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.

>>33
"Tell me one situation in history when the same scientific approach to isolation of variables has occured."

Economics is not such an easilly provable science.  You are asking something that is rather difficult if not impossible to show/prove.

"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?"

We don't know that the defense spending did not help the economy.  Maybe it did.  I speculate that it was the tax cuts though.  Notice my useage of the word 'speculate.' 

"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."

Well, you could take a look at Hong Kong, a country that is not very rich in natural resources, yet is economically prosperous, and they have one of the freest economies in the world.

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

That's right.  However, I fail to see how anyone can take you seriously while correlation and causation seem to go hand in hand over and over again throughout history, while you sit there with your hands over your ears and scream:  "CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION !  THE ECONOMIC BOOM WAS JUST CAUSED BY CELESTIAL BODIES MOVING ABOUT THE SKY! AHHHHHHH! CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION ! CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION !"

"Because, by that logic, the labor that workers go into making a product means that they own the product, not their employer."

Workers don't own the property they build the product out of.  The property is the employers.  The workers build things with it which the employer then sells.  The property does not change ownership from employer to worker - the employer hires workers to do things with their property.

"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."

See above.  I never said that.  Intellectual property is a completely different scenario. 

"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."

Copyrights aren't generally thought of as 'red tape'.  I think a better example would be all the countless regulations that the feds have on the books that, for all I know dictate how many screws have to be in a table in order for it to be used in a private person's business for who the fuck knows what reason.

Saying copyrights/patents are red tape is like saying laws preventing you from taking someone elses' property and using it to build something are 'red tape.' 

"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."

Baloney.  As long as we don't let copyrights of phrases get too out of hand, there is nothing to worry about. 

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

However many times a non-libertarian expounds countless bullshit scenarios that are obviously never going to materialize in any serious manner not because they are actual worries, but because he just doesn't like libertarians, and probably doesn't like freedom either.

"Prove it."

No, you are making an accusation that monpolies WOULD form.  The burden of proof is on you to give examples of monopolies that have formed under free-market conditions, not for me to explain to you why monopolies would not form. 

"Which is an example of definate out of bounds free market, congratulations, you just violated your own ideology to cover a point."

You're an idiot.  Libertarians, outside of a few pockets here and there don't generally believe in a COMPLETELY voluntary society.  I'm sorry, but that's just a fucking pipe dream if I've ever heard one.  They tend to recognize that taxation is likely to be a necessary evil in order to create a functioning system that will be able to preserve itself from outside threats and such.  We DO believe in making a society as voluntary as possible, while still keeping things functional.  Controlling the formation of monopolies (which might not be necessary anyways, considering that most, if not all monopolies that have formed in the US history that I can think of likely resulted from some form of government interference or other), could be seen as something of a necessity just like having a military, a court system, etc. 

"If Anti-trust laws are good, why not Socialism?"

There is a huge difference between anti-trust laws and welfare, for example.  If you need me to spoon-feed you the rest, I give up, you are too fucking stupid.

"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."

See above.

"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?"

See above.