Corporations in America

As I hear this consistent talk about how the private sector is much more capable than government to operate social programs, and how tax cuts are needed to spur the economic growth so that the corporations can be later taxed, I present an interesting source.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/corptax.html

The American income provided for comparison is a family making $30,000 per annum, at a rate of 17% federal income tax.  What is truely interesting is that many large corporations get substantially less federal taxation, and in some cases, are refunded for taxes they never paid.  This is a strange case indeed, as it seems that these "tax cuts to spur economic growth" are rather redundant, as many corporations are paying less than the taxes of impoverished people. 

Libertarian doctrine is obsessive about telling us that government should be weakened, and the spending of the government curtailed to allow the market to grow.  It is rather amusing that the people who benefit most from this plan are not the people who pay the most relative taxes, but the people who pay the lowest percentage of taxes, despite how enormous that 1.8% may be (here's looking at you Microsoft).

It makes me wonder why so many middle class families believe the libertarians want to help them.  The middle class bears the brunt of the highest taxes, and is the true "common men" of America.  When libertarians argue that a graduated tax bracket makes it discouraging to become rich, they need only read the nice steady 1.8% that Microsoft pays to the federal government.  Ah, what a burden it is to be rich.

American corporations are truely the scourge of the market. And they themselves are proof of the "high tide raises all boats" myth expounded by various corporations and economic theorists.  Simply take a look at the GDP of various nations.

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch2en/conc2en/globalgdp.html

As the chart shows, America doesn't generate so huge a GDP as many would like to assume, and that it is about 3 times that of Japan and 5 times that of Germany. Now that you know the scale of global GDP, look at this source. (Click on Facts and Figures)

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/executive.html

What is evidenced by the diagram is that in Japan, a corporation executive makes 11 times that of a factory floor worker, and likely with due cause (i.e. owning/starting the business), in Germany it is a larger 12 times. (Still reasonable)  Now go over to American corporation executives......Hrm. It seems that American CEOs make a staggering 475 times more money than the factory floor worker.  What is being drawn here is that the United States' policy of "rising tide" is not narrowing the income disparity, but widening it, making the rich MUCH richer, and the poor MUCH poorer.

Libertarians will sometime outcry that government facilitates this taxation, and must be weakened to prevent further injustice.  But I ask Libertarians, with the current system, what empirical proof do you have that doing so will rein in the income disparity?  What evidence do you have that doing so will not be what the corporations would prefer?  Herein lies the evidence of pessimistic outlook of Libertarians, would not justice be achieved if politicians were honorable? Would not the corporate sway be stymied if politicians rejected their bribes and lobbying? Would not taxation be truely graduated if loopholes were closed for large corporations? Would not federal programs and funding increase if corporations actually started paying their share? Why, if they actually paid, lower taxes across the board would be actually JUSTIFIED.  But of course, Libertarians will tell you that all politicians are corrupt, excluding themselves, and that the inherent evil nature of man evaporates in the private sector.  Businesses should exist to make money, government should exist to enforce the people's will, and the people's will is the only sovereign power, without it's grace, business would not exist.

Libertarians don't address what other people say.

Japanese companies have big conglomerates.  What is that almost synonomous with, oh, that's right monopoly, which is a proven way for economic coercion, which is supported by bribing their resident bureaucrats. Stay with me here. Japan is not libertarian, it is much like the US, where government and corporations give each other handjobs, resulting in the 2nd largest GDP in the world. Egads, I can interpret and draw that fascism works great by ignoring the details, sound familiar to your ideology?

"One could also say that mental labor is involved in the production of an idea, and that since ideas are thus the products of labor, it would be wrong to take or use them without the consent of their creator.  Thus, we have patents, and copyrights."

WOW, that sounds almost word for word Marxism, I think you need to get your ideology straight.  Read Das Capital.  How can you say that one thing can be owned by labor while another isn't? Where is the "contract" between the person making the idea and the idea itself?" Ideas can be in multiple people's heads, and each "owns their body", so who is the true owner? You can own property, because it is tangible, you cannot own ideas without the infringement of thought, which is tyranny of the most perverted kind.

"Are you trying to paint Hitler as a libertarian? Please do, as that will confirm my initial notion that you don't know jack shit about politics."
Actually, I was trying to paint libertarians as hitlers, because of the way they think, not their political views.  It is a fallacious arguement, perhaps you should learn what ad hominem is before responding to a blatant troll. Noob.

