edit: "for individual survival" could not fit in title. Should read:
Increasing Dependence on the Government For Individual Survival is Evidence of De-evolution.
Haven't humans been pretty darn hardy throughout time? They have been physically and psychologically robust and have survived just fine. Is there something wrong with survival of the fittest, competition, personal ambition and desire for success....(excluding blind ambition.) ?
Yes and no. Some of us desire to be kind, to be generous, to help others in need.
And some desire to take advantage of that perceived weakness.
- feed the sharks near shore and then you've got big problems for those who who like swimming in the ocean.
I agree. Better to take those that take advantage further out to sea before letting them swim.
1. Do not feed sharks.
2. Especially near shore!
They will always return where the food was given out. This is based on a true situation where people were indeed feeding sharks near shore. Let the sharks find their own food in the depths of the ocean. Then the beaches will be safe for swimming.
Darwin specifically made it clear that this theory should not be applied to human society.
I recommend reading the Hub Of the Day it addresses this issue.
If we were to apply Darwinian evolution however we would find the exact opposite. The biggest threats to our species are pandemics the greater the genetic pool the greater the chance of resistance or natural immunity which could save humanity.
Is it de- evolution or evolution? Is a society, a country, only as strong as its weakest link; its weakest class? Many pioneers died due to the lack of understanding mere sanitation. The great depression ended mostly due to humanitarian government interference.
Surely our ability to behave in ways that are not dictated by biological imperatives, but instead grounded in reason and intelligence, is a sign of continual evolution, not devolution, no? That's progress, not regress. Isn't it that ability that distinguishes us from other animals?
-a social democracy, however defined, is not a logical/intelligent solution.
Let me give an example to show how this could be framed slightly differently: we have a biological imperative to compete with others for food because successfully doing so increases our chances of survival. Yet through the development of human intelligence, we now have the technology and expertise to produce enough food to feed every man, woman and child on the planet.
Should our behavior be dictated by the biological imperative to compete, or should it be based on the fact that, through reason, we can understand there is no good reason for any human being on the planet to die of starvation?
Note: a study in the Lancet suggests that 3 million children died of malnutrition across the world in 2011. That's one child every 10 seconds. The U.S. alone threw away 33 million tonnes of food in 2010. If you could explain what is intelligent about maintaining that situation that would be much appreciated.
What we do not seem to have is the intelligence to make arguments from whole cloth instead of rags.
We can probably produce enough food to feed everyone on earth. Probably.
What we cannot do is get it to them So talking about throwing food away as if it were criminal, about the 3 million children dying has nothing whatsoever to do with a biological imperative canceling out the need for some people to starve.
We can get a man on the money. The only thing that stops us getting food to the starving is money.
Really? And when the dictator denies access to his country because he is in the process of committing genocide you think money will buy your way in?
You think there is enough money to buy refrigeration for keep food in the heart of Africa or will you put nothing but dry foods there? And then dig wells for every village so the dry food is useful?
Will you build roads everywhere or deliver by helicopter in small quantities? How do you propose to deliver in the Andes where there are neither roads nor planes?
No, John, money will not feed the world's poor. They only way to do that is to teach them to feed themselves, and that isn't easy. Not easy at all.
Is the dictator’s behavior driven by reason and intelligence, or is it driven by the biological imperative to defend his “territory”? That's exactly my point. Behaving contrary to his natural instincts and allowing others into the country to help provide food and assistance would be a sign of enlightenment not devolution, wouldn't it?
Not if his goal is to eliminate the group you are trying to feed.
Not if he distrusts your motives in feeding his people.
Not if he feels that allowing you to feed his people will result in his own govt. being deposed.
So, no - allowing you to feed the people of a dictator is likely to be stupid, not enlightened. From the viewpoint of the dictator, mind you, not from your own standpoint.
We live in the real world, Don, where these things happen. Where a T/l of grain sits in the capital city until spoiled, is stolen by the guards, is fed to animals, where anything happens but getting to the interior where people are starving. It's a part of the problem of feeding the world, and making excuses for it or saying that the dictator shouldn't do that doesn't change that it happens. And happens quite frequently, in fact.
All aspects of territorialism, which is a classic biological imperative. That behavior which is intended to protect resources, mates, and nest areas. So yes, the dictator's actions may be subjectively sensible in achieving his own goals, but they are irrational in the sense that they are rooted in primal instincts, not reason.
I know we live in the real world, but Kathryn L Hill made a specific statement: "Increasing dependence on the Govt. for individual survival is evidence of de-evolution". If our dictator was able to consider the needs of the many, over and above his personal ambition and primitive desire to be "top dog", and made sure food aid got to the right people, yes I think that would be enlightened.
But what about us? Are we able to consider the needs of the many, over and above personal ambition and the primitive desire to be "top dog"? 1% of people control 42% of the country's wealth. Some of the other 99% struggle to raise enough money to eat. Kathryn L Hill asked: "Is there something wrong with survival of the fittest, competition, personal ambition and desire for success....(excluding blind ambition.) ?" Nothing intrinsically wrong with those things, but when they become a virtual religion, to the point where someone feels the need to create a thread implying that people who take assistance from the government are less evolved(!) then it certainly looks like things have gone too far in that direction.
There was a study done by the UN in the early 2000s they found that the US military budget alone could produce enough food and get it to where it needs to go to end starvation (aside from the guy gets lost in the woods and starves kind obviously).
I can't find a link right now but I will. What I can recommend is "The end pf poverty" by Jeffrey Sachs (an economist) his professional calculations were that 157 billion a year over 20 years could end extreme poverty (the kind that kills you) The US will spend 700 billion this year on military spending alone.
If we do that, how will the tractors operate? One year? Two? How long before an overpopulated country somewhere decides they would like to have our breadbasket for their own use? Or the oil fields of our friends, the ones producing the fuel for those tractors, planes and boats all necessary to get the food to the starving ones.
Better find another source for your funding.
I Think 157 Billion wouldn't change much. I also think that argument is incorrect. There are as we speak 21 modern nations with no standing army at all. All much smaller than the US and without an armed citizenship to the same degree and no one touches them.
However you missed the point by a mile, the source was simply illustrative, it wouldn't be just the US's responsibility anyhow. It would just take every nation signatory to the Monterey (might be getting the name wrong) act doing what they pledged and giving 0.8% of GDP for the next 20 years, unfortunately only Sweden, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand and Brazil have kept their pledge.
Last figure I can find for the US we gave less than 0.2 (0.18).
Yes, there are countries with no standing army - lots of them. Even some that are desirable to conquer.
One of which was Kuwait - do you remember what happened to Kuwait? Do you remember who kicked out the invader?
Who would you ask to remove 50 million invading Chinese from the US? Haiti? Iceland? Maybe Monaco? Thanks, I'll keep my army, and keep it beyond what I figure is minimum levels.
Well, now, if it has become that the world can feed the world instead of the US feeding the world, I'd agree. AFTER the political considerations are solved. When starving nationals are denied aid, aid given by other countries, that is a wee problem that money won't solve.
I would also point out that feeding everyone is going to produce a population explosion of uneducated, unskilled people that cannot feed themselves. What then? Run around the circle again until we ALL starve or divert most of the "free food" funds into education and infrastructure and let them starve for 20 years?
Yeah I remember Kuwait, unfortunately you don't, Kuwait had an army, that army was defeated and fled sure but it had one.
