Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wealth Distribution in the USA

1…6791112…24

Comments

  • #242
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    No it's legit. Ireland offers them a really low corporate tax rate and they avail of it.

    No longer legit once the Finance Bill is passed. A company not resident anywhere in the world was taking the piss, even by Irish "cute hoor" style politics.
    If USA wanted to be truly competitive they'd drop their corporate tax rate and bring the jobs home. That's why we have so much outsourcing.

    And drop wages, and we end up back at the OP yet again.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #243
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    I don't see a problem with Governments offering tax discounts to companies that employ large numbers of people.

    As it stands in a very simple sense, a company needs to pay more tax for employing 2 people instead of 1. 2000 people instead of 1000 people. There's certainly no incentive to add people who may be of marginal (economically) benefit. Tax incentives via corporation tax is a way of offsetting this somewhat.


  • #244
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Ah, a timely article popping up on my RSS feeds ;) "Found: Libertarians' "Lying To Liberals" Guide Book"
    https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/lying-to-liberals/7fd867e5290ad206a700928c37628a5b8edd9350/

    I don't think all Libertarians in general aim to lie, but it's hard to miss the 'tricks' that a lot of posters matching those views, tend to use.

    I'm early on in reading it, but it's good for pointing out what I find most objectionable about a lot of Libertarian arguments: It's not even all about what they are advocating, just their methods of argument - and it's stuff like the author found there, which makes me all the more cynical.


  • #245
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    K-9 wrote: »
    No longer legit once the Finance Bill is passed. A company not resident anywhere in the world was taking the piss, even by Irish "cute hoor" style politics.



    And drop wages, and we end up back at the OP yet again.

    Is Ireland raising its corporate tax rate?

    I know there was a big to do over here a few months ago when Apple had to face the government over this cute hoorism. I wasnt fully paying attention so I dont know what happenned.


  • #246
    donegal__road
    Closed Accounts Posts: 953 ✭✭✭donegal__road


    Denmark was recently voted the happiest country in the world. Denmark has the flattest wealth distribution indexes among the high-income countries in the OECD.

    According to the University of BC who conducted the study, the criteria which determine the happiness level of a country are:

    a large GDP per capita,
    healthy life expectancy at birth,
    lack of corruption in leadership,
    sense of social support,
    freedom to make life choices,
    culture of generosity.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    We need a word to underscore the point at which debates like this depart from reality and turn into 'libertarian' circle-jerks.


  • #248
    Fox_In_Socks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭Fox_In_Socks


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    We need a word to underscore the point at which debates like this depart from reality and turn into 'libertarian' circle-jerks.

    People have a right to talk out their opinions even if you don't agree with them.


  • #249
    opr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,267 ✭✭✭opr


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Power in what way?All people are equal before the law and every person only has one vote. Sure some wealthy businesses and groups lobby but two points on this. First these are businesses/groups that act in the interest of the business/group not individual people. Secondly no matter how well lined a parties pockets are it's people that will get them re-elected not money. Politicians are smart enough to know this so I question how much influence lobby groups really have.

    Wrong
    There is a very good study by Thomas Ferguson ... who studied the role of money in elections. He has found that in the last congressional elections, there is almost a perfect correlation between the percentage of the funding that a candidate receives and the probability of the candidates being elected. So take the Republicans. When you look at the proportion of funding they received, as it goes up, more are elected, almost in a straight line. And the presidential election -- it was almost over 2 billion dollars this time.

    The candidates who are in office thanks to the huge funding are beholden to the funders. They are the ones who bought their positions effectively, and if they want to stay in office they are going to have to go back to them. So it means they have to do what they want. It wasn't a big surprise that Obama when he came in, in 2008, with a huge support from the financial institutions, turned to shining their shoes, doing what they want to do. So that is neither democratic nor just.

