jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (114 posts)

Why are we getting shown up so much?

  1. Josak profile image60
    Josakposted 21 months ago

    Norway offers free university/college education to anyone from any nation regardless of citizenship. Their education is ranked as much much better than ours.

    Norway gave more than 500% more of it's GDP to foreign aid than the USA.

    Want to know how to restore America? It starts by being the best in things like this, the best educators, the most welcoming nation, the most helpful nation.

    1. 61
      retief2000posted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Did the people of Norway give more in charitable aid to other countries than the people of the United States?

      According to the Charity Aids Foundation the United States ranks first in its index and Norway does not appear on the list, at all. The United States gives hundreds of billions of dollars to all charities and no other country comes close. Private charitable giving to foreign aid organizations by Americans far out strips United States government, and therefore politically motivated, foreign aid spending

      http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c … PmmInzF8uA

      http://charity.org/sites/default/files/ … 0FINAL.pdf

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        According to
        http://www.crossborderdirectory.org/whi … arity.html

        Norwegians give significantly more to charity individually too also I would point out that the study you cite has  lot of what I would classify as "soft statistics" like "helped a stranger" (which can mean anything) and does not account for non humanitarian charity i.e. if you donate money to the church you use to repair it I am not personally going to classify that as charity.

        Further complicating private charity is the issue that charity can be used as a tax break in the US and not in Norway. However that study does include that Norwegians are less likely to make private donations by a ratio of 60% in the US to 44% in Norway, though it does not give the quantities respectively.

        1. 61
          retief2000posted 21 months ago in reply to this

          The tax deductible argument is mythic.

          There was more than one citation in my post.

    2. psycheskinner profile image79
      psycheskinnerposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Norway has higher taxes in return for higher services. This is not the case in the US.

    3. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Yes, but are all the courses taught in Norwegian? If so I think that might significantly reduce the number of international students able to take advantage of the offer. Very smart move on Norway's part though. Their PR man should get a bonus.

      1. 61
        retief2000posted 21 months ago in reply to this

        It is apparent that there are several unanswered questions, as usual.

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Nope, courses are offered in a variety of languages, most in English actually.

        Edit: courses are offered in Swedish, Norwegian, Dutch, English and German. Smaller numbers of courses are offered in Chinese, Japanese, French and Spanish.

        Most Norwegians speak English, Norwegian and one or two other languages.

        1. 61
          retief2000posted 21 months ago in reply to this

          So no courses in Urdu, Swahili, Tagalog or Uto-Aztecan?

          Thank God some one is reaching out to all those indigent English, French, Swedish, German, Japanese and Chinese students whose lives are full of 3rd world hardships like automobiles, clean water, reliable medical care and plentiful food - and that worst of all possible 3rd world plagues, literacy. We wouldn't want to see the Norwegians waste their generosity on Mexticos. No, they lure students from developed countries to bolster their own flagging population and add genuine economic assets. Perhaps we could trade with them. Our illegal immigrants, who are illiterate in their own native languages, for their literate and capable imported future professionals. It all sounds pretty cynical to me, and I know cynicism when I see it.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            On the contrary not only are there literally billions of poor people who speak Chinese and Spanish but they also offer courses to foreigners to learn those languages that they do teach in college I suppose because of the practicality of finding professors in Norway for every single language around.

            Pretty typical bad assumption.

            1. 61
              retief2000posted 21 months ago in reply to this

              I am certain the man who picks your coffee beans, by hand, has his plane ticket in hand as we speak. Perhaps he can read it, though unlikely. The billions of poor you wish will learn Norwegian live in the squalor and privation of miserable nations whose primary goal is to guarantee ignorance in the general population, a good way to maintain control. The great Norwegian free education does the coffee picker little good, it does the son of the dictator wonders.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                On the contrary the poor masses across Latin America, China etc. often end up immigrating, I know because I was born an orphan in Argentina and left under a dictatorship. The poor are usually the people who emigrate because they have the least keeping them where they are. They save up for a plane ticket or like I did get a job on a cargo ship etc.

