Putin calls USA a parasite on the world economy!

[SANDRO43]

Sideline...Flu is called gripa in Spanish and also in Russian [грипп] .

Probably from the French grippe (the verb gripper means: to grip/seize/grasp), possibly through German Grippe, deriving from greifen via O.H.G grifan and Gothic grifan. Anglo-Saxon has grìphan.

All those verbs allude to the throat constriction caused by influenza, XV century Italian from Latin influere (to flow inside/flood).

 

[tfcrew]

Gripa also flu in Portuguese.

Back on track w/thread, then why is Russian debt tripling?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jH2hJKYRbIEe7-2Wx51Dn2oh6ZOw?docId=CNG.134982ec52950e282f99f40cd0f0f2c5.f31

[Gator]

SF&EE,
 
If I understand this correctly, Ratigan's rant is  critical of many.   At the top of his list is Obama for behaving like Nero (wanting to defer painful decisions until 2017).  Then he is critical of Congress in two ways 1) creating the institutional framework over decades (e. g., taxes, healthcare) that has resulted in the situation we are in and 2) not working together to fix the problem now.
 
Then he is critical of the banking system for being corrupt and "extracting." Did I understand that he wants to get rid of existing banks and create a new omnibank that would lend to American people at 2%/year?
 
If Congress does not make significant progress over the next 12 months, I agree voters need to identify many in Congress and "hang them high."

[BC]

I think it's important in these discussions to get back to basics..

As I understand the US political system, the President's role is not to write law.  He is there to either approve or disapprove what Congress throws at him to meet the needs of the Nation.  To keep him straight his veto can be overridden if both the House and Senate vote with a 2/3 majority.

Is that correct? -and if so, is he doing anything that inconsistent with this?

It seems in practice it works something like this...

President wants healthcare reform, sets some goals.. something like affordable for all, economically sustainable, cost saving.

Congressmen and women debate and propose a solution.
The president reviews and gives feedback as to whether or not it's a go or no go
Congress works on it some more and compromises
Back and forth... like ping pong..
Until the President believes the compromise is somewhat along the lines of his intentions, that little more can be achieved by Congress and approves the law.

The Nation needs to borrow more money (raise the debt limit)

The President could do it alone unilaterally but instead of taking that unprecedented step, follows the steps of every President before him and lets Congress make the decision.
Congressmen and women debate and propose solutions.
The president reviews and gives feedback as to whether proposed solutions are a go or no go
Congress works on it some more and compromises
Back and forth... like ping pong..
Congress, month after month cannot reach a decision that is agreeable to the President.
At the very last moment, Congress is able to submit a compromise that is agreeable to the President.

The one thing that sticks out, and that is common throughout the history of US lawmaking is compromise.

The BIG question is though, whether or not resulting compromise is perfection or defect?

I tend to believe that the Founding Fathers constructed the political processes to strive towards perfection rather than defect.

If the former, by now we should have no woes regardless of any political orientation.

The latter however, seems more in line with the results that are observable today, which to me indicates that the political system is being abused, against it's intent.

Instead of an accumulation of perfection, we find ourselves sitting on good, but with an ever growing pile of defects.

Really similar to progression of disease or as Putin put it - a parasite.

[SFandEE]

Then he is critical of the banking system for being corrupt and "extracting." Did I understand that he wants to get rid of existing banks and create a new omnibank that would lend to American people at 2%/year?

He was critical of banks, trade policy, government (corrupt Congress), and energy.


I posted the rant because he clearly is thinking outside of the Democratic/Republican barking dog approach to solutions and states very clearly the systems are corrupted and anti-American citizen.  Why do we need a banking policy that works for the Saudis and a trade policy that favors China?  As far as his suggestion--whether it is good or not I think he would agree is not the point.  American citizens need a leader to expose the corruption throw the light on the issue and address repairing the situation.