    PDF of the study can be found here - http://rooseveltinstitute.org/policy-and-ideas/big-ideas/party-competition-and-industrial-structures-2012-elections

    Opr


  • #250
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Thats only true if the "rest of society" have been brainwashed to think they are impotent.
    That wasn't what I was talking about though? Here, the bit in brackets right after that:
    KyussBishop wrote:
    That wasn't what I argued, I said this:

    Income inequality like that, when it is excessive enough, gives the person gaining that wealth excessive power over the rest of society (including the potential to gain favourable treatment within the political/legal system - among many other ways of exerting power through money), and the effects of excessive income inequality are known to harm the less well off in society, leading to a more (in general) perpetuatingly unequal society, were the less well off have more difficulty achieving social mobility (i.e. more difficulty transitioning from poor to middle class to rich).
    I'm talking largely about power, not just equality of opportunity.

    The US has a two-tier justice system, where if you are poor, you are subject to the full force of the law, but if you have the right political connections and/or wealthy enough (money = power), then you can evade the legal system itself (or get favourable treatment in it - that is power over the rest of society, not just money).


    People aren't poor just because of a bad attitude, there really are issues of inequality that are getting worse, and can and need to be fixed.

    The problem with a lot of right-leaning and free market oriented views though is: It ignores this and tries to deflect from it as much as possible, by shifting blame to government, or onto the poor themselves (victim blaming), or other groups, and pretending there is no problem with business and inequality.

    I know this because I've been arguing adamantly against it for a very long time now, years (and have been motivated to learn so much in the process), and I see inside-out, the blame shifting and other methods of argument, used to frame the debate.


    It might be true that some level of inequality will always exist, but it is getting worse right now, and there is a lot that can be done to counteract that.


  • #251
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    No it's legit. Ireland offers them a really low corporate tax rate and they avail of it.

    If USA wanted to be truly competitive they'd drop their corporate tax rate and bring the jobs home. That's why we have so much outsourcing.
    International competition like that, in taxes or wages and such, is a race to the bottom though.

    Out of curiosity, where did you pick up that view about the USA competing on corporate tax? If there's a site/blog or something posting information like that, I can probably find big conflicts of interest from the authors and owners, in very short order.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    thebaz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,841 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    The Bush family is way wealthier than Obama's stock , simple fact no matter how the Republican's spin it. Anyway regardless of background, Obama cares much more for the less fortunate than the hardliner Republican stance. Who is going to benefit from Obamacare , the 1% super rich or the impoverished terrified 40 % near welfare status ?
    Yeah , Bush cared a lot more for the poor than Obama , but please don't raise taxes and keep the oil flowing , up the tea party and all that deluded greedy mantra.


  • #253
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    NiallSparky wrote: »
    I don't see a problem with Governments offering tax discounts to companies that employ large numbers of people.

    As it stands in a very simple sense, a company needs to pay more tax for employing 2 people instead of 1. 2000 people instead of 1000 people. There's certainly no incentive to add people who may be of marginal (economically) benefit. Tax incentives via corporation tax is a way of offsetting this somewhat.

    I've no particular problem with it either, people need to recognise the disadvantages though. Other countries can match or beat you with the stroke of a pen, it isn't a real competitive advantage in that sense.

    The other side of it is 52% of fast food workers in the US rely on welfare handouts. If Governments keep going the way they are going with schemes like Job bridge here, we'll end up paying wages for companies! ;)

    Tongue in cheek, but I'm not a fan of this reasoning that we should be eternally grateful for multi nationals to come here, we already give them low Corporation tax rules, flexible tax rules which draw the ire of the UK and other countries, low PRSI, what's next in the list of demands?
    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Is Ireland raising its corporate tax rate?

    No, getting rid of tax laws that allowed a company to be tax resident nowhere and base itself here.
    I know there was a big to do over here a few months ago when Apple had to face the government over this cute hoorism. I wasnt fully paying attention so I dont know what happenned.

    It seems the Government caved a little to Obama/McCain moans about us, we rescinded a law that wasn't really defensible so we can now say we did our bit. We can't do much more while there is this race to the bottom on corporation tax rates and rules.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #254
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    opr wrote: »
    Wrong



    PDF of the study can be found here - http://rooseveltinstitute.org/policy-and-ideas/big-ideas/party-competition-and-industrial-structures-2012-elections

    Opr
    If money was that important Romney would be president. But he's not.