                "Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me" etc.

        2. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          Cool. Sounds like they are investing in the future.

    4. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I think your comparison is invalid on so many levels it is just too much work to explain why in a forum response.

      By all indicators Norway is a great success, but that success appears to be due to a combination of government control - socialism, and capitalism.

      Knowing the apparent feelings of most Americans concerning anything related to socialistic mandates, your point will probably lead most opposing opinions to criticize Norway. Which I think would be a doomed effort because Norway's citizens chose their lot, and it has worked for them.

      Apples and oranges on so many levels...;
      5 million citizens, (+/-) vs. 320 million, (+/-)
      147,000 sq. miles land area, (+/-) vs. almost 4 million sq. miles
      A government life-support vs. a personal responsibility mentality

      Sort of like asking why a freight-hauling tractor trailer rig can't get the same gas mileage and pollution output as a pharmacy's prescription-delivering Pious or SmartCar.

      In my reading, (prompted by your post), Norway seems like a great place to live - if that is your cup of tea. Which leaves me pondering the question of why Norway isn't the most desired country to immigrate to? And, Why is the U.S. such an immigration magnet?

      GA

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Talking about any nations psyche like it's some sort of edifice rooted in stone seems fundamentally flawed, people and cultures change and one of the ways they change (and should change) is by observing and learning from other models, applying what works and discarding what does not.

        Relative size seems a pretty pointless difference to me, macro economic theory does not change in a significant way for lager or smaller countries i.e. a conservative government in a small country will implement the same measures as a conservative government in a large one and there is certainly no correlation between being small and being successful as a nation.

        As for immigration: for the same reason Coke is the most popular bought drink on planet earth, brand recognition, most people from third world nations don't have spreadsheets of information in front of them they just saw some 80s Hollywood films and decided that was the place to be.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          You bring up a good point.  The capitalism of the US provides Coke, McD hamburgers, Fords and Chevy's, Boeing planes, and of course plain old food to the rest of the world in such quantities that the names are known virtually everywhere.  People worldwide want what capitalism is producing.

          What products does the socialism of Norway crank out such that it is instantly recognized world wide?  Off hand, I don't think I've ever seen an import from Norway, let alone recognizable brand names is there economy so stifled with taxes that it can never grow much beyond their own borders?

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
            wrenchBiscuitposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12262431_f1024.jpg
            Coke? Big Macs? Ford's and Chevy's? You hold these up as great contributions to humanity, yet the legacy of these products speaks for itself. Death,Death,Death, and more Death! The health hazards of soft drinks and fast food is well documented. It is also understood that in the United States alone over 40,000 people die each year in traffic fatalities. Thousand more suffer permanent disability. Many of those killed,dismembered, and disabled are children who did not have a choice. Henry Ford was certainly no hero, and his body count  has far surpassed that of Adolf Hitler . But to the materialist who is in love with capitalism, anything that makes a dollar is worth any amount of  human sacrifice. Oh say can you see?

          2. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Size. Well that was easy to answer tongue

        2. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          To your point of a rooted psyche, I agree, but that was not my observation. American attitudes and culture have changed, but it has been changes that are guided by our values. We obviously have different values than Norwegians.  (I hope you will spare me the lecture on what values are important - to you)

          Also, my points relative to size and population, and especially our perspective of values, had nothing to do with macro economics, but everything to do with reality. So I don't think they were anywhere near pointless.

          Providing for or persuading a significant portion of 5 million* is a lot different than doing the same for a similar percentage of 320 million.

          *I completely disagree with your small vs. large conservative government example. It seems a simple look at today's world illustrates that a conservative effort that succeeds in one small country does not mean the same effort will/has succeeded in larger countries.

          Infrastructure for one area will most certainly be different, (in both cost and structure), from the infrastructure of an area approximately 27 times larger.

          And lastly, to your immigration explanation... Are you really saying it is due to those masses of ill-informed and illiterate folks again? Are you implying that if we all knew what you knew we would be scrambling to immigrate to, or at least try to emulate - Norway?