He suggested addressing employment, infrastructure, and finance by creating a Federal bank that would loan money directly to state and local governments at 2% for infrastructure jobs.  The banks get their printed federal dollars at 0% and loan it out at record profits exploiting the current market conditions.  They are experiencing incredibly corporate wealth as well as individual wealth to the executives for predating on the situation they created.


Democrats and Republicans are corrupt systems debating stupid issues badly.  The focus needs to be on the broken American system that has anti-American citizen behavior.  Look at how the discussion on corporations is that they should have the same rights as individuals---really, Mitt Romney


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-state-fair-20110811,0,1863810.story


Corporations are people too.  That's what this ass has to offer Americans, others are saying if we want jobs corporate taxes should be 0%.  What if they continue to ship jobs overseas?  Still 0%.

[vwrw]

Corporations are people too.  That's what this ass has to offer Americans, others are saying if we want jobs corporate taxes should be 0%.  What if they continue to ship jobs overseas?  Still 0%.

Ah, I just realized I am logged in with my wifes account again and so this is Turboguy posting not VWRW.
 
Anyway, I think there could be a good arguement made that you really can't tax corporations anyway.   A tax on corporations if just a cost of doing business that is passed along to the end user.   Lower taxes or even no taxes and US corporations are more competitive in the world market, can compete better and can pay higher wages.  I would be for ending  taxes on corporations.

[Gator]

As I understand the US political system, the President's role is not to write law.  He is there to either approve or disapprove what Congress throws at him to meet the needs of the Nation.  To keep him straight his veto can be overridden if both the House and Senate vote with a 2/3 majority.

Is that correct? -and if so, is he doing anything that inconsistent with this?

What you describe is true.  However, he is the country's CEO.    He should be leading, not blaming.  Currently, he could convene Congress now rather than let them scatter on vacation.  Instead, his major objective in making a debt deal was to assure that painful decisions were deferred until after the November 2012 Presidential election.  I still wonder why he did this as if he has something up his sleeve.

President wants healthcare reform, sets some goals.. something like affordable for all, economically sustainable, cost saving.....Until the President believes the compromise is somewhat along the lines of his intentions, that little more can be achieved by Congress and approves the law.

Interesting example you choose.  Yes, this was his first major action as President.  It was at the top of his personal agenda.  He had a Democratic House and Senate.  So what did his leadership produce?   An atrocity....perhaps the worst piece of major legislation ever.  Meanwhile the country was in the Great Recession.  Could he not project a growing deficit?  Could the Democratic Congress not improve fiscal policy?  The serious wrangling in Congress started only after concerned and aroused voters threw out some "corrupted" incumbents.
 

Really similar to progression of disease or as Putin put it - a parasite.

Progression?  If so, it was rampant, accelerating with our last two Presidents.

[BC]

What you describe is true.  However, he is the country's CEO.    He should be leading, not blaming.  Currently, he could convene Congress now rather than let them scatter on vacation.  Instead, his major objective in making a debt deal was to assure that painful decisions were deferred until after the November 2012 Presidential election.  I still wonder why he did this as if he has something up his sleeve.

Gator,

On this point I think one has to realize that the suit has two sleeves.  I can only imagine this issue as the top campaign issue, with a deadline.  What a circus! - and an AA- also as result.  I think the President was well within his right not to let the issue further cloud an already murky election process.  The 'debt twelve' will cause enough ruckus and provide enough political staging space.

Interesting example you choose.  Yes, this was his first major action as President.  It was at the top of his personal agenda.  He had a Democratic House and Senate.  So what did his leadership produce?   An atrocity....perhaps the worst piece of major legislation ever.  Meanwhile the country was in the Great Recession.  Could he not project a growing deficit?  Could the Democratic Congress not improve fiscal policy?  The serious wrangling in Congress started only after concerned and aroused voters threw out some "corrupted" incumbents.