You guys just live in this planet where China would invade Haiti or the US... I have no comment that level of whatever that is cannot be discussed with rationally. For starters do you even realize how unprofitable that would be? How little China can afford to be embargoed by the world whose goods it produces?
The book does deal with political consideration, it for example lays out that helping hungry people in North Korea won't be possible in the short term, however most countries allow aid work and most dictators don't want to be the guy who didn't let charity get to people who needed it, that could incite rebellion.
Actually research shows that stable food supplies and basic amenities actually decrease the population growth (sounds weird I know) this is because in poverty people often have many children to be able to help them survive when they get older and because things like contraceptives are not available.
Absolutely this is not just the US's job, sorry I gave the impression I was suggesting that.
See how far we have come from can't afford to feed the planet and get the food there?
You're right - Kuwait had an army. Just one grossly insufficient for it's needs.
Of courses China would never invade. Neither would N. Korea, N. Vietnam or Iraq. Invasions never happen and that's why armies are useless.
Good food decreases the population, yes. In advanced countries, not in third world tribal communities. Not in the countries that NEED aid. Now, you provide that aid for 20 years, or maybe a couple of generations, and yes the population will begin to decrease. But it takes time - people raised with the idea of large families aren't going to forego that because you feed them; they will double up family size because they know that, for now, they can and because they know you could stop feeding them.
But in any case, it's a bad thing to do. To simply teach a nation that they need not support themselves, that is. To provide everything for them.
So don't feed them. Instead, teach them to grow their own food. Give them water, draft animals, seed, etc. and teach them to farm. The world does NOT need additional millions enslaved by charity. Introduce them to manufacturing, teach them about infrastructure and supply some. Encourage (force) them to support themselves. And when some of them refuse the lifestyle changes than will enable that self support (and some will!) then leave them alone to live or die as they will, as free men and women making their own choices in this world.
How do you teach a person who is starving anything, and how do they keep going for long enough to benefit from their new found skills?
If the truth were told they have a far greater ability to grow their own food than most in the west.
They don't have the land, because the capitalists own it. They don't have the seed because the capitalists have patented it all. They have no access to any available food because the capitalists own it and would rather see a man starve to death than give him a meal.
Kuwait was just really small.
"So it is certain that a small country cannot contend with a great, that few cannot contend with many, that the weak cannot contend with the strong."
It was impossible for it ever to contend militarily with Iraq.
*Sigh* I am not going to discuss military strategy and feasibility with you. I will say this if the US which has by like 500% the most expensive military in the world with several allies (like Australia and South Vietnam) could not control half of Vietnam and some guerrillas successfully even with local support and a base of operations in South Vietnam if you really think that China can successfully control the US a country of 320 million people where guns are plentiful (they were not in Vietnam) let alone make it profitable you have completely gone out of the park.
China couldn't even withstand the economic hit of being boycotted by the first world and they most definitely would if China did anything like that.
Seriously how did you think that 187 Billion over 20 years was going to eradicate poverty? by giving them so much food they could stockpile it for eternity? Of course it means building wells, planting farms, creating sustainable business.
This is a period of twenty years, so yes a generation.
I also think this expectation of competition is somewhat misplaced, biologically we are set to compete but also to cooperate, without the cooperation and mutual assistance humanity would have perished.
I was re-reading BF Skinner's (for those who don't know the leading behavioral psychologist of all time) book Walden Two and it is largely a critique of competitive behavior as it exists in modern society being human nature, in fact Skinner held that competition as it is seen in capitalism was cultural not natural and ultimately harmful.
Despite all the "experts" (by which I mean people with no education in human nature/behavior at all) who will tell you that capitalism and competition as it presents it are human nature.
1. What is the force behind evolution?
2. What causes / caused the evolution of our species, the human?
3. What is the cause of our intelligence?
4. Are we becoming more intelligent?
5. Is technology helping or hindering?
The greatest resource of humanity is genius and the allocation of genius seems to be almost random.
A Tesla, an Einstein, a Volta such people are the greatest drivers of human development and for that reason alone every person has great value because they could be or could birth genius.
As for are we getting smarter the exponential increase in advancement would say yes. Compare the average IQ against the Average IQ of a person in the 1930s and by comparison in the modern age the average person in the 1930s would be legally retarded.
So yes humanity is getting smarter. Rapidly.
I still think my mom is smarter than me!
Could well be, just not the case for most people.
@ Josak, (since you are probably younger than I am and therefore smarter...)
Could you please explain:
1. How is a social democracy better than a democratic republic.
2. What makes you think a social democracy could work in a country the size of ours?
3. ...doesn't the ACA fiasco indicate the type of problems we would encounter?
4. What is the problem with ACA, in your estimation?
5. What is a better health care reform idea?
...then they should be able to read the Federalist Papers, no problem.
The force behind evolution is intelligent design. Our bodies are made to adapt.
The cause of intelligence is part nature, part nurture.
Becoming more intelligent? Yes! "Wiser, yet weaker"
Technology helps. The answer to just about any question is just a click away. But we don't talk so much anymore. We don't go out for exercise or fresh air so much anymore. We are not banned from explicit material during formative years so much anymore. Our parents want to teach us everything early so that we don't get snatched, fondled, or later pregnant in our teens. We are exposed.
But now that I think about it, marriage and family happened at much younger ages. It didn't used to be unheard of for 12 and 13 year-olds. The life expectancy possibly played a role in that. However, nowadays we are able to find out just about anything about anything in seconds. That has got to make a difference in how much we know, but sometimes the information is misconstrued because of lack of maturity.
Thanks for your viewpoint, Miss C. Your last sentence is very interesting.
Sorry, but evolution has nothing to do with your religious beliefs.
evolution has to do with the advancing enlightenment of mankind through time/experience. Not really talking about religion. So you are…. welcome to stay!
So essentially, you are going to ignore the link I provided so you could actually learn something about evolution and talk about it intelligently, but instead, you prefer not to talk intelligently about it and instead post nonsense.
Oh well, it was worth a try. At least, we know you aren't interesting in learning things.
Scientist hate intelligent design as it implies there must be something more intelligent than them..........
No, they hate intelligent design because half the country insists they know that intelligence is out there but can produce zero evidence of it.
Imagination, in other words, being promoted as knowledge. When you force feed that to our kids you raise a generation of ignorance and scientists spend their lives trying to end as much ignorance as possible.
- no, the scientists are baffled as well. Many of them attribute what they don't understand to a mysterious undefinable/magical force.
And yet science has an incomplete theory and tout it around as fact, everything happened as they say yet they are still working on what they say.
I think he is, despite the fact that the theory of evolution has long been well accepted by scientists and taught in schools around the civilized world (not including Afghanistan and Texas.)
So as religion but it has no scientific backing either.
Sorry that should have been no facts to back it up either.
You mean you don't know of any facts. Suggest you go find a dinosaur bone - it can be your very first fact.
Fact dinosaurs existed
Fact humans exist
Now show the facts where one became the other.
Ah yes, that would confirm you don't understand evolution or what scientists say.
So you DO have some facts. Should you wish more, study and effort will be necessary. For real knowledge, simply saying "Goddunnit" is insufficient.
"And yet science has an incomplete theory..." If you want a truly complete theory (about anything) you may want to ask your God. No one else has any complete, total answers. All we as men can do is gather all the information we can and make deductions from it. Deductions which, in this case, are an enormously strong case that species evolve into other species.
I didn't mention god but still.