          The world is a Baskin-Robbins... the universal solution.

          GA

    5. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Why are we getting shown up so much? Because we don't care! Warrior Nation (US) is going about doing it's business regardless of others opinions. We invade other countries with a courtesy appearance of UN forces and tell others a story to validate our aggression. We give billions to other friendly countries that turn around and stab us in the back. We also ignore genocide in countries that have no value to us in the marketplace. Why does this happen you may ask? Because when we have a chance to change it we are cowards. With a 14% to 16% approval rating of Congress we re-elected 93% of the criminals to another term. Either we are cowards or greedy self centered idiots as we sell out the country.

    6. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      The BEST method to restore America to her former greatness is to dismantle the current welfare state as it is.  Much of our taxes are supporting those on generational welfare in which the majority of those are able bodied.  Welfare should be strictly constructed to be for the severely mentally & physically disabled who are not able to work.  Welfare benefits should include those who TEMPORARILY cannot work with the indication that they will find future employment.  Welfare was not meant to be generational.  If welfare was dismantled from 70%-85%, America would flourish again.

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
        wrenchBiscuitposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12266288.png
        All of my life I have heard people speak of restoring America to her former greatness. Since .you brought it up, I wonder if you could enlighten the world as to when, and during what era did this greatness exist.  Perhaps during the era of Jim Crow? Or maybe when Japanese Americans were being herded into concentration camps here in America, or when the Indigenous were being placed on reservations as a matter of ethnic cleansing, or when blacks and whites were being lynched with impunity throughout the north and south, or the 500 years that  women and children were forced to suffer sexual abuse and exploitation with little remedy under the law, or the Great Depression and all of the suffering and indignity that it wrought. Please tell us when.

      2. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Good move? Piss off the peasants. You think that freedom is denying those oppressed by the system will just wake up and do better. What fantasy land do you live in? The problem is the poor is what you offer? Your solution can only deepen the divide and worsen the situation. The oligarchy is the problem and that is at the top. They began the changes you now see and continue to feed you this garbage.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          The answer then is to expand the welfare system?  To continually supporting people in the forlorn hope that they will wake one day and decide that they, not their neighbor, should be providing their support structure?  That they will voluntarily work for their maintenance when it is free for the taking?

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Who said anything about expanding it? Perhaps if we would trade some of those corporate induced policies for our jobs and income back, much of welfare would not be neccesary. But I guess the corporations have not made enough money at our expense to trickle some of that money back down to the peasants.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Or we have not made enough money at corporate expense (they do write the check, after all) to expect any more than we already get?  Which corporate policies would you trade for our jobs and income returning?

              You don't seem to want to cut the welfare system; do you then think it is about right, with half the population using it?

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                You really have no idea how corporate America has changed the country with its meddling in the socio economic balance. NAFTA and now the TPP is now putting the nail in the coffin of stiffeling upward mobility for many young and veteran employment opportunities. The answer is higher and higher education for fewer and fewer jobs. Even lesser jobs are requiring massive education debt that cuts the lower class off at the knees. So pick on these people is your answer while corporate America runs the labor force out of jobs and broke. Why not a corporation has no investment in the country? Profits and greed at any price is their mantra.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  I would have to say that corporations ARE the economy in the US, with a little thrown in for Mom and Pop stores.  So yes, I think they have a major impact on that balance.  Perhaps less than the politicians do, perhaps not, but still a major impact.

                  But you didn't answer the question: which corporate policies would you trade for income and jobs?  And along with that, are you (and the country) willing to pay higher prices as a result?

          2. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Small business is the economy. Corporations hire overseas labor to the exclusion of domestic labor. You ask which corporate policies I would trade for jobs and income? It is very simple close off corporate lobbying Congress to sign treaties robbing America of jobs. 41% of the labor force has full time employment. How can you make ends meet when you have sub standard employment. I would also raise the tax rates of Corporations choosing to harbor over three trillion dollars off shore over Corporations who hire domestic labor. It is very simple yet greed is in the way.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              I see.  As none of those are corporate policies it's no wonder I didn't quite understand what you are driving at. 

