Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[Andylusion]

Sure. My parents were public school teachers. That's it.

They just bought a lake house on Lake Erie, using investment money from their careers as public school teachers.

That doesn't include their main house, that is worth $750K.

My parents taught me to save, and invest. That's why they are millionaires today.

What did your parents teach you? How to complain about the system that produces the most wealthy for the most people, more than any other country on Earth?

My parents taught me to save, and invest. That's why they are millionaires today.

What did your parents teach you? How to complain about the system that produces the most wealthy for the most people, more than any other country on Earth?

You and your hard-working family, along with all other Americans, are about 5% of global population. Your lifestyles and mine are paid for in places like Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. Capitalism has murdered hundreds of millions of innocent human beings across the past five hundred years so that greedy, ignorant Americans can prosper. If that's something you celebrate, it's not hard to understand why you hold the political views you do.

You are an idiot now. If you really believe that, then you have condemned yourself with your own statement.

If you want to fix that, be my guest at moving to Venezuela, where no one is being forced to pay for the lifestyles of others... and they are dying of starvation.

If you want to fix that, be my guest at moving to Venezuela, where no one is being forced to pay for the lifestyles of others... and they are dying of starvation.

Starvation has come to countries like Venezuela, Iraq, and Honduras because of greedy, self-absorbed "patriots" like you who believe their level of consumption justifies starvation and worse elsewhere,

Moving won't change anything,

Only cowards offer that as a solution.

Impossible. All the greedy self-absorbed 'patriots' like me..... left Venezuela. All the greedy evil corporations, and the elite wealthy people.... left.

How is it that you try and blame the people who are no longer there, for the problems that are there? They all left. No one is being greedy in Venezuela, because all the people you claim were greedy are no longer in Venezuela.

Try again...

How is it that you try and blame the people who are no longer there, for the problems that are there? They all left. No one is being greedy in Venezuela, because all the people you claim were greedy are no longer in Venezuela.

Greedy people who have never set foot in Venezuela are responsible for what's happening there.

Trump’s Economic Sanctions Have Cost Venezuela About $6bn Since August 2017

You are full of crap sir.

 

[Andylusion]

About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it’s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many

The broader philosophy underpinning it has two elements: one is that she has an enormous faith in government and government regulation, and as we all know, government regulation has its downsides, and we may be in a situation where we need different kind of regulation of some industries, but she is driven by a faith in government

She’s really a democratic socialist in some ways, and she wants to fundamentally change the role of an American company, how an American company is governed, what it’s supposed to do, in ways that I think at least would be disastrous for the American economy

she says she’s a capitalist, but she’s not a capitalist

I think you could make an argument that her plans and policies are far more extreme than Bernie Sanders’ in terms of its impact on the American economy

Some progressives would argue Warren is not going far enough to roll back capitalist corruption:

What Elizabeth Warren Is Quietly Telling Democratic Insiders

"As Ms. Warren steadily rises in the polls she is working diligently to protect her left flank, lining up with progressives on nearly every issue and trying to defuse potential attacks from supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. 'I’m with Bernie,' she responds when asked about what is perhaps the most contentious issue of the primary race: 'Medicare for all.'

"Yet publicly, and even more in private, she is signaling to party leaders that, far from wanting to stage a 'political revolution' in the fashion of Mr. Sanders, she wants to revive the beleaguered Democratic National Committee and help recapture the Senate while retaining the House in 2020."

Some progressives would argue Warren is not going far enough to roll back capitalist corruption:

The government is going to fix capitalist corruption......Hilarious!!!

I like how you post "money corrupts"..... Government collected $3.3 Trillion dollars. If the phrase is "Money Corrupts", then you should be the most skeptical of government.

 

[Andylusion]

About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it’s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many

The broader philosophy underpinning it has two elements: one is that she has an enormous faith in government and government regulation, and as we all know, government regulation has its downsides, and we may be in a situation where we need different kind of regulation of some industries, but she is driven by a faith in government

She’s really a democratic socialist in some ways, and she wants to fundamentally change the role of an American company, how an American company is governed, what it’s supposed to do, in ways that I think at least would be disastrous for the American economy

she says she’s a capitalist, but she’s not a capitalist

I think you could make an argument that her plans and policies are far more extreme than Bernie Sanders’ in terms of its impact on the American economy

About 50% of the stock market and private equity companies would be affected by her re-regulation, by break up, by some of, one of her many very big, ambitious proposals, and I think it’s not just that there are individual policies that one can disagree with, and there are many

Do you see a problem with this example of a Warren proposal?

Elizabeth Warren attacks the private equity industry with new regulation proposals

"Warren wants to make private equity firms responsible for debts and pension obligations of companies they buy."

Well, that's a nice thought.... but it's just going to cause more companies to go bankrupt.

So you do understand that the vast vast majority of the time, the whole reasons that private equity firms buy up other companies, is because those companies are in dire straights, and likely on their way to being liquidated.

And typically, although not always... the whole reason they are on the verge of liquidation, is many times because of debt and pension obligations.

The only reason a capital investment firm is willing to invest capital.... is because they believe they can turn the company around.

If you force them to take on the debts and pension obligations, then they are not likely to turn the company around.

If they are not likely to turn the company around, then they won't buy out the failing company

If a failing company cannot find a buyer.... it closes.

Then EVERYONE loses their jobs.

So if you are ok with more people unemployed, and more companies closed... ok go for it.
And also remember that when a company closes (which your new policy will promote), then that means less competition in the market, and the competitor will be able to charge higher prices for goods and services. So your policy will not only harm the newly unemployed, but also the rest of society as a whole.

See one of the problems with you people on the left, is that you never look at the long term effects of your policies.