Now we see that they deduce that we came from nothingness. And I do understand their thinking, that we as humans have evolved from other animals because it can be the only explanation from the questions they ask themselves.
Nope coming from nothingness has nothing to do with evolution.
It's not a conclusion based on question but a conclusion based on irrefutable evidence. DNA evidence, vestigial features and transitional fossils.
Darwin did not set out to discover how mankind developed (he was in fact in training to be a priest and a devout Christian) he discovered evolution by accident whiles studying animal life.
So where did the first stirrings of life come from to start the evolutionary chain then?
That is abiogenesis, different theory, the theory of evolution deals with first life form onward only.
SO how did the first life form get here and why did it change? If its chemical reaction then surly the scientists can recreate it in their laboratories and smash once and forever the decentres. Oh sorry it conveniently happened over millions of years and the scientists are still working on it.
A valid well accepted theory by the majority is it?
Not evolution, how many times will it take for you to grasp that simple concept.
As many times as you to understand that if they don't know how and why it started then it is an incomplete theory.
Do "they" need to know everything about gravity, too? And quarks and muons and dark matter/energy? How about exactly how and why gamma radiation affects different types of atoms? Where will you stop requiring that everything in the universe be known to accept one specific theory as very likely true?
Because that specific theory has nothing to do with the rest unless they can in someway link them to why one animal changes into another.
It still sounds to me that they are saying this is irrefutably what happened but we don't know why or how, but you should believe it without question because we say its so and we are better than you, we are scientists.
That is well understood, but obviously not by you.
Untrue. Einstein and many others have worked hard to find a "unified field theory" - something that ties the entire universe, all the separate theories, together into one neat package. And the interaction between gamma rays and the atom (or subatomic particles in the atom) is very definitely a part of evolution as it is a major factor in mutations.
But they ARE better than the theists; they have actually tried to discover truth and reality instead of making it up. Right or wrong, they have tried.
While this practice often results in unhappiness for the theist, many people enjoy learning and appreciate the chance. In that respect it is superior to saying "I am ignorant of what the truth is so I will make up a pretty story to explain it".
That would show you are incapable of even distinguishing between two theories and are compelled to fallaciously claim it is incomplete, especially considering you don't even understand the theories in question. Hilarious.
That's a bit strange, I remember you told me once before to go and read up on it and I did. Now you say I don't understand what the scientists have told me, which from their many studies and experiments seems to be they don't know why it happened they just know it happened.
Let me ask you a question that they seem to be stumped on, I am sure will have the answer as you seem to know everything about it.
Did the evolutionary process happen in great leaps.
"Did the evolutionary process happen in great leaps."
Recognizing that "great leaps" is relative only; that when compared to millions of years a "great leap" might be only a hundred thousand, yes. Sometimes it did.
Does that mean that your (or man's) ignorance of the exact methods used in the "great leap" mean it didn't happen? No, of course not. Ignorance is never evidence of anything but ignorance.
So it happened but there is no evidence to it happening because there is no method to it.
I thought Scientific evidence was all about Method, the systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
"So it happened but there is no evidence to it happening because there is no method to it. "
Did you read the reply? About your ignorance not meaning it did not happen? Well, your personal ignorance of a method does NOT mean there was none. Here: let me list a few possibilities.
Large solar flare, flooding the earth with radiation.
Nearby nova or supernova, again flooding the earth with radiation.
Large comet or asteroid impact, negatively impacting climate for existing species. Or possible affecting the chemistry of earth's surface.
Large volcanoe (think Yellowstone size) again affecting ecological niches world wide. Or at least a large portion of the world.
Magnetic pole shift; many animals depend heavily on that and a change could easily make large evolutionary pressures.
Unusually quick tectonic plate shift, isolating or putting species together.
Large meteor hitting the moon and changing it's orbit. Tides and oceanic currents immediately change radically.
Would you like more possibilities, just to consider that "there is not method" declaration of ignorance?
Now tie them into the facts not the theory.
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis'). Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
"a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. "
So why are you arguing against yourself?
Yet, your posts would show that you did not such thing.
Yes, the know why it happened, based on the postulates of evolution.
The evolutionary process occurs over great periods of time, millions and millions of years. Some processes took longer than others, which would make perfect sense considering there is no definitive time factors as to how long a particular process can take on a particular species.
A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.
A theory is then not fact.
Applause. No existing theory is fact. Every scientific theory in existence WILL be modified in the future as more knowledge is gained.
Does that mean it is not a very good approximation as to what the universe or how it works? No, of course not. A theory, properly examined and tested, is the best we will ever have to describe what we see around us. It IS, for all practical purposes, fact. Or at least as much "fact" as we will ever see.
No scientific explanation for anything will ever be defined as more than a theory. Conduction theory is... a theory, weirdly your computer still works.
Indeed. A theory of this type is a conceptual box we keep facts in. It is easier to refer to the label on the box than name all of the thousands of facts within.
So what you are saying is there is basically no difference between we know this happened because we can test it and the results are the same time and time again. And we think this happens because we have a theory about it but it cant be tested because there is no test we can do.
What does that have to do with evolution? Are you moving the goal posts now?
What goal posts?
Do you mean the ones the evolutionary scientist constantly move?
Biologists have never ever moved the goalposts. Darwin was a priest in training for Christ's sake.
You keep making those specious claims, but never actually follow them up. What goal posts exactly are scientists trying to move?
I understand that you don't actually know anything about evolution, so I'm not at all surprised you can't offer anything but specious claims.
Hmm. I've never seen any evolutionary evidence or deduction that we came from nothingness. Sorry, but this sounds very much like a theist desperately trying to discredit a valid, well accepted, theory by ridiculing it and/or lying about what the theory says.
Then you DO have additional facts as you understand the theory. Why did you say you didn't have any? And what questions about evolution (species changing over time) would you like to see the theory address?
I am saying it about evolutionary scientists that's all ATM
So, you don't understand evolution, correct? Nor, do you actually know or understand what scientists are saying about evolution, correct?
I am sure they don't understand how it happened and it seems you have the answer for them.
You're sure about that? How can you be sure when you don't even understand it?
I understand that I can still question the fact that there is no links between their facts, that they are still working on how it happened and why it happened, yet they still promote it as actually the truth of where we came from.
The facts are indisputable, it's really not even a question the DNA evidence alone (as well as vestigial features) incontrovertibly proves the process occurred
And yet, I have no idea what you're trying to say or question? Why can't you be specific? Is it because you really don't know what you're talking about?
And that surprises you? Not a single theory (in the scientific sense, not the popular idea that a "theory" is strictly imagination at work) is complete. Not a single one ever will be. There will always be unfound knowledge.
Understand that the theists of the world know everything there is to know about the universe (Goddunnit), but scientists aren't that foolish.
Kathryn, those are questions that simply cannot be answered in a few posts on these forums, but instead require some reading on your part so that you can understand it.
You can start here...
Thank you ever so much for posting this link. Of course I will look at it! But it is missing the angle I am getting at… we are not discussing religion at all, here, BTW
I copied this from one of the link's pages:
"Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:
Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?
Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?
How does evolution produce new and complex features?
Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?"
Okay, but the question is, are you learning anything about evolution? Try not to jump ahead, start from the beginning and read through the material. By spending a little time at it each day, you'll start to get a good grasp on the subject matter and will eventually understand it.
Survival in a hostile environment.
Survival in a hostile environment.
Yes, Every few years IQ test have to me adjusted to maintain an average IQ of 100.