  • #255
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    thebaz wrote: »
    The Bush family is way wealthier than Obama's stock , simple fact no matter how the Republican's spin it. Anyway regardless of background, Obama cares much more for the less fortunate than the hardliner Republican stance. Who is going to benefit from Obamacare , the 1% super rich or the impoverished terrified 40 % near welfare status ?
    Yeah , Bush cared a lot more for the poor than Obama , but please don't raise taxes and keep the oil flowing , up the tea party and all that deluded greedy mantra.

    They are all benefiting from it. Both sides agreed to a deal with long long list of corporate exemptions. The lot of them are lining their pockets.

    The Bushs are best buddies with the Clintons, DC has all these little dynasties being built.


  • #256
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    International competition like that, in taxes or wages and such, is a race to the bottom though.

    Out of curiosity, where did you pick up that view about the USA competing on corporate tax? If there's a site/blog or something posting information like that, I can probably find big conflicts of interest from the authors and owners, in very short order.

    I cant remember. I think in Ireland I picked it up actually, worry that Obama would drop the corporate tax rate and Ireland would lose its multi nationals.

    But there's a lot of talk over on this side to about outsourcing and our tax rates.


  • #257
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Fox_In_Socks wrote: »
    People have a right to talk out their opinions even if you don't agree with them.

    Libertarianism is all about ideas. I like ideas. I've listened to hours of lectures on free market ideas. That's what makes it easy for me to point out the utter bollocks some people come out with.

    It's when these ideas, which I find attractive btw and would like to see tested in the real world, are presented as truths and when opinions are presented as facts that get on my goat to the point where I feel they must be challenged.


  • #258
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Power in what way?All people are equal before the law and every person only has one vote.
    That's the theory, that's not the reality though - money grants political lobbying power way greater than a single individuals vote/voice (doesn't matter what it's being used to promote, this is power in the hands of one individual), and the ability to afford lawyers that know all the tricks and loopholes, to get favourable outcomes in the legal system, and even the money to get political access, to sometimes evade the legal system altogether, among much more.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Secondly no matter how well lined a parties pockets are it's people that will get them re-elected not money. Politicians are smart enough to know this so I question how much influence lobby groups really have.
    An abundance of money doesn't necessarily mean winning an election, but a lack of it (or a lack of matching quantity of funds to close competing parties - which can mean a spending war and dependence on donors) can certainly lose them.

    It's not even just down to elections either: In the US, some lobbyists literally write/draft the laws, that the government later implement - hell, the US copyright industry (ranging through music/film/games etc.) even influences US foreign policy, and affects our laws here too.


    Greater amounts of money, provide greater amounts of power.


  • #259
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    If money was that important Romney would be president. But he's not.

    Somethings even money can't buy! ;)

    In fairness Obama was pretty slick at the money raising.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #260
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    We need a word to underscore the point at which debates like this depart from reality and turn into 'libertarian' circle-jerks.
    Heh, ah in fairness this is one of the less-unproductive ones I remember ;) at least the point of income inequality and its damage, and the lack of an appreciable answer as to what to do about that (as an alternative to suggestions provided), has scored home (I think anyway...).


  • #261
    Stereomaniac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,166 ✭✭✭Stereomaniac


    Interesting video, which looks strangely familiar. I found that it was all as I believed and expected it to be. It is a fact I have grown to accept, money buys power in the world we inhabit.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Sleevoo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 54 ✭✭Sleevoo


    donegal__road wrote: »
    Denmark was recently voted the happiest country in the world. Denmark has the flattest wealth distribution indexes among the high-income countries in the OECD.

    According to the University of BC who conducted the study, the criteria which determine the happiness level of a country are:

    a large GDP per capita,
    healthy life expectancy at birth,
    lack of corruption in leadership,
    sense of social support,
    freedom to make life choices,
    culture of generosity.

    Well thats retarded. The only real measure of happiness is how you feel. Perhaps that could be measured by the chemical comoposition in the brain.


  • #263
    Sleevoo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 54 ✭✭Sleevoo


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Heh, ah in fairness this is one of the less-unproductive ones I remember ;) at least the point of income inequality and its damage, and the lack of an appreciable answer as to what to do about that (as an alternative to suggestions provided), has scored home (I think anyway...).

