3 decades ago the nominal tax rate for business was around 75% as it was realized by the capitalist class that if they wanted social harmony then certain concessions had be provided to the working classes such as free universal health care, education and a good welfare system to ensure them a reasonable standard of living. The capitalist class were still very wealthy as they extracted surplus value (profits) from each and every waged labourer.
The advent Globalization and the subsequent deregulation of business created an environment that pitched one country against the other to provide the best possible conditions to attract the vast sums of capital controlled by the world's multinationals. This meant providing huge tax incentives for business, while attacking the wages and conditions of the working-class, winding back all previous won gains. A recent study by the US government found that even though the tax rate is now 35% for business that because of further tax concessions made by the Bush administration, 66% of business pays little or no tax! This has now resulted in the US being the wealthiest but the most polarized nation in the world. The richest 1% of the population owns as much as the bottom 90%, while the bottom 40% own just 0.2% of total wealth. Such inequality is antithetical to even the most tenuous form of democracy, and as we know the US is no longer a functioning democracy, it is a full blow plutocracy by any reasonable standard. It's not a simple matter of the rich taking care of everyone else. The working-class, the vast majority of humanity and the producers of ALL value, are entitled to a decent standard of living. If the rich want to hoard their obscene wealth the consequences will be civil unrest. You can't impoverish the workers, send them to die in imperialist wars of conquest and then reward Wall St Bankers for swindling them, with hundreds of billions of tax payer’s money and then put the burden of their debt on the back of the workers and expect them to eat it. On Oct 29, 2:56 pm, Maax Well <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The fact that government is involved at all is a problem. The only > thing voting to get even with the rich ceo or the big corporation is > like shooting yourself in the foot. The government is the only group > that ultimately wins here. The corporations and ceo's are not going > to make any less money. They will pass this extra cost on the > consumers of their goods and services. It is just like raising > minimum wage. The consumer pays the bill. The government will get > bigger and more invasive and they will need more and more money. You > need to rethink where you direct your anger here. The government is > makin the playing field unfair, not Ford or McDonalds. But hey lets > vote Obama and go F(&* the big companies cuz they're evil. Sorry, > Obama and his plans are evil. They are getting your permission to > steal more of peoples property. This may make you guys feel better, > but it will not create an enviroment that will allow you to have a > better lifestyle or get a better job. > > On Oct 28, 7:24 pm, "You Can't Buy MI Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Currently, the wealth gets spread the other way and companies post > > record profits made by getting tax breaks and handouts out the wazzoo > > from washington at the expense of the people. What is it called when > > you spread the wealth in that direction? > > On Oct 28, 9:00 pm, JIm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > You have seen Joe the Plumber and you heard McCain talk about Obama’s > > > “spread the wealth” plans. You know that Barack has said in his own > > > words from his own mouth that he wants to spread the wealth. What does > > > that mean? I talked a little about it yesterday but today I want to > > > take it a little further and maybe shed some light on an aspect of > > > this that you probably won’t hear anywhere else. > > > > Spreading the wealth not only means taking your money and giving it to > > > someone else. It not only means you are going to get taxed more. It > > > also means that someone who does not deserve it is going to get money > > > that does not belong to them. It is a kind of affirmative action for > > > those who for whatever reason do not have as much as others. > > > > Affirmative action is a policy that although has great intentions ends > > > up making things worse. You give someone not qualified a job, position > > > or spot simply because of their skin color or some other factor that > > > has been deemed a disadvantage. What you get is a less qualified > > > workforce or people in programs that have no business being there. You > > > get people expecting to get something they never worked for, expecting > > > a “handout” of sorts. It makes for laziness. It is a bad policy. > > > > Spreading the wealth is alot like affirmative action. Spreading the > > > wealth is the taking of money, goods and assets from people who have > > > worked hard to get what they have and giving it to people who have > > > not. Spreading the wealth will only serve to create a class of people > > > who will always have their hands out in expectation of a freebie. > > > Spreading the wealth is a really bad policy to implement. > > > > There are those of us who do need help. Those who are constitutionally > > > incapable of taking care of themselves. For them and for us as society > > > as a whole, it is the right thing to help such people and we do. But > > > spreading the wealth is not the act of helping others. No, it is > > > Baracks policy of taking what does not belong to the government and > > > giving to whomever they please and for any reason they please. Be sure > > > that some of Barack’s “spreading of the wealth” would go to good > > > causes but be even more sure that the vast majority will not. No, it > > > will go to people undeserving. People who could if motivated in the > > > correct way go out and provide for themselves. It will also go to > > > promote programs and other policies that will perpetuate a poor class > > > and it will be used as a tool to get votes. > > > > Spreading the wealth is a dangerous policy. Spreading the wealth is > > > not an American ideal. It is not something to strive for. It will only > > > serve in the long run to create a society that in the long run will > > > not be able to take care of itself. Spreading the wealth will kill our > > > country. Spreading the wealth is a communist policy. A policy that at > > > first brought the Soviet Union to power but in the end also killed > > > that nation leading to the breakup of the USSR.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