Reagan vastly increased government spending.  This is an example of BIG GOVERNMENT. Not to mention he also increased taxes heavily in his 2nd term, particularly on industry.  The very fact that a non-libertarian action (BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING) did not cause the economy to come fucking crashing down, PROVES that a hybrid socialist/capitalist state functions, if anything IT ROCKS, because as was said, the economy boomed.  This is why libertarians don't have scientific interpretations, you haven't "accounted" for what the big spending did to the economy, you just "assume" it is le bad.  When you see the tax cuts, you just "assume" it is good.  You haven't isolated each variable, so what I ask you, is if we make the statement "Reagan did something good for the economy" which is it that was good? The tax cuts? The spending? Both? (I say both, but it's not good fiscal responsibility)  You can continue to say that in a libertarian government shit would be EVEN better, but a minarchist government will never happen, as it cannot stand still, people PREFER to have a stable ecomomy, whether it's kinda suck or kinda win, people do NOT want the EXTREME GOOD libertarianism offers, because, it comes coupled with EXTREME BAD.  Besides the fact that since mindless libertarian bot said that NO MATTER WHAT corporations will bribe politicians, it is inevitible for a minarchist government to grow, (wasn't that what happened, like, always, government control goes up so more corporate power can be exerted?) and you know what, the people wanted more control, because a free market  can fail.  Yes, it can. Say it with me. Free markets can fail.

"relatively free market is made of relative win"
So if a little ambien is good, a lot would be great, right?  More =\= necessarily mean better, in reality, you should visit it sometime.

In response to that fucker who said that America's poor are better off than Third world poor, oh, thanks so fucking much for that, it's been apparent since the fucking 1960s with the SOCIALIST PROGRAMS we instituted.  An american poor man is the mexican well-off, and it's been this way for a rather long time, even before magic reagan's tax cuts, (which actually widened the income gap) For you to argue that "They are still well off" totally ingored that the actions of reagan fucking hurt them, and that a rising tide raises those who have fucking yachts.  And I wonder how much better off a poor man is by getting a new toaster with his tax money, I thought the intended goal was to raise him out of poverty.

In every thing I have typed, libertarians don't address the fucking point, as the article in >>20 outlined.  WHENEVER I pose a particular problem for which libertarianism is not in a good light, you revert to a platitude (BIG GOVERNMENT IS THE FAULT OF EVERYTHING) such as your "Belief" that in a "Truely free market" he wouldn't be extorted.  Well, sherlock, the fact of the matter is that truely free markets only exist in your heads, they have NEVER existed, and attempts to create "ideal" societies have utterly failed.  This is what the conservative arguement is about. Libertarianism is just the negative Marxism.  On paper, Marxism works wonders, as does Libertarianism, but when applied to the real world, Marxism failed hard, with a huge cost of human life, as could be predicted with Libertarianism.

Everything I say here is nothing more than prediction, but until you have scientific, real-world testing that libertarianism works, the only "proof" that you can offer me is your prediction that libertarianism will work.  Your prediction is as good as mine.  You have no evidence, and what you call "evidence" is nothing more than ex post facto interpretations of society, much like revisionist history, much like how Marx developed his theory of labor.  What truely frightens me is how dogmatic you are, something like Scientologists.

"Also, a more prosperous economy tends to mean there are more jobs to go around, which most people would agree is beneficial to the poor."
Tend to, meaning there are exceptions, meaning your economic interpretation has a flaw.  Most new jobs that have emerged are high tech jobs requiring extensive education that poor people can't afford.  You don't see a hobo coding HTML.

To take from the article: where Marxists believed that everything could be solved with altruism and collectivism, Libertarians believe that everything can be solved with selfishness and individuality.

When approaching a libertarian, make sure you ask their proof that an aspect of their policy has been proven, and you will find only an ex post facto interpretation of history, and any flaws in their interpretation can be attributed to "big bad gubbymint". Take this with a pound of salt, as many other interpretations of history are adopted by historians, such as Hitler's interpretation of Jewish corruption of society, such as conservatives interpretation of societal fall from religiousity, such as Marx's interpretation of Bourgeoisie oppression.  All of these theories work because they can blame flaws in their theory as anomalies caused by the great evil they identify, but when applied to real life, those anomalies are the taletell marks of reality not bending to the fantasy.  Standing outside the fantasy, the fanstasy is flawed, standing inside the fantasy, flaws are smoothed over.