It will have to play out whether or not the 'atrocity' was good or bad.  Expensive? yes, no, maybe, but considering the healthcare challenges and costs ahead, it might turn out not so bad after all.  Healthcare was one of the major issues so I used it as an example without much thought.  Maybe Freudian.. dunno.

 
Progression?  If so, it was rampant, accelerating with our last two Presidents.

Oh I think it goes much further than the last two presidents.. Plaque has been building in the government's arteries since the original intent was abandoned and those across the aisle became foes with opposite goals rather than remaining friends with common goals, turning the country into something quite dysfunctional.

One of the first steps that should be taken is legislation or constitutional amendment by which the use of riders and earmarks are banned, or allows the President to veto riders and earmarks, leaving the original legislation intact.  That should be at the top of any candidates list of things to do.  This would keep the plaque from building further, eventually causing a heart attack.

Instead of being used as a timesaver for undisputed legislation it has become a way to pass unpopular or unrelated laws without debate by leveraging or 'wheeling and dealing' with important legislation that needs to meet a particular deadline, i.e. budgets.  More or less Constitutional blackmail. IMBRA is such a rider many here complain about.

Here's a pretty interesting resource http://endingspending.com/earmarks/map/

Kind of strange that the highest  (and many, many lower)ticket items defense related, buying new or replacing lost combat aircraft, missiles etc, as if such could not be included in defense appropriations.  Almost like 'Oh gosh... defense is hitting the trillion mark, so to keep it under we'll trash some items and squeeze them in as a rider.'

Sure, it's not going to be a debt stopper, but is a start.  As in our daily lives, those small amounts do add up quickly..

Also noteworthy are 'dissappearmarks'  http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/disappearmarks-billions-set-aside-earmarks-remain-unspent/

Almost like so much money is being dished out that it can't even be spent but still remain on the books.

Surely it needs a closer look.  Much is construction/infrastructure improvements.. May sound stupid, but 700 million just hanging around and at the same time paying unemployment for plenty of construction workers?  Hell... at least build something and get these folks to work!

Oh well.. enough ranting, and believe me my thoughts are apolitical.

[Gator]

Oh well.. enough ranting, and believe me my thoughts are apolitical.

My views are not, which probably biases my assessment.  Nevertheless, any business or sports team would clean house if it had this many bad years, especially with dubious prospects for the future.  So why not our government?  Wait.......that is what we did when electing Obama.
 
Speaking of prospects, how is Europe doing?  The talking heads on the business channels all say that Europe is now the primary concern (too big to bail).  Actually, it does no good to point the blame finger because we are joined at the hip.

[BC]

My views are not, which probably biases my assessment.  Nevertheless, any business or sports team would clean house if it had this many bad years, especially with dubious prospects for the future.  So why not our government?  Wait.......that is what we did when electing Obama.

Yes, I was impressed with Obama's campaign promises but as all Presidents, they don't meet them all, but he is quite 'fresh'.. If he manages to get re-elected I think that will raise his 'cojones' factor quite a bit.  The first term of most Presidents seems a bit tame as they do look forward to a second term where they can 'go for it'.  Another 'failure' in my eyes is that the US political scene is split down the middle with only a very few percent making a difference one way or the other with no 'win-win' scenario. Quite honestly, Americans seem to react best when there is a disaster.  Maybe one is needed, to get out of that middle 'rut'.

Speaking of prospects, how is Europe doing?  The talking heads on the business channels all say that Europe is now the primary concern (too big to bail).  Actually, it does no good to point the blame finger because we are joined at the hip.

Europe... yes, joined at the waist in many ways, but it's a different constellation politically with a wider array of political parties that form coalitions instead of a two party system.  I think this drops quite a bit of the polarity factor and manages to appease a greater percentage of voters.