Maybe, it certainly helps with knowledge.
Perhaps, some folks feel that increasing dependance on Government for individual survival is proof of societal advancement and positive evolution.
I certainly did not mean to step on any toes, (Josak.)
i think perhaps somewhere in the middle lies the answer...I do not believe increasing dependence is a positive...I do believe a governments willingness to help its citizens to be the healthiest and most intelligent peoples is not only humanitarian but an investment in the future of our country and people which I would consider positive evolution...I guess its the "cup half full" scenario, its all about percpective
I wanted to reply to my own message in order to try to provide "perspective." This example is of two women I know...One woman comes from a low too middle class background...she marries young to a total loser that she adores...she has two children and he leaves...she goes to college full time by pell grants...pays for daycare with gov't assistance...works a part time job and eats thanks to food assistance. In two years she will be a registered nurse. She will no longer need or qualify for gov't assistance and will pay into the tax system she has borrowed from in order to better her life and most importantly the lives of her two children. She will be completely independent.
The other woman comes from a wealthy family..she meets her husband in college who is also from a wealthy family...they have twins...he decides he no longer wants to be a husband or father, yes he is a wealthy pharmacist loser...she hires the best lawyers money can buy...he must pay $100,000 a year in child support...she stops working and stays home with her children...Is she independent? No, she is dependent on her ex...is she a contributing member of society? Well, she is a great mother and kind person but does not pay taxes or provide any services into society.
So which one bears out the idea of survival of the fittest, personal ambition, desire for success?
A large percentage of dependence on the government is due to unemployment due to recessions, company failures, disability, employment discrimination, and so forth. Much of it is temporary, not permanent. Most people would prefer to have good paying jobs rather than be dependent on the government, relatives, charities, etc.
Here's a recent article that says that poverty is experienced by a majority of Americans at one time or another in their lives:
"Few topics in American society have more myths and stereotypes surrounding them than poverty, misconceptions that distort both our politics and our domestic policy making.
"They include the notion that poverty affects a relatively small number of Americans, that the poor are impoverished for years at a time, that most of those in poverty live in inner cities, that too much welfare assistance is provided and that poverty is ultimately a result of not working hard enough. Although pervasive, each assumption is flat-out wrong.
"Contrary to popular belief, the percentage of the population that directly encounters poverty is exceedingly high. My research indicates that nearly 40 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 will experience at least one year below the official poverty line during that period ($23,492 for a family of four), and 54 percent will spend a year in poverty or near poverty (below 150 percent of the poverty line).
"Even more astounding, if we add in related conditions like welfare use, near-poverty and unemployment, four out of five Americans will encounter one or more of these events.
"In addition, half of all American children will at some point during their childhood reside in a household that uses food stamps for a period of time.
"Put simply, poverty is a mainstream event experienced by a majority of Americans. For most of us, the question is not whether we will experience poverty, but when.
"But while poverty strikes a majority of the population, the average time most people spend in poverty is relatively short. The standard image of the poor has been that of an entrenched underclass, impoverished for years at a time. While this captures a small and important slice of poverty, it is also a highly misleading picture of its more widespread and dynamic nature.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … ainstream/
- perhaps the government should offer low interest loans or even no interest loans to those who are temporarily down on their luck. They could pay the government back after they acquire jobs.
Most folks figure they do pay the government back through paying taxes once they get on their feet, since the taxes are so high.
The freedom offered in a democratic republic contributes toward a robust economy. A social democracy does not encourage a percolating economy. Instead, it offers financial burden and obligation through excessive taxation for universal welfare. Its depressing to the human spirit which requires liberty over security to be truly happy/energized. To get on board with this truth, is to evolve.
To not agree, is to de-evolve. Time will tell.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperie … -timeline/
A reminder of the effects of a democratic republic.
What's a good option, in your view, tammybarnette? What do you not agree with specifically as far as what I stated above? When it really gets down to it it about the individual's capacity to control his own life. The will of the individual should be allowed to work in liberty. Why do you give us all that information about the depression? There were multiple unfortunate causes: stock market crash of 1929, bank failures, reduction in purchasing across the board, American economic policy with Europe, drought conditions. My concern is about the Individual. Freedom, (within boundaries) for every citizen is the reality we are dealing with.
(BTW some maintain that FDR policies actually caused the depression to last longer than it would have. I know you will laugh hysterically at this.)
FDR was the answer then and that same community spirit is the answer now...You guys call this socialism I guess, but been of one community...one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all...Is being American
Close but no cigar.
Community. Being close to your neighbors, helping out those that are in need as it happens.
Socialism. Having someone else decide for you that you will help out, without regard to whether you want to or not. As time passes, this inevitably grows past anything you are likely to approve of.
A mixed approach is not a socialist approach but rather a mixture of many models.
Of course all is relative. There isn't a "pure" government in the world - they are ALL a mix of various concepts.
Compared to the US of 50 years ago, we have become extremely socialistic as more and more of our budget is used to share the wealth - to give to the "needy". Compared to much of Europe, we have a long way to go to be considered socialistic even though the US spends more each year to share the wealth than any nation on earth. Mostly because we have more money than anyone else, not because we share so much per capita.
Exactly right, with the passage of time, the financial obligations you originally agreed to become oppressive. Take PPACA, for instance! Now my insurance is higher! UGH! Not happy. And if I drop my insurance I will be taxed more. Where is my sense of community? Oh, I am Bad! I'll tell you where it is…
When it comes down to who's going to survive, my most urgent concern is for myself. I was a trained lifeguard. Our first duty was to protect our own lives.
After all, without my life, who can I save?
Sorry, but that is capitalism. They throw the support of their unwanted workers on to you and I without any regard to whether or not we want to or not.
what is capitalism? who are "they?" Whose "workers?" How do "they" throw the support of "unwanted workers" onto us? Why do "they" do that? When do "they" do that? Where do "they" do that? … And on top of all that we are not willing to support "their" ( whose again?) workers? HUH? I feel dizzy. Do you also feel dizzy John? I think it is catching…across the sea and the continent!
Is it night time in England? It is 4:00 PM here, (CA). Not dark yet at all.
Capitalism is the accumulation of capital.
They are the people who devote their lives to accumulating capital.
The workers are us.
When they don't want us, they throw us aside and leave our fellow workers to support us.
They do that to preserve their capital.
They do it when workers start to erode their capital building.
They do it wherever they are.
We are not willing to support their cast off's because we've been hood winked into believing that they have been cast off because they are lazy and would rather sponge off their fellow men.
Divide and rule.
No wonder you're dizzy! Go to bed already!
(And no our Capital Building is not eroding.)
Although many would desire that business be primarily in the business of charity it just doesn't work that way, does it? Business simply cannot pay salaries to people with nothing to do, people that do not produce and add to the profits of the business. Unless a business is govt. owned and funding by the limitless pockets of the taxpayer they MUST make a profit.
So yes, business will let people go when they can no longer afford to pay their wages. Just as workers will leave when they find something better or choose to retire, move or in some other way remove themselves from the local job market.
None of that contradicts anything I said.
No, it surely doesn't. But it IS reality, something you socialists need to understand is what we ALL have to deal with. That just always seems to be a problem; if we ignore it it will go away.
We cannot go bankrupt. People work harder with no incentive. It makes people happy when we take their earnings to give away. Everybody not filthy rich is dirt poor and cannot support themselves. Only the politically inclined are competent to make decisions about everyday life.