              Better, I think, that you should work on the politicians rather than the corporations.  But you tend to use grandiose and loaded terminology; can you, for instance, define "sub standard employment" in such a manner that it does not reflect your personal opinion but rather factual data?

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Ridiculous. Corporate money is the deciding element of the political perversion that runs this country. How else could a business who wishes to not contribute to the country they lobby for more consideration. Not all corporations are involved but those that are involved are mostly corporations. If you wish to delude yourself with the conservative tact in demonizing the weakest in our society to affect the fleecing of this country then live in that farce. Grandiose or not the message remains the same greed runs this country.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  And there I thought the people, electing representatives, were the deciding element.

                  But from your post, you would prohibit the hiring of any non-citizen.  You would prohibit any corporation from owning anything outside the US, and presumably any individual from owning stock in a foreign corporation (there goes my "international" stock fund).  You would prohibit importation of anything made outside our borders.

                  Do you think other countries might have something to say about such policies?  Maybe something economic in nature?

                  I will, however, agree that greed runs this country.  From the CEO to the poorest consumer, greed is the driving force in our economy.  Greed and power, anyway; to some power is far more important.

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    "And there I thought the people, electing representatives, were the deciding element."

                    Hillary Clinton got elected to Congress from a district she never lived in prior to the election. George Bush got elected to the presidency through the decision of the Supreme Court. There are countless instances of tampering with the vote and I can't for the life of me believe you are that naïve.

                    It is not black and white issue regarding Corporate trade reform except that if you do business within the country you pay the sales or and income taxes to do so. The corporations through their donations to Congress have reversed the role to mean no taxation with representation. They currently have it both ways leaving the rest of us paying their share. Depending on what source you wish to believe there is approximately 1 to 3 trillion dollars in untaxed assets of American or operating in America Corporations holdings offshore. Why or how is the money sitting there if they want to invest in jobs in America? They would rather pull the ruse that they need additional tax breaks to increase the job market. The answer is that additional tax breaks will produce no new jobs and their greed will compel them to stash more of it offshore as usual.

  2. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 21 months ago

    Implicit in your post is that "showing up" means being socialist; giving money to those that have not earned it.  Not everyone agrees that such a blanket attitude is a good thing.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Quality education is obviously evil.

      Helping poorer countries = one way ticket to hell

      Offering people from other countries the opportunity to study hard and thus improve their lives = basically Hitler.

      Those dastardly Norwegians.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Somehow you conveniently forgot stealing money from someone in order to give it someone else, at gunpoint if necessary.

        Now if the "takers" could find enough people willing to donate to their cause it might be different.  But they can't, so they use force.

        Or is it OK because "their heart is pure", or maybe because "the ends justifies the means"?  Or just because YOU find the charity to be worthy and to heck with the real owners of the means to provide for others?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          Except of course that Norwegians voted to implement these measures, if you have a problem with democratic taxation with representation then you can only be an anarchist and I know you aren't. Taxation by force is something literally every single nation on earth does.

          In other words taxation with representation is not evil and Norway's openness, charity and brotherhood to all mankind with their tax income should absolutely be celebrated, it is truly amazing.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            To a point, that is correct; taxation is a necessary evil to maintain the country and society.  Taxation to maintain the wars and nuclear proliferation is a necessary evil (just ask the military).  Taxation to bail out the banks is necessary (just ask the bankers).  More taxation to provide breaks to corporations to bolster their profit is necessary (just as the corporations).  Taxation to maintain the lifestyle of those that don't want to support themselves is not, unless you ask the poor, standing there with their hand out.  If the man in the street actually supported that, it would not be necessary as he would already have given what the poor needed (or just wanted).