In favor of EU is that each nation signed up for determined goals with fines and other actions for those that exceed specific economic criteria.  Italy's debt for example was accepted as a founding member, so in a way others 'vouched' for Italy. Tendency is to get stricter with wayward states and there is great pressure to work towards the goals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_and_Stability_Pact

Also there is a willingness via the EU central bank for one neighbor to help another.  If you look at gdp/debt ratio in most of EU, it's not that awful bad, but yes there ar the 'sore thumbs' Greece an Italy, but as stated above when the EU formed, these debts were quite 'known', thus I believe acceptance by others to stabilize for the good of the whole.  Everyone is screaming 'Spain' also, but their GDP/debt ratio is low.. unemployment at 20% is their biggest problem.  As a whole it represents the largest economy in the world and has an overall gdp/debt ratio of 60 with 3% deficit spending and 1.5% inflation.  Employment, the biggest factor by far for both the US and EU are pretty much on par, both being in bad shape since the economic drop.  Looking at the PIIGS of EU, most of these countries also have a considerable 'black' economy, both in evading taxes and 'unemployed' actually making a living on the 'side', thus unrecorded.  Nobody is starving.  Spain has a GDP comparable with Italy with 3 times unemployment?? go figure... LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union

The EU, well it's just 'different'..  Remember the debt of the EU represents debt of all the member states and not only the EU governing body..  Sort of like adding up the debts of not only the US federal government, but throwing in the debts of each US state as well.. representing another 2.6 trillion.....  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_summary.php?chart=H0&year=2011&units=b&rank=c

There are a lot of other 'different' factors... take employment regulation..  work and vacation time in EU is around a month, often with added federal and state holidays on top..   In the end I believe this does work favorably, even helping unemployment rates.  http://www.ergoweb.com/news/detail.cfm?id=1106 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2005/feb/10/europe-vs-america/ is a very interesting read if you have the time.

A couple paragraphs:

Americans work much more than Europeans: according to the OECD a typical employed American put in 1,877 hours in 2000, compared to 1,562 for his or her French counterpart. One American in three works more than fifty hours a week. Americans take fewer paid holidays than Europeans. Whereas Swedes get more than thirty paid days off work per year and even the Brits get an average of twenty-three, Americans can hope for something between four and ten, depending on where they live. Unemployment in the US is lower than in many European countries (though since out-of-work Americans soon lose their rights to unemployment benefits and are taken off the registers, these statistics may be misleading). America, it seems, is better than Europe at creating jobs. So more American adults are at work and they work much more than Europeans. What do they get for their efforts?

Not much, unless they are well-off. The US is an excellent place to be rich. Back in 1980 the average American chief executive earned forty times the average manufacturing employee. For the top tier of American CEOs, the ratio is now 475:1 and would be vastly greater if assets, not income, were taken into account. By way of comparison, the ratio in Britain is 24:1, in France 15:1, in Sweden 13:1.2 A privileged minority has access to the best medical treatment in the world. But 45 million Americans have no health insurance at all (of the world’s developed countries only the US and South Africa offer no universal medical coverage). According to the World Health Organization the United States is number one in health spending per capita—and thirty-seventh in the quality of its service.

As a consequence, Americans live shorter lives than West Europeans. Their children are more likely to die in infancy: the US ranks twenty-sixth among industrial nations in infant mortality, with a rate double that of Sweden, higher than Slovenia’s, and only just ahead of Lithuania’s—and this despite spending 15 percent of US gross domestic product on “health care” (much of it siphoned off in the administrative costs of for-profit private networks). Sweden, by contrast, devotes just 8 percent of its GDP to health. The picture in education is very similar. In the aggregate the United States spends much more on education than the nations of Western Europe; and it has by far the best research universities in the world. Yet a recent study suggests that for every dollar the US spends on education it gets worse results than any other industrial nation. American children consistently underperform their European peers in both literacy and numeracy.

Yes, this may be an extreme view, but even considering the 'truth' lies somewhere in the middle, it's no so bad over here.

[Muzh]

 
Anyway, I think there could be a good arguement made that you really can't tax corporations anyway.   A tax on corporations if just a cost of doing business that is passed along to the end user.   Lower taxes or even no taxes and US corporations are more competitive in the world market, can compete better and can pay higher wages.  I would be for ending  taxes on corporations.