    Can you define income inequality and also the damage it does?


  • #264
    Tom_Cruise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Tom_Cruise


    Why should the rich get taxed more? It kind of goes against the whole system of education and working hard - you get taxed more just because you worked hard to earn it?


  • #265
    opr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,267 ✭✭✭opr


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    If money was that important Romney would be president. But he's not.

    I don't understand? The study I just posted shows a conclusive correlation between the two?

    To focus on the fact that the two guys involved in the presidential race also spent massive amounts of money in the quest to win would seem a rather strange way to disprove the argument that money helps greatly to win.

    Either way on the specific idea or point I think you're trying to make, yes Romney has access to unimaginable money but beyond a certain margin of utility in a electoral race that big only so much money can be spent by either side before the utility of spend X+ above a certain point X just doesn't make a difference. It's a completely exceptional case because for all intensive purposes both candidates have access to unlimited money. The figures show that they both spent roughly around the same amount of money?

    http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

    It's disgusting looking at those figures and the money spent :o

    Opr


  • #266
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    I haven't read all of this thread yet but I'm going to guess there's a lot of dribble coming out of some people's mouths akin to poor must be poor because they are an author of their own misfortune.

    Fact of the matter is guys some people have a tremendous head start in life and some have to battle against the odds to get a basic education. You wont see the rightwingers acknowledge this because it reduces their simplistic ideas about the poor such as "If their mommy and daddy stopped taking heroin they could afford the second apartment in Spain".

    Look at some of the old threads on the UCD forum and you'll see posts from guys struggling to survive in UCD and then read the replies from the same dimwitted people who have mammy ad daddy looking after them, "Well I dont see how you could be that poor because you're typing this of a computer aren't you".


    It's ignorance and every thread I see the same people who talk about the poor being that way because of some intrinsic value are the same people who talk about gm crops being bador global warming being made up ect. Just ignorant nutters.


    Rant over!


  • #267
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I haven't read all of this thread yet but I'm going to guess there's a lot of dribble coming out of some people's mouths akin to poor must be poor because they are an author of their own misfortune.

    Fact of the matter is guys some people have a tremendous head start in life and some have to battle against the odds to get a basic education. You wont see the rightwingers acknowledge this because it reduces their simplistic ideas about the poor such as "If their mommy and daddy stopped taking heroin they could afford the second apartment in Spain".

    Look at some of the old threads on the UCD forum and you'll see posts from guys struggling to survive in UCD and then read the replies from the same dimwitted people who have mammy ad daddy looking after them, "Well I dont see how you could be that poor because you're typing this of a computer aren't you".


    It's ignorance and every thread I see the same people who talk about the poor being that way because of some intrinsic value are the same people who talk about gm crops being bador global warming being made up ect. Just ignorant nutters.


    Rant over!

    Whatever buddy.

    Why do you assume the posters saying that poverty can have several sources and many means to escape it weren't poor themselves?

    We were immigrants, and that's back in the day when immigrants had nothing.

    Im not the one with the simplistic ideas of the poor here.


  • #268
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Whatever buddy.

    Why do you assume the posters saying that poverty can have several sources and many means to escape it weren't poor themselves?

    We were immigrants, and that's back in the day when immigrants had nothing.

    Im not the one with the simplistic ideas of the poor here.


    There are many escape routes and I'm exhibit A. The posters talking about poverty seem to think people deserve to be in poverty and their current situation must be related to something they done.


  • #269
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    There are many escape routes and I'm exhibit A. The posters talking about poverty seem to think people deserve to be in poverty and their current situation must be related to something they done.

    I haven't seen that on this thread.


  • #270
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    I haven't seen that on this thread.


    Blinkers. The other implication is that every wealthy person must have earned it. Nothing about those who went to a better school or inherited wealth or got their rent payed for in college.

    Fact of the matter is that it's a lot harder for some people others and those that got everything handed to them are clueless when it comes to other people's hardship.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Sleevoo wrote: »
    Well thats retarded. The only real measure of happiness is how you feel. Perhaps that could be measured by the chemical comoposition in the brain.

    Do you not think having a job and being relatively wealthy has an impact on how you feel? :confused:


Advertisement