All fantasies, but fantasies at the root of the socialist philosophy.
I deal in reality - not dreams that we are all fabulously wealthy.
No, we cannot go bankrupt, far too many shareholders would lose money and that wouldn't do would it? That however is a capitalist creed isn't it -private profit, public loss.
I feel sad for everybody whose only incentive to work is money, but why do you make a statement like that and then criticise folk who want fair pay and aren't happy with subsistence wages?
The idea that a system that results in fewer and fewer people having more and more of the wealth can work for the good of everybody is pure fantasy.
John seems very concerned about the "cast offs." how come? It seems that to him, it is an injustice to throw away workers when you no longer need them... when you have made enough money off of them.
This makes me want to cry! I think I 'll go start a good Dickens novel! (Which one do you recommend along these lines, John?)
That would be correct. John believes that any company agreeing to pay specific money for specific labor is then required to maintain that worker, and his family, for life, whether they ever agreed to or not and regardless of whether the workers needs change through time.
Workers, on the other hand, can come and go without regard to a companies needs.
At the moment we have total imbalance, the companies every wish is paramount, the workers don't count at all.
I would be less troubled by unwanted workers being thrown on our bank balances if big corporations actually paid their share of taxes.
I find myself agreeing with you again John, I think some companies should be made to pay at least a years wages when removing workers from their jobs, this would not be workable with small and very small companies though.
The failings in the tax system are shown up when reading the antics of the corporations.
Individual freedoms? Gay rights perhaps...or are these freedoms wrong in your opinion?
- good way to steer the conversation? No. not on point. What do you not agree with in this statement: Our democratic republic offers less tyranny than a social democracy.
Did I steer? Funny, I thought I was following...The "robust" economy of which you speak went up in flames in is what now is Known as the "Great Depression"...Thanks to the safeguards that were put in place by FDR the recent "Great Recession" did not destroy the country and the recovery would have been much speadier if bipartisan support and love of country had been the priority.
Additionally, Gay rights are considered individual rights so how am I off topic Kathryn?
We are not pinpointing rights in specifics, why do you bring up gay rights? I'll tell you why: To make me look evil. However, here is how I think about the issue: If they want to get married and raise children, it is imperative to accept their lifestyle in the same vein as married heterosexual couples.
You were steering toward the direction of gay rights. Wrong turn... as far as this discussion.
If you keep adding to previous posts I will not be able to follow or answer your questions.
Oh, never mind that...
So, which models contribute to a "mixed approached" ?
http://www.cepr.net/op-eds-&-column … -recession
Interesting article from 2009, but will find more recent articles
"In conclusion, if given a choice between what we call the Anglo-American political economy to that of the continental European model, perhaps with the expansion of globalization, we could instead, choose to find a way to integrate the best of both with the intent to frame a new international political economic system. By combining the best of both economies in an effort to create a better system, the future could transform into a more flourishing world; one that includes a plethora of better paying jobs with a political/social system that allows everyone the same opportunities to experience an abundant life that comprise benefits for higher education, housing and health care."
I read tammybarnette's links and have concluded that her "mixed approach" is social democracy.
Q. What could a " new i n t e r n a t i o n a l political system" actually refer to? A. Some type of Utopia.
We must beware of utopian type solutions. While utopias seem to point to a brilliant future, they are impossible to carry out and instead, cause dystopia.
in light of the global economy a global political system is a rather obvious evolution.
In addition to evolution, there are other hoaxes the scientists are constantly perpetrating upon us: like the idea that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. We all know the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. And did you hear this thing they're trying to tell us - that there are apparently 88 billion earth-sized planets in our galaxy? Where do they get these kooky ideas? Evolution: the theory that one afternoon a T-Rex suddenly turned into a man. What hogwash!
- Definition of a Dystopia: America as a social democracy… we're getting close to being a dystopia with ACA regulations/requirements/burdens/opressions.
Thirty million uninsured getting health care insurance=dystopia?
Definition of Utopia: That which can never be. Often times, the quest for a utopia leads to a dystopia. And that is not happening now, Ralph?
At the cost of losing the ability to provide good care for 320 million? Yes. The cost (social, not financial) of this particular pipe dream is too high, even if it were possible.
- My Definition of Social Cost: Being obliged to pay for universal insurance coverage.
Wikipedia Definition of Social Cost: Private cost plus externalities.
i.e. "...for goods with 'externalities', unregulated market prices do not reflect the full social costs or benefit of the transaction." Wikipedia
I was referring more to the inevitable bankruptcy and loss of standard of living. Including loss of a high level of health care; if society cannot keep hospitals in existence it cannot provide health care whether a patient has insurance or not.
We can but hope that the liberals are incapable of hiding the real costs until we fall on our faces. Hard to believe with the financial shenanigans congress is noted for, but we can hope.
...all this due to what, exactly? - seems like a trickle down effect due to all the externalities.
To maintain what people think they have been promised will require massive borrowing. The US simply cannot afford it's current level of spending, let alone a new program costing more than anything else in the budget.
Call it a trickle down if you like, but we have promised the public something we can't even come close to paying for.
"At the cost of losing the ability to provide good care for 320 million?"
Why would you say that? My impression is just the opposite.
Because the way this travesty is set up, providing care for an additional 30-50 million people will bankrupt the country. Sending it down a financial hole that will last decades if not more, and cutting the standard of living, and ALL medical care, drastically.
It is possible (I think) to provide at least some care to those 30 million, but not what they think they are getting with Obamacare, and not with the ACA program in general. We cannot afford the massive extra costs that are built into the ACA.
But every professional analysis by non partisan organisation like the CBO has fund the exact opposite which leaves us in the very difficult position of having to chose between professional analysis from respected bodies and your opinion on hubpages... wait that isn't a difficult position at all.
The CBO found the bill would actually reduce the deficit.
You are wrong. Why do you keep repeating the same lie? I have posted this to you before.
I highly distrust any information from a political source, which the cbo certainly is. You may believe it, just as I'm sure you believed it would save money when Obama made the claim, but I do not.
In addition, I have been very careful to indicate every time that it is what people think they will have that will bankrupt us, not the bill as it stands. That bill will bankrupt a great many people, just as high medical bills do now, but not the country. Not until people find how just how duped they have been and insist the politicians change the plan to what they thought it was.
Which the politician will do (they like their job, after all) and the country can no longer afford it.
Right so the CBO (non partisan) is wrong and your assessment is better I guess you are basing that on your array of economics degrees....
Even if your wild predication were to come true socialized universal health care is not that expensive, look around the world, tons of countries have done it very cheaply.
- wilderness exhibits common sense, great knowledge and understanding based on his life and work. You would do well to try to understand what he says. But, you were not born an American, so it might be hard for you to comprehend and respect the wisdom of a solid American citizen.
Of course how could I be so blind my inability to be born on American soil has so decreased my IQ that I can't even read research papers, on the other hand an American born person (regardless of the fact that I am an American citizen) will always be smarter than me no matter how much more educated I am in the field (as an actual economist) because he has those American soil IQ points.
I have never read anything so devoid of intelligence in my entire life as your last comment.
I was just defending the wisdom of wilderness.
Josak you know as well as I do that for every study you find saying costs will go down I can find one that says the opposite. It is the nature of spun statistics, guesses, predictions and politics.