TG, are you mandated by law to buy from these "corporations" if their taxes are raised and they TRY to pass it to the consumer?
 
Lower taxes or no taxes. Yep. US Corporartions just created 500,000 new jobs. In Asia. Why? Low wages, not taxes. You think NIKE will relocate their slave labor to the US if we offer them no taxes?
 
Nope. The US will have to match the Asian countries in slave labor. Like $1 a day, no health insurance, 12 hr work day, 7 days a week. Sure, let's go back to the Gilded age.
 
Wake up.

[Turboguy]

Low labor cost is just one factor in production.  These days so many elements of production can be automated that there are things that could be produced as cheaply here. 
 
Just as an example, a few decades ago our steel industry in the USA collapsed.  Japan became the powerhouse in the steel industry.  Of course Japan has little in the way of natural resourses so the iron ore was imported, some of it from the USA.  The coke or coal was imported, most all from the USA.  The steel was made and the biggest market at that time was the USA.  So they were buying their raw materials and transporting the raw materials one way, the finished goods the opposite and they were not paying their workers $ 1.00 a day, maybe a bit less than here but the real secret was they they were making steel in new factories using the latest technology and we were making steel in factories that were old when our parents were kids.   
 
My point Muzh was that taxes are a cost of doing business.  They are an expense and all expenses are passed along as part of the cost of doing business.  The end user ends up paying those costs.  I am not going to say that Nike would move their factories to the USA because of the lack of taxes.   I am saying that companies that are currently in the USA would be more profitable, would be able to sell their products cheaper than they can now and would be more competitive in the world marketplace.   
 
Muzh, I will agree that we have shipped a lot of manufacturing overseas and cheap labor is a major part of the reason.  I think as well that government regulations, taxes, unions, work ethic and lots of other reasons are also important.
 
I do think those who feel nothing much is manufactured in the USA any more are wrong.  America still has a strong manufacturing base.  There are lots of manufacturers that are doing well and often shipping product overseas.   I own a manufacturing business.  We sell most of our stuff in the USA but do export quite a bit of product as well.  Spain, Italy, England, Canada and most everywhere.  The photo I have attached is a container being loaded for Moscow a few months ago. 
 
It's not too late to save American manufacturing but we need to stop trying to drive our businesses out of business.
 

[Turboguy]

Although I have tried to say that you really can't tax a business I am not really in favor of eleminating all corporate taxes.   I do think it would help if the taxes were reduced perhaps 7% or so.  Right now they are among the highest in the world.   Lower taxes would help businesses and employment.

[Muzh]

TG, what are the odds that Congress lowers the corporate tax to a competitive level (15%) as they are paying right now and all these corporations come flocking here back home?
 
You really think that the overseas co-owners of these corporations are willing to let go of their earnings from these taxes?
 
 

[Turboguy]

I would say the chances of ALL these corporations flocking back home are about zero.  the chances of congress cutting the taxes to 15% are also about zero.  I would be happy with 27-30%.  For me it is not a factor since we are an S corp but I would like to see America prosper and taxes, regualtions and unions all make it tough.
 
I do think that improvements in the business climate may keep a few manufactuers here that might otherwise produce overseas and might help some new businesses grow and prosper that could over time have a very positive effect.

[TheTraveler]

Of course I don't live in the USA, so my thinking may be somewhat skewed (as we've had examples of in previous threads), but I think you're being somewhat disingenuous.  Whatever definition of "class" you come up with, most people would regard someone earning $250,000 a year as well-off or rich, even though they may well agree that "middle-class" is the easiest tag to define them.  We all know the difference between that person and Bill Gates, but the simple fact is that 99% of the people on earth (not just in your country) are never going to earn anything remotely near that figure.

