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.

Once again, Libertarians ignore that they are merely interpreting history after the fact, and that they have no magical clairvoyance.

They don't understand how isolation of variables ruins their theory.

For example. Spontaneous generation.  Ancient people believed that flies came from spoiled meat.  Why? because, if you leave spoiled meat out, it becomes infested with maggots.  So, meat literally becomes flies, simply because I say it does, and I have an explanation that appears to work.  I predict that a piece of meat when left out, will become infested with maggots.
The meat appears to become maggots, as he predicted.  But take off your blinders for a moment and look at the meat longer.  Flies visit the meat and imbed eggs in the meat, maybe the flies generate the maggots?
Time for experiment, I put out meat covered and uncovered.  The uncovered meat becomes maggots, but the covered meat does not.  I can now rule out that meat becomes maggots, because the covered meat didn't, and the variable I placed on it was the deciding factor.  I can then draw that since the meat was covered, the eggs couldn't be laid in the meat by the flies.

Tell me one situation in history when the same scientific approach to isolation of variables has occured.  For all we know Reagan's economic boom occured because of celestial alignments.
You can say that "Reagan cut taxes" economy boomed afterwards, but thats not the entirety.  Reagan cut taxes and increased defense spending, how do we know, that the defense spending increased the economy?  If A or B causes C, how have you determined that A caused C and not B?  You well cite historical events, but you must take in mind, they too were not controlled experiments, and a variety of hidden factors may exist because the economic event was not empirically tested.

When you can come, and prove empirically that libertarianism works, without just spouting out flawed, unccontrolled events when something changed and you attribute it to libertarian policy, maybe you'll be taken seriously outside the interweb.

Correlation does not PROVE causation.
Correlation does not PROVE causation.
Correlation does not PROVE causation.

>>31
Because, by that logic, the labor that workers go into making a product means that they own the product, not their employer.  This is where I ask "wheres the contract", because that's how you'll respond to the laborers "owning" the product they make and not the employer, because you say there's a contract in place between the laborers that their labor is going to be changed into wages.  Where is the contract with the idea? What does the idea agree to anything from this? If anything, the idea is being stolen. 
And you can't deny that copyrights stifle new businesses can make it difficult to compete.  If someone copyrights ladders, and I want to sell a ladder, I have to go search and make sure my ladder design doesn't violate existing copyrights.  This sounds like government red tape, which I thought libertarians were against.
And stifling thought is exactly what this will lead to, copyrighting of phrases is already in existance, soon we'll have to stop saying words to avoid paying royalties, we can't talk about various issues without royalties.  Imagine it, the "Abortion Debate" royalty, the "Capitalist Theory" royalties.
>>32
Anyone trying to overthrow the system will probably get themselves killed.  You'd just like it more if he fit in with your ideology. 

How many times does a libertarian argue something and they end with "I don't think that would be the case".

"I don't think monopolies and the like would even form"
Prove it.
"Even if they did, there is always anti-trust laws"
Which is an example of definate out of bounds free market, congratulations, you just violated your own ideology to cover a point.  If Anti-trust laws are good, why not Socialism? You can't have exceptions in your magical theory son, otherwise, you have to explain why so many other things can't be exceptions in your economic theory, like public schooling, AA, etc.
You are limiting the freedom of people who own monopolies, that they acquired legally, how is infringing upon their freedom any different from infringing upon the rights of employers to not hire black people? After all, as many libertarians contend, the market doesn't appreciate racism, aren't they hurting the market just like the monopolist is?

This problem is why libertarians will never reign, the point of balance between government control over the market is impossible to draw, and is enevitably going to shift either to more government regulation, or corporate lawlessness.

I can sleep soundly knowing how naive you all are.