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.

>>39
"If you want to look at Capitalism in action, which will occur again in a libertarian society, just look back to the 1870s up to the turn of the century. 14 hour work days, no breaks, no benefits for workers, shittier pay in the wake of competitioin and cutting costs"

Bullshit.  The standard of living we enjoy today was made possible by our economic system we had then.  People earn more money for less work nowadays because of all the innovations that the free market has brought the world, not to mention the relief of poverty overseas that was initially caused by other countries' lack of freedom (their socialist/fascist governments).

"If you're so confident about "looking at history hithero" why don't you stop being so fucking picky and actually look at what free market has done in the past."

Ok? The free market has made possible the life we live today.  Most advances made for workers by the labor movement was not because of big-government, it was because of labor unions.  Libertarians support workers' right to join unions, strike, etc.

"Anti-trust laws ARE red tape."

Of course they are.  But there is vast difference in the amount of freedom offered the general population when you have a system of government that is more or less laissez-faire and limmits itself merely to handling monopolies, and a system with piles upon piles of books containing thousands and thousands of regulations that small businesses struggle to put up with every year.  Increasing amounts of red tape (regulation) and taxes are making it more difficult for small businessmen to get started, thus contributing to limmiting competition for big businesses, and resulting in fewer small-town millionaires and success stories, and more billionaires and extremely poor people.  I'm beginning to go off topic.  The point is is that regulating monopolies could be seen as a more or less basic function of government from my viewpoint - right along with providing a military.  This is a vast difference when put in contrast to all the socialist programs, bureaucracy, and red tape we have today.  

"It is a government limit placed on the freedoms of businesses. You compare anti-trust laws to welfare, say that they are different, and rest happy knowing that you haven't addressed what they are AT all."

Both limmitations on freedom, yes.  However one is necessary (imo), the other is not.  It is not absolutely necessary that we have welfare for our society and economy to function well.  It is, in my opinion, necessary that we have some degree of control over monopolies.  So, for example, just like I recognize that it is NECESSARY to have a strong military to defend the nation - I recognize that is necessary to prevent formation of monopolies.  The only governmental intervention I support is necessary government intervention.  Everything else should be left to private citizens to voluntarilly engage in.

"What you've basically conceded is that some government control is required to limit the freedoms and actions of businesses and the free market."

Yes, and? There are indeed government programs I support, they are simply far fewer in number than those which you support.  For example, I think government should handle roads.  I think government should handle the military.  I think government should provide police & fire protection.  I think government should provide a court system.  I think government should prevent abuse of monopolies.  These are, imo, some of the most basic functions of government.  We have departed from the vision of a small and simplistic government in our pursuit of socialism.  I favor a small and simplistic form of government limmited to the above.  That's all there is to it, really. 

"Which is pretty much the way it is now, save for a tad too much regulation on the government's part and very sharp wealth distribution."

Wrong.  Go watch 'Free to Choose'.  Government bureaucracy and spending is completely out of control.  We are descending into socialism.