...Versus "99% of people on earth"?  (Tossing in all the people in Sudan and Ethiopia, too, skewing the numbers, just to make your point?)  Really funny.
 

The "envy" which you refer to is not about the "class" as such - it's simply the envy of a better lifestyle, which is inherent in just about all of humankind!  Unattractive it may be in a man, but why should it be any less so in a woman?  If your wife (or potential future wife) is so materialistic, then you will have an awful lot of trouble in your future.

I don't think envy is inherent in all humankind.
 
If a man can drive through the most elite mansion-filled neighboorhood and feel motivation and hope that he will someday be there (without bitterness)... That's not envy.
 
If instead he feels bitterness and a desire for his government to punish the success of its inhabitants by extracting ever more taxes from those people... That's envy.
 
And it's not about women being materialistic... It's about russian (or any) women generally finding it unattractive when they hear a guy whining against society's most successful.

[TheTraveler]

TG, are you mandated by law to buy from these "corporations" if their taxes are raised and they TRY to pass it to the consumer?

If all corporations are taxed at the same rate, then yes those taxes are passed on to consumers.
 
Taxes are like an unavoidable business expense that is spread across the competitive landscape.
 
They are like fuel costs for airlines.  If fuel prices go up, all airlines are going to raise their ticket prices.  They are going to pass that on to the consumer.  If one chooses not to, then they will quickly go out of business.  We've all seen that happen, especially in recent years.  People are always free to not fly, but those increased fuel costs will affect all other modes of transporation, too.  They can avoid paying for the increased fuel costs by limiting their travel to foot or bicycle, I guess.
 
As another example, gasoline taxes... Illinois' gasoline tax is about $0.22 more per gallon than in Missouri, and Illinois' price at the pump is consistently about $0.22 more expensive than in Missouri.  The oil companies and gas stations effectively don't pay the tax.  The entire increased tax is shouldered by the consumers.

[Muzh]

I guess you just agreed.

[TheTraveler]

"TG, are you mandated by law to buy from these "corporations" if their taxes are raised and they TRY to pass it to the consumer?"
 
Corporations don't TRY to pass on corporate taxes to consumers.  They succeed.  Every time.
 
So obviously, no, I don't agree.
 

[TheTraveler]

Corporations are people too.  That's what this ass has to offer Americans, others are saying if we want jobs corporate taxes should be 0%.  What if they continue to ship jobs overseas?  Still 0%.

If corporations were taxed at zero percent (with some caveats), over time it would increase the government's tax collections, and more important it would increase employment and the overall health of our economy.
 
"Over time" being the key word, though.
 
Eventually, for the employees or stockholders to enjoy those corporate profits, the $'s will need to be taken out of the corporation in the form of salaries, bonuses, or dividends... and then those funds will be taxed at individual rates.
 
Until then, though, the corporation would be free to use those funds to invest in equipment or hire personnel.
 
Deferring corporate profit would work a lot like a 401K plan, where investment funds grow tax free, but as soon as you withdraw those funds, you will have to pay the taxes.  The government gets their money, but it's deferred to a later date.
 
Problem is that the government's insatiable appetite for more income does not have much patience.

[Muzh]

"TG, are you mandated by law to buy from these "corporations" if their taxes are raised and they TRY to pass it to the consumer?"
 
Corporations don't TRY to pass on corporate taxes to consumers.  They succeed.  Every time.
 
So obviously, no, I don't agree.

They are going to pass that on to the consumer.  If one chooses not to [fly], then they will quickly go out of business.  We've all seen that happen, especially in recent years.  People are always free to not fly, but those increased fuel costs will affect all other modes of transporation, too.  They can avoid paying for the increased fuel costs by limiting their travel to foot or bicycle, I guess.