I see no reason to go down that road. I hope I'm wrong, you think I'm wrong and maybe I am - we will see sometime in the next 5 years or so. In the meantime I will keep an eye on how the income producing factors of the plan are doing. As of now, not very well - those young healthy people that the plan depends on so heavily just aren't signing up. The first sign, IMO, of why it won't work.
Yeah which is why I posted non partisan sources...
When it comes to honesty and truth from our masters in congress, I don't believe that partisan/non-partisan or right/left has anything at all to do with it. They ALL lie through their teeth and are as dishonest as the day is long.
Right or wrong I trust my common sense far more than anything a group of politicians ever say. And the cbo is a group of politicians.
I am also on record as saying that the country could afford care for everyone, just not by including massive insurance profits as a part of the cost of that care.
Well then surely that is what we would do. Frankly I think eventually we will switch to a single payer system not because the PPACA will be worse than what we had (the Israeli system proves that it works fine) but because it's just not as good as a complete system.
Personally, it is what I expect to see one day, just not soon.
There is far too much money at stake to change easily. Too many jobs at stake, too many political donations and far too much invested in stock and ownership of what is now a fabulous cash cow - the health insurance industry. The ONLY industry that every single American has to purchase from under the law and one of the few industries that provides absolutely nothing of value to the country.
could PPACA be considered a government money tree? Is there profit in it for government…
or just power?
in the name of compassion are we giving our power away?
what will they do with this power... that is the ultimate question.
Josak, you really think "they" care about the people?
How does economics fit into any of this?
A number of features of ACA are designed to slow the growth in health care costs. Only time will tell how successful these efforts will be.
Acknowledged. IMO it is much like using the poor but young and healthy people to subsidize the older, unhealthy ones - it won't work. They aren't signing up, they are declining to make that absolutely necessary contribution. My God, Idaho needs 5,000 signups per month through March just to cover the state administrative costs; they have less than a hundred to date!
These cost saving measures are just pie in the sky - very, very few are rooted in reality at all. Just a dream in some idiot politicians eye, something that he can claim will work if people just cooperate, while knowing quite well it is but a dream.
Yes, we will see in time.
Yes, you'll see in time that capitalism doesn't work for the benefit of all.
Of course not - some people do not belong in a capitalist system. They cannot survive when required to support themselves or be responsible for themselves. We've often seen that with Russian immigrants decades ago - they simply could not grasp that they had to make their own decisions in this land. No house assigned, no job assigned, no nanny making their choices for them. Many went back home because they could not get along here.
But neither does the share the wealth or the nanny state of socialism work for the benefit of all. Some countries, typically older ones it seems, have a population that embraces that concept and works fairly well. People don't expect as much and don't get as much.
Other nations, typically newer ones, have a population consisting more of individualists, people that ARE responsible for themselves and violently insist that they WILL make their own decisions. These people expect far more out of themselves and their efforts and typically get it.
So no one mold fits everyone - we all want different things out of life and have different expectations. We all have different abilities and willingness to work. Is that so hard to understand?
But they aren't necessarily capitalist are they!
I'm sorry, but it isn't only money grabbing Bs who can be individualist and make their own decisions. In fact capitalism does not allow people to make their own decisions, just to think they are making their own decisions.
Will we ALL end up paying for government issued insurance? Will I be forced to pay for Cal Covered instead of Blue Shield in about a year? (...and be taxed/fined if I don't?)
1. How do we know what were paying for?
2. If not enough people sign up, how can they even deliver what is promised?
All we can do is vote for the right people to get rid of this curse of PPACA.
Eventually, yes. At least that way the "profits" from the "insurance" gets put back into the system instead of remaining outside.
That's what I see anyway. We're going to have to come to grips with the cost of health care and quit pretending that it will pay it's own way. And when we do that, understanding with furnishing the country with health care is going to actually cost, we're going to have to find some major sources of savings.
Insurance company profits being near the top of the list.
...Is the government taking over a portion (like almost ten percent) of the economy?
Under the PPACA partially, under a single payer system yes.
OF course the PPACA is regulation and if you include regulation as taking control then the government took control of all industries and 100% of the economy in the 1920s or earlier.
" Single payer " is communism, collectivism and total control of government over our lives. We have to loose our plans to make Obama Scare work. Every one must loose what they have. And by law it will be more expensive for everyone. It cannot happen if we keep our own insurance.
Ooooh another person who doesn't know what communism is.
Single payer is some more tax instead of paying insurance (unless you want to keep buying insurance in which case it is extra) that's all, not even much more tax, taxation isn't communism.
This is the problem: uninformed, badly educated people trying to make arguments about things they know nothing about.
Why do you need to raise taxes? The profits that DID go to insurance companies should certainly cover the additional paperwork costs of government in paying the bills. After all, it used to cover not only the profits but the same costs the government will be picking up.
Sorry for the confusion. My post was meant to suggest that your taxes would go up slightly but that cost would be covered by no longer paying an insurance company.
Unless you choose to keep an insurance plan on the side which means you can get slightly faster treatment and more optional stuff etc. in which case most nations just give you a partial tax break on the cost.
I mean the money that was going to insurance companies does need to be diverted to the government so that takes a tax.
Got it. Cost remains nearly static, but money paid goes from the insurance company to the IRS instead. Reasonable.
- take it right out of our refund checks.
And the amount automatically increases year after year.
If you are not getting a refund check, can they collect?
Now would it be pre-tax or after-tax? Deductible or not?
I've long wondered why an employer health plan is deductible while one purchased privately is not (or at least must cross the 7% of net earnings test). Does anyone know if we buy one now, instead of our employer doing so, if it is finally deductible like the majority of the country? Or is the little guy hit again?
The little guy will be taxed again. The government will not tax themselves.
There I was surely hoping that I could finally get the same deductions that the more fortunate, better employed and more able to pay taxes get.
Oh well, no surprise. It's hardly the first time that the poor have been dinged.
What do the democrats envision for the people as a whole?
There is a tax break for the plans if you make less than a certain amount, unfortunately I am sorry, I forget the amount.
You mean the subsidy, I think.
But I'm thinking of a tax deduction for what you spend for insurance. We've long had that if supplied through an employer but not if purchased by ourself. Taxes were calculated based on earnings minus what your employer deducted from your paycheck to buy your insurance with. No employer - no deduction, which never seemed quite reasonable to me.
How do you feel about closing loopholes (e.g.,carried interest for hedge fund operators, oil depletion allowance, untaxed overseas profits) and lowering taxes by an equal amount?
The vast majority of what you call loopholes are put in place to encourage companies to act in the manner congress wants them to. Unwilling to simply PAY them to do so (too transparent, I suspect), the encouragement is buried in the tax code.
So the question becomes are YOU willing to give up all those actions that congress thinks benefits the nation and is willing to pay companies to do?
Man, you aren't willing to give an inch on anything (neither taxes nor commonsense gun control). You must be a card carrying Tea Partier!
The loopholes are written for Congress by lobbyists for corporations which contributed big money to Congressmen's campaigns. Here's the Wikipedia entry for carried interest that benefits hedge funds and private equity funds. Nearly everybody considers this the most outrageous loophole. Loopholes for super profitable oil companies are also not in the public interest.
