaded 'socialist' term is so Archie Bunker.

Many existing institutions could be called that. Things with wide acceptance such as public schools and libraries, minimum wage and welfare. There is already widespread acceptance for these 'socialist' ideas and still, wealth inequality is at it's highest point in a hundred years of capitalism.

So why don't you take your stigma and stick it into reality. It's not all one way or the other. We have a mix of socialism and capitalism and it is working quite well for at least 1% of us. And that 1% is anything but socialist.

And there are millions besides the obvious and glaring 1% who are also doing quite well; although some capitalist elements are hurting the 99% more than socialist elements.
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:16,052
Points:3,586,825
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2014 5:51:29 AM

Go Burger King, GO!
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,440
Points:561,500
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2014 4:48:27 AM

"I'm not trying to "bust your chops" this time, but you have, in the past, recommended solutions to problems that could easily be construed as socialistic."

And right afterwards, he'll deny that's what he even said. Or whine that HE was attacked, not his idea. You can post stuff that will directly contradict what he has posted, and even though semisteve claims to be here to "learn from others", he never backs down from any of his nonsensical ravings. Its as if your posts that challenge what he says aren't even there. Or he'll claim his life is too busy to see what others have posted even though he comes in here and pops his topics right to the top of the first page on a regular basis. That's not learning anything. There is another name for it though that can't be posted here.
Its been that way right from the beginning with semisteve despite his protests to the contrary.

[Edited by: theTower at 8/30/2014 4:49:21 AM EST]
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,144
Points:3,447,945
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2014 9:28:40 PM

Troller Diesel - Thanks, man. I'm glad someone is paying attention. I'm not sure my comments are getting through to people at times. Not sure if people "get it"? Some I think don't want to "get it".

Way below, SemiSteve chided UrbanDweller: "Instead you lashed out at me and called me a socialist.."

--Beg pardon, Steve.. but your solution to poverty that you have touted many times here is to build what you have called "poor farms". Please understand that some folks might call these "agricultural collectives", and do consider collectivization to be a socialist solution. I'm not trying to "bust your chops" this time, but you have, in the past, recommended solutions to problems that could easily be construed as socialistic.
Post a reply Back to Topics