[Turboguy]

Nice posts Traveler.   Someone could look at it as if for example there was a $ 1.00 a gallon tax on gas and there had never been a tax on gas before then the gas companies would simply raise the price of a gallon of gas by a buck and there would be no effect on their business and the consumer would be paying the tax in actuality.   However the other side of it is that the oil companies would have to hire extra employees to collect, administer and pay those taxes and the government would have to hire extra employees to administer, and enforce the tax.  None of those employees are productive people and are in effect just a waste and a loss of efficiency.
 
Perhaps gas taxes are not a good example since it does allow the costs of road repair to be tied to highway usuage however the government seems to like to have a million little taxes than they think will have little impact by themselves and be hardly noticeable to the end user.  All those little taxes do have an overhead burden.  America would be a lot better off with a reduction in the kinds of taxes and an increase in the more equitable taxes to offset the revenues lost.   Employment is one of the gravest problems facing America right now but the more employees the government has the more burden on the productive part of the economy.   Government and welfare recipients have a lot on common.  They are both a burdon on the American economy.
 
Muzh, Airfares are higher right now than they have been in ages and yet more people are flying.  People like their comfort.  If airfares double they will still fly, maybe a little less but assuming travel by other methods has increased proportionately people will still fly.  If gas goes to $ 10.00 a gallon people will still drive.  Maybe they will look for more fuel effient cars and may cut some driving but they will still drive.
 
 

[SFandEE]

Until then, though, the corporation would be free to use those funds to invest in equipment or hire personnel.

TheTraveler--Your posts indicate to me you are a believer.  I do not think you are a student of economics.  Since the internet provides for anonymity I will never know, but you indicate to me the communication of a believer.


If you truly believed that the economics of taxing business is best when allowing a corporation to operate without tax then you would not request a caveat.  You would demand 0%.


I quoted your beliefs because I request you show me an example of this in the real world.  Could the owners also be free to not increase production, improve product, and hire new employees, but use this capital to reward their brilliance in corrupting a government for less money than the tax break they just got while thriving on an infrastructure built by people 50 to 100 years ago.


You have posted a lot about greed and envy on this board, but have never responded to moral questions.  Do you differentiate between a person who achieves their wealth through hard work and innovation or theft and corruption?  Do you?  Do you think Russians do?


Do you think tax evasion or insider trading is criminal?  Do you?  Who would enforce?  The market?  Think Enron!!!  Think the formerly mentioned billionaire Wyiy.  Who used his criminal money to hire an attorney and buy Republican (Democrats are bought too) influence to allow him to die at 77 without consequence for his criminal activity.


Until you address the morality of white collar crime you are just a cheerleader for someone else (maybe Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck--I don't know some other fat guy without a college education)

[Turboguy]

For the most part I believe people get what they deserve.  There is a lot of greed in this world and I don't think it is any worse among the very rich than in any other class, just the scale is bigger.  (after all they are big thinkers). 
 
Would the super rich evade taxes,  of course they would.  So would the poor and the middle class.  Don't you think there are tons of people collecting welfare/unemployment that are working in cash situations and doing quite well with their double dipping.  I had a guy who worked for me as an independent contractor who bragged that he had never paid taxes in his life.  I didn't think he was serious but he was.  They finally caught up to him and are trying to collect $ 215,000.00 from him.  I can recall a million years ago when I was in the National Guard we sat around and talked about all kinds of topics from sex to finance and we got talking about taxes one time.  One idiot said he cheated on his taxes by not declaring his National Guard pay.  How in the world someone would think they could hide a payment by the government from the government amazes me. 
 
Things balance out.  Companies need to be competitive.  They might give big bonuses to their big shots for a little while but it they are making a ton of money they will attract competitors or the ones they have will cut prices and steal market share.   There is some efficiency built into the free market system.  Yes, people can be ripped off for a while but sooner or later those people end up in jail or bankrupt.
 
 

[Boethius]

Lower corporate tax rates don't create jobs.  They also don't lead to increased wages, at least, not for the middle class. 
http://www.community-wealth.org/_pdfs/articles-publications/state-local-new/report-lynch.pdf
Low corporate tax rates do spur investment.