"Taxation of carried interest
"The taxation of carried interest has been an issue since the mid-2000s, particularly as the compensation earned by certain investors increased along with the sizes of private equity funds and hedge funds. Historically, carried interest has been treated as a capital gain for tax purposes in most geographies. The reason for this treatment is that a fund manager would make a substantial commitment of his own capital into the fund and carried interest would represent a portion of the manager's return on that investment. While hedge funds typically trade their investments actively, private equity firms tend to hold their investments for many years. As such, the capital gains from private equity funds typically qualify as long term capital gains, which receive favorable tax treatment in many locales. Critics of this tax treatment seek to disaggregate the returns directly related to the capital contributed by the fund manager from the carried interest allocated from the other investors in the fund to the fund manager.
"Because the manager is compensated with a profits interest in the fund, the bulk of his or her income from the fund is taxed, not as compensation for services, but as a return on investment. Typically, when a partner receives a profits interest (commonly referred to as a "carried interest"), the partner is not taxed upon receipt, due to the difficulty of ascertaining the present value of an interest in future profits. Instead, the partner is taxed as the partnership earns income. In the case of a hedge fund, this means that the partner defers taxation on the income that the hedge fund earns, which is typically ordinary income (or possibly short-term capital gains, which are taxed the same as ordinary income), due to the nature of the investments most hedge funds make. Private equity funds, however, typically invest on a longer horizon, with the result that income earned by the funds is long-term capital gain, taxable to individuals at a maximum 20% rate. Because the profits share typically is the bulk of the manager's compensation and because this compensation can reach, in the case of the most successful funds, enormous figures, concern has been raised, both in the U.S. Congress and in the media, that managers are taking advantage of tax loopholes to receive what is effectively a salary without paying the ordinary 39.6% marginal income tax rates that an average person would have to pay on such income...."
Perhaps an even more outrageous loophole is the exemption of un-repatriated overseas profits which many companies use to avoid taxation year after year. This loophole also acts as an incentive for companies to transfer manufacturing operations overseas.
Sorry, I'm ignorant in the field. Most of that went right over my head, which leaves me unable to comment.
How about "Untaxed profits overseas"? Do you really mean "untaxed" or do you mean "Untaxed by the US of A, a foreign country where the money was not earned"?
None of which has anything to do with the topic in any case. I merely questioned why the cost of care would go up if there was no insurance company middleman sucking at the funds as they go by. Turned out that wasn't the intent at all.
The topic is "increased dependance on the government." It's the corporations and 1 percenters who are increasingly dependent on the government.
I'm sorry, Ralph, but reducing taxes does not increase dependence. It always sounds wonderful to put it out there that taking less money is the same as a bailout/handout/subsidy,welfare but it's not.
But you didn't mention what you meant by "untaxed" - am I correct in that you intended to mean "taxed by the location where money was earned but not by the US and we want ours, too"?
Earnings in other countries may or may not be taxed. Some earnings are declared in tax havens:
"A tax haven is a state, country or territory where certain taxes are levied at a low rate or not at all. Individuals and/or corporate entities can find it attractive to establish shell subsidiaries or move themselves to areas with reduced or nil taxation levels relative to typical international taxation. This creates a situation of tax competition among governments. Different jurisdictions tend to be havens for different types of taxes, and for different categories of people and/or companies. States that are sovereign or self-governing under international law have theoretically unlimited powers to enact tax laws affecting their territories, unless limited by previous international treaties. There are several definitions of tax havens. The Economist has tentatively adopted the description by Geoffrey Colin Powell (former economic adviser to Jersey): "What ... identifies an area as a tax haven is the existence of a composite tax structure established deliberately to take advantage of, and exploit, a worldwide demand for opportunities to engage in tax avoidance." The Economist points out that this definition would still exclude a number of jurisdictions traditionally thought of as tax havens. Similarly, others have suggested that any country which modifies its tax laws to attract foreign capital could be considered a tax haven.
"According to other definitions, the central feature of a haven is that its laws and other measures can be used to evade or avoid the tax laws or regulations of other jurisdictions. In its December 2008 report on the use of tax havens by American corporations, the U.S. Government Accountability Office was unable to find a satisfactory definition of a tax haven but regarded the following characteristics as indicative of it: nil or nominal taxes; lack of effective exchange of tax information with foreign tax authorities; lack of transparency in the operation of legislative, legal or administrative provisions; no requirement for a substantive local presence; and self-promotion as an offshore financial center.
"A 2012 report from the Tax Justice Network estimated that between USD $21 trillion and $32 trillion is sheltered from taxes in unreported tax havens worldwide. If such wealth earns 3% annually and such capital gains were taxed at 30%, it would generate between $190 billion and $280 billion in tax revenues, more than any other tax shelters. If such hidden offshore assets are considered, many countries with governments nominally in debt are shown to be net creditor nations. However, the tax policy director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation expressed skepticism over the accuracy of the figures. A study of 60 large US companies found that they deposited $166 billion in offshore accounts during 2012, sheltering over 40% of their profits from U.S. taxes."
Many corporations employ arbitrary transfer prices to manipulate their books so that profits occur outside the U.S. in other countries where taxes are lower than in the United States. For example, a product that is assembled in the United States from parts made in another country is charged high unrealistically high prices for the parts. This lowers the profits in the United States and increases profits in the other country where taxes are lower.
Sounds like you DO wish to tax American corporations for profits earned in other countries.
In general I am against that tactic. They have already paid once, in accordance with the laws where it was earned. That's enough.
But then, I have a problem with corporate taxes anyway, and disagree with most such taxes.
I'm not sure the term "earned" is accurate in many if not most cases. As I pointed out many companies manipulate artificial "transfer prices" to book prices in the country where taxes are lowest or non-existent. In other cases taxes are booked in countries where the company's only presence is an office with a couple of employees. Another problem is that our corporate tax laws, combined with cheap labor, incentivize moving manufacturing out of the United States.
Here's a link to information provided by U.S. Senator Carl Levin on overseas tax havens. I support Levin's proposals--
Unfortunately many of them haven't paid taxes in the countries where they earned their profits.
Then they own none. That doesn't give another country somewhere else the right to tax them.
How can you be so sure of that?
I'm not getting this. Do you really expect companies to pay taxes they do not owe? As far as I can tell, neither Starbucks, Amazon nor Google owes UK taxes, but people want them to pay anyway. I dare say the same people that pay no more than they owe, too.
Just am not getting this whole mini-thread. Should companies pay tax on their earnings? Yes, whatever the location where they are earned requires. Should they pay more? No. Should they pay taxes to a second, third or fourth country that has no call to tax products that never saw their borders? No.
And when you have taxed corporate earnings, then a fair minded person, not greedy, will allow the legal corporation to hand that money over to the owner of the company without taxing it again. Taxing corporate dividends is insane and no more than the actions of a greedy population that wants every dime they can get their hands one, reasonably, ethically or neither.
So you think Starbucks, Amazon and Google should be allowed to decide when and if they will pay any taxes!
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what I got from your link is that they owe no taxes, and that they are pretty much making a "donation" while calling it taxes. Or at least Starbucks is, google has stated they paid all they are required to and will pay no more.
The citizens of that fine country think they should pay more, although I caught nothing there (I but skimmed) indicated any of them owed anything under the law. Guess we ALL want someone else to pick up the tab, don't we? It's getting nasty that way in the US, too.
But it is not their place to make donations.
It is their place not to engage in creative accounting to evade taxes either.
We agree! Hallelujah!
Without a law saying to pay a tax, a company should not be paying one. The people that would be making that call (to give away the profits) DO have a fiduciary and ethical responsibility to stockholders, after all.
Presuming, of course, there no laws were violated, and from the link none were.
Read it again.