            The point being that as soon as you accept forced taxation to support the charity programs of the liberals, you also have to accept the forced taxation to support all the others that want the wonderful "free" money as well.  Or accept the hypocrisy that goes with giving to one but not another.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              The hypocrisy lies in claiming forceful taxation is wrong and then supporting it when you agree with the measures or cause i.e. what you are doing.

              I on the other hand have no issue with taxation and am praising a particularly successful and generous use of it's funds i.e. not hypocritical.

              Also there is no hypocrisy at all in arguing that people in need have greater claim to charity than those not in need and it is preposterous in the extreme to suggest otherwise, you wouldn't walk up to someone giving money to say the Red Cross and slap the money out of their hand declaring that everyone has an equal right to it and asking why are they being hypocrites by only giving it to the sick and hungry.

              Your argument is totally baseless and I think you know it, you are just desperately clutching at straws to find some argument why good education, charity and openness are somehow bad.

              That good education by the way would go a long way towards explaining why the unemployment rate in Norway is less than half ours.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                "The hypocrisy lies in claiming forceful taxation is wrong and then supporting it when you agree with the measures or cause i.e. what you are doing."

                Oh?  And what did I support?  I didn't mention any support of anything - just gave examples of forced taxation that YOU are unlikely to support, all while claiming high taxation for government purposes is a good thing. 

                Good to hear you are for ever higher taxation.  I do presume that you have no problem with corporate bailouts and the rest of the list I mentioned, then.

                NO ONE has a "claim" to forced charity.  That's what you don't seem to understand; that no one has a claim to the belongings of another (ethical claim, that is - with enough votes the legal claim is quite legitimate, if immoral).  A liberal failure, one they never seem to understand.  The only person with a legitimate claim to their wealth is the owner; not the neighbor down the street or across the country.

                Education is good, charity is good, and openness is (usually) good.  Forcing others to supply the means for it is NOT good.

                And no, a free college education does not explain why the unemployment in Norway is under 3% (actual figures for Jan. is 3.7%).  We have sufficient college grads for our needs and producing more will not add to the ranks of employed.

                But I notice you did address the concept that if the general electorate found higher taxes for charity (free education) to be a good thing why it is even needed.  Why don't those people simply contribute of their own free will instead of forcing higher taxes on themselves?  Because, maybe, freely given contributions can't support the level of charity they want to see?

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  If no one has a claim to forced charity then I hope you aren't using those forced charity roads man. But you are, your argument is simply based on hypocrisy, you can't keep decrying forced charity while supporting it.

                  I never claimed it was under 3%

                  On the contrary the US has several skills shortages due to lack of both college and trade educations (both of which Norway provides free) not to mention that people with higher education ar emore likely to start businesses.

                  Because the government has the ability to raise and organize funds in a reliable fashion through taxation, thus most Norwegians support it. Just like you support the same being done to build roads rather than demanding that people voluntarily donate to build the roads, which is similarly daft.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    But roads aren't charity: I pay taxes, taxes buy roads which I then use.  On the other hand, I pay taxes, taxes buy education for someone else that could pay for it themselves, I get nothing for it.  Unless you want to say that that education will provide inventions (which I pay for again through purchases) and I use them?

                    At the end of the road it is a vast difference (as GA Anderson points out) in philosophy; some want a nanny state to care for them, some don't, and those that don't dislike paying for that nanny state.

                    And yes, you claimed Norway's unemployment was under 3%.  "...the unemployment rate in Norway is less than half ours."; ours is under 6%, making theirs under 3%.

  3. ReNatya profile image60
    ReNatyaposted 21 months ago

    HI Josak
    So, bravo Norway!
    Why is the obsession of US citizens, that they will only do something "to be the best" ? Then, they will never be! They have only created an illusion. Norway, if it is doing that, it  is doing it because their motivation was never "to be the best" in that competitieve sense. They just wanted to do something good.
    In every thing, this is what I always encounter among US citizens who are at least appreciating what is happening in other countries.
    That's a nice beginning, but mostly, they seem not to have an idea of the fact that "being the best paranoia" as aim, has been exact the problem of US, + all the world victims of that problem. If US would just want to be good, then they would let the others be good too. If they want to be the best, they have to conquer and "appear the best" by making the others get less good.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I do think it is in the collective American psyche to be competitive more than most, not necessarily a bad thing at all, it is my hope that one day we will compete to be the best country on earth in the ways that matter, community, generosity etc. we certainly have the resources and situation to be thus if we commit to it.