"The extra tax payments will be funded by not claiming "tax deductions for royalties or payments related to our intercompany charges", Mr Engskov said."
In case you missed it, they export profits under the guise of franchise fees, only converting them to profits when they land in their low tax domicile.
So if they don't claim deductions they are legally allowed to do, they will owe taxes. The "funding" garbage is just that: garbage.
And you and I both agree that they should not forego their allowable deductions to artificially raise tax rates. Your point?
I understand that what they are doing is really skirting the intent of the law, or at least what you and I see as the intent. We all do it; walk the line right on the edge to keep our taxes down. If you and I can do that ethically, so can Starbucks.
And, of course, neither Amazon nor Google IS doing the franchise thing, so in that respect they are in the clear.
Quite, garbage, the claim that somehow not claiming allowances is the same as paying tax is absolute garbage.
I'm sure if I avoided paying millions in tax the tax authorities would come down on me like a ton of bricks.
As for Amazon UK (note the UK, it's important) they are domiciled in Luxembourg, the VAT they charge and collect on UK sales is paid in full. not to the UK tax authorities but the Luxembourg authorities.
"Quite, garbage, the claim that somehow not claiming allowances is the same as paying tax is absolute garbage." That doesn't even make sense, John. That they will not claim allowances and somehow that will "fund" the tax was garbage. As if failure to fill out a form will conjure money out of thin air.
"I'm sure if I avoided paying millions in tax the tax authorities would come down on me like a ton of bricks." Which, given that that has not happened, is why I assume for now that what they are doing is legal. Do you have other evidence? From British court system, not the greedy people wanting free money?
But isn't that exactly what they are claiming? That not filling out a form will conjure money out of thin air?
It's funny, you who is usually so critical of government convinced in this instance that the government is absolutely correct!
Have you never considered who might have leaked Starbucks tax avoidance?
"ut isn't that exactly what they are claiming? That not filling out a form will conjure money out of thin air?"
Yes, of course, just nonsensical spin to keep the shareholders happy while also pleasing the greedy Brits.
"It's funny, you who is usually so critical of government convinced in this instance that the government is absolutely correct!"
I asked once if you have any evidence of wrong doing and you had no reply. That leaves the government, and I DO trust in the greed of politicians to extract every pence of tax possible. It is possible that one or more were bribed, but unlikely.
"Have you never considered who might have leaked Starbucks tax avoidance?"
Presuming that you actually mean their meticulous following of tax laws, probably some unhappy bookkeeper that thinks they deserve more salary than they are worth.
You guys want more tax receipts from Starbucks, change the law! Don't whine that they follow it.
It strikes me that the greedy ones here are not the Brits but the Yanks.
I thought I had shown you evidence of wrong doing though I accept that I may be wrong and the directors of Starbucks are so bad that they truly haven't made a penny profit on a turnover of £413.39m in one year. Yes, let's agree that the directors are so inefficient that they failed to make any profit and the 90% pay rise for directors was a reward for this incapability.
Well, you didn't. Show any evidence of wrongdoing that is. All you showed is a bunch of people that think Starbucks should be paying more taxes, apparently on a moral basis, and a management group that has agreed to donate money to the country the complainers live in. No one admitted illegal activity, no one charged with illegal activity. No one even admitted unethical activity and no one actually charged with that either. Unless not paying more taxes than required is unethical!
Why don't we agree instead that Starbucks has made millions, but that the tax code was lax and provided ways to get out of paying taxes. Probably in response to other companies buying legislation from those making laws; it seems that Starbucks is taking advantage of old legislation, not new.
I think that the problem here may stem from Yanks that think for themselves instead of automatically falling into the socialist mold of Europe. They don't think they automatically owe 90% of their income in taxes and just step right up and pay it, they look for ways around such ethically bankrupt laws.
No liberals are socialists, not conservatives. As defined by American politics, of course.
Europe socialist! You're having a laugh. And there are no tax rates anywhere near 90%, not even income tax.
Guilty as charged Although I would have to say that compared to the US most of Europe IS socialist leaning.
Real question for you, though. Here, and I would guess there, a corporation is taxed on profits. Whereupon what profits are left are distributed to the owners and promptly taxed again. This does not, and never has been seen as very equitable to me. No other income undergoes such double taxation: if you give your wife (who owns half the family income in the US) some of your income to go buy groceries it isn't taxed again; why should corporate dividends be taxed twice?
Leaving behind your idea that income from investment is immoral or something, should that happen?
Hm, here in the UK we have Value Added Tax which is charged on a lot of purchases so that is tax on tax, VAT is charged on petrol duty, more tax on tax.
VAT is charged at the same rate as UK corporation tax - 20%
On the surface inequitable but the alternative would be to charge everybody a higher rate of tax which would be inequitable.
Then when you think about it, although you aren't directly taxed on income which you have already paid tax on everything you buy includes an element of tax. If you buy a cup of coffee you pay a proportion of the tax on the materials, the labour and the capital gains tax (unless you're Starbucks).
We also pay multiple taxes on every dollar. Federal income, State income. Sales tax. Real property. Taxes on specific items such as gasoline and alcohol.
But that's the only time one tax (income) is assessed twice against the same dollar. (Actually, state income tax does the same thing). Both paid for by the same person, that owns that dollar - the shareholder. And that just doesn't seem right.
Or smart - corporations, as we've been discussing, spend millions upon millions working out ways to get around taxes. Most people can't do that - if all that money was distributed and THEN taxed the company would save a lot of money. Money that is then distributed and taxed instead of becoming a legitimate business cost and deduction. And in most cases, the money would also be taxed at a higher rate as well.
Of course, the lawmakers could no longer hide their corporate "subsidies" in the tax code; they would have to be actual subsidies; checks written for all to see.
Perhaps the tax laws should be tightened up a bit??
Isn't it rather telling that Wilderness feels that companies have a greater responsibility to their shareholders than those who provide them with their profit in the first place?
It seems to me that Starbucks have begun to realise this, maybe one day others will catch up.
"Isn't it rather telling that Wilderness feels that companies have a greater responsibility to their shareholders than those who provide them with their profit in the first place?"
As it was the shareholders (owners) that provide management (and all other employees) with both their jobs and income I'd have to say the primary responsibility is to those owners. Certainly not to the socialists down the street that want everything everyone earns for use as they please. They have already received value for the money they spent there and need no more.
Sounds to me like they absolutely should. I've not seen any documents, and am only guessing, but it does sound like they are playing fast and loose with franchise fees. Somehow moving the franchise holder offshore while doubling the fee. Or something like that.
by Ron Karn5 years ago
If all life forms evolved from a single organism, where did the first organism originate from? It seems to me that to classify the science of evolution as scientific fact that they would need to establish a basis...
by Curtis O Neill2 years ago
With the ever increasing overwhelming amount of Scientific knowledge that we humans now possess, I personally think it's only a matter of time before Religion is almost completley gone, forgotten if you will. What do I...
by Timothy Donnelly4 years ago
There’s a link below for starters, folks.Watch it first, and then go on with your reckoning. It goes by the title: The Fossil Record, Dr. Don Patton, Ph.D. It can be be seen on YouTube.com at this address:...
by fallenangel6666 years ago
I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who...
by kirstenblog4 weeks ago
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure,...
by marinealways246 years ago
I would like to have a debate on whether or not you believe we are or aren't inelligent design.I didn't post this in religion because I want logical explanations for why you believe what you write. If you write...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.