  4. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
    wrenchBiscuitposted 21 months ago

    It's fascinating to hear the beneficiaries of a squatter nation speaking of stealing money, or anything for that matter.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Are you under the misunderstanding that Columbus started a new nation?

      Or did the people, 300 years and many generations later, form a "more perfect union"?

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
        wrenchBiscuitposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        No, there is no misunderstanding. Have you ever heard of colonialism? I am baffled why you felt the need to mention Columbus. A squatter is anyone who occupies land without title or right. To suggest that any immigrant who came during or after the time of George Washington does not fit the definition of a squatter is pure nonsense. It is equally absurd to suggest that the Indigenous themselves were initially squatters, which is the direction an apologist will attempt to lead this argument. The purpose of my statement was not to get us lost in a room full of mirrors,  but to highlight the hypocrisy of a nation that prides itself on being a "nation of laws", when in truth it is a nation built upon lawlessness, outright murder, and theft. To clarify: Every colonialist nation on this continent is a squatter nation.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          Ah!  I get it - you are referring to the so-called "indigenous" people of the Americas, that kicked off the prior people and occupied their land without any title or right (outside of might); the people that were here during the time of Washington. 

          That was, of course, an egregious violation of modern ethical standards, but it was long in the past.  Far too far to do anything about now.

  5. cathylynn99 profile image77
    cathylynn99posted 21 months ago

    hi, wilderness,

    this is in response to corporate owners, i.e. shareholders (me) paying taxes twice. i own shares of lilly, e.g. it pays minimal federal tax due to offshoring, let's say 10% on that dollar, leaving $.90. then i pay 15% on my dividend of .90 leaving me about 76.5 cents. i'm quite happy with my haul and would be happy even if it were less, because i use roads, went to public schools, live in relative safety, and don't like to see anyone starving.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I assume you find it all right to tax some of the population twice on the same earnings (income tax) while others pay only once.  I don't follow that reasoning, though, and don't understand WHY it is all right - what the ethical rationalization could be for that.

      1. cathylynn99 profile image77
        cathylynn99posted 21 months ago in reply to this

        i don't feel cheated. once was corporate tax. once was personal income tax. it's just the way the thing is set up. people get quite wealthy anyway. i don't see where anyone is hurt.

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          Greetings cathylynn99, I hope you don't mind if I jump in, (Wilderness is used to it by now), but I think the essence of Wilderness' point is the concept that the government is taxing the same dollar twice.

          You may not mind, and that is your choice. But I think his point is the question of why does the government tax corporation-earned money different from other income? As a sole proprietor he doesn't pay twice on money his business earns.

          Of course that is a simplistic analogy. In reality our government taxes a dollar as many times as it can get away with. License fees, registration fees, regulatory fees, sales taxes multiple times from raw product to finished product to consumer purchase, etc. etc. etc. But as long as you, (generic you of course), don't see those fees and re-taxings they don't bother you. Corporate double-taxing just happens to be an easily explainable example.

          Good to see you participating in the forums.

          GA

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, most money is taxed multiple times.  But not by the same agency, levying the same (income) tax more than once.  And no, changing the terminology from "personal income tax" to "corporate income tax" doesn't change anything - the same person (stockholder) is paying an income tax both times.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          But both are "personal income" tax.  It is the stockholder of that corporation that ends up paying both, and changing the words from "personal" to "corporate" doesn't change that fact.

          "People don't get hurt" - I presume that it would be OK to quadruple your own tax because we know (without knowing you or your circumstances) that you won't be hurt?  By that reasoning we should just confiscate ALL income, whether personal, corporate or other.

 
working