You look at the short term, which is you don't like what X company does. But there is a reason why X company is doing what they do. When you choose to not consider why such and such people do what they do, the result is end up having long term negative effects.

he only reason a capital investment firm is willing to invest capital.... is because they believe they can turn the company around.

There are other reasons why "vulture capitalists" invest in struggling companies:

Asset Stripping

"What Is Asset Stripping?

"Asset stripping is the process of buying an undervalued company with the intent of selling off its assets to generate a profit for shareholders.

"The individual assets of the company, such as its equipment, real estate, brands, or intellectual property, may be more valuable than the company as a whole due to such factors as poor management or poor economic conditions.

"The result of asset stripping is often a dividend payment for investors and either a less-viable company or bankruptcy."

Generating shareholder profits by reneging on wage and pension compensation commitments to the workers who created the asset value in the first place is a prime example of wealth redistribution.

So here's the problem with that example... which I already posted elsewhere on this thread.

As I said elsewhere.... the only counter example is if the company is so undervalued, that venture capitalist can buy the company for less money, than the value of the companies assets.

Now you can claim that's bad.... and that's fine..... but if the owners of the company are willing to sell it off for less money than the value of it's assets.... that should tell you something.

The company is doing so badly.... that the owners of the company.... . are selling it for LESS MONEY.... than the value of it's assets.

What you should glean from that, is that the company is doomed to start with. The company was already on the way to liquidation. Otherwise, the owners would never sell something for less many than it's base asset value.

In other words.... what difference does it make? Whether the owners sell it off and then the company closes, or the owners close it themselves.... what difference does it make?

Honestly.. you tell me. Or are you in the delusion that if the owners couldn't find a buyer... then magically the company would make a profit, everyone would keep their jobs, and a utopia would follow? Because I guarantee you, that isn't the case. If that was even a possibility, the owners would never sell their company for less money than the base value of their assets.

So again... you tell me... what difference does it make?

 

[Andylusion]

Sure. My parents were public school teachers. That's it.

They just bought a lake house on Lake Erie, using investment money from their careers as public school teachers.

That doesn't include their main house, that is worth $750K.

My parents taught me to save, and invest. That's why they are millionaires today.

What did your parents teach you? How to complain about the system that produces the most wealthy for the most people, more than any other country on Earth?

My parents taught me to save, and invest. That's why they are millionaires today.

What did your parents teach you? How to complain about the system that produces the most wealthy for the most people, more than any other country on Earth?

You and your hard-working family, along with all other Americans, are about 5% of global population. Your lifestyles and mine are paid for in places like Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. Capitalism has murdered hundreds of millions of innocent human beings across the past five hundred years so that greedy, ignorant Americans can prosper. If that's something you celebrate, it's not hard to understand why you hold the political views you do.

You are an idiot now. If you really believe that, then you have condemned yourself with your own statement.

If you want to fix that, be my guest at moving to Venezuela, where no one is being forced to pay for the lifestyles of others... and they are dying of starvation.

If you want to fix that, be my guest at moving to Venezuela, where no one is being forced to pay for the lifestyles of others... and they are dying of starvation.

Starvation has come to countries like Venezuela, Iraq, and Honduras because of greedy, self-absorbed "patriots" like you who believe their level of consumption justifies starvation and worse elsewhere,

Moving won't change anything,

Only cowards offer that as a solution.

/——-/ So your level of consumption causes starvation? You selfish pig.

——-/ So your level of consumption causes starvation? You selfish pig

Repent, Piggy.

We have nothing to repent over. You caused death in Venezuela, not us.

 

[Andylusion]

How 'bout mandatory profit sharing?

Hypothetical.....

You are in a company with declining market share. You need to focus research and design on a new product to save the company.

The law requires you pay out profits to employees.

Result, you don't have the resources to fund the R&D, and the company falls into obscurity and closes.

I'm all for profit sharing.... But the above, is the reason I'm against a 'one size fits all' solution. You don't know what a company is going through. You can look at a profit number in the moment, but you don't know if that profit is based on existing products that are going obsolete, or not.

I'll give you a perfect example. I worked for a company that focused on industrial printers. While the company was pulling down multiple millions a year in profit.... what you did not know looking at the profit numbers, was the company was losing ground year over years. The companies biggest selling product, was a printer designed in the 1980s, and quickly becoming obsolete.

The company was desperately trying to use those profits to create a new product, to generate new income.

If you had put in place a profit sharing requirement, that could have been devastating to the company.

 

[Andylusion]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I find it interesting how you Progressives NEED to use the Gov as an enforcement agency for your every little whim.

Government "for the people and by the people" must really piss you off, huh?

When you use your government "for the people and by the people" in order to oppress people with your tyrannical freedom destroying policies and laws.... yes. And it should.

 

[Andylusion]

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

(Speaking to what I made bold) Is this your opinion or do you have factual evidence to support this claim.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Again, supposition on your part or factual evidence to support the claim. As to the rest of the statement - I agree that public defenders don't have the same resources. That is a fault of the broken criminal justice system. The public defender's office should be on a par with the district attorney's office.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

And that's on them, and normally recommended by their attorney after discovery. I know some damn fine attorney's who worked in the PD's office and learned quite a bit about how the gears grind on the defense side. Also, in the large number of the cases charges are dismissed as part of the deal, so offenders are spending less time in prison than they should be.

I agree that public defenders don't have the same resources. That is a fault of the broken criminal justice system. The public defender's office should be on a par with the district attorney's office.

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Public defenders are not paid for by the US Federal Government. Giving more money to the Feds, does not do anything for the public defenders office.

All it does, is give politicians in Washington money to give to their political supporters and pet projects, like Obama and Sylandra.

We don't need GE to pay more money, so some crony special interest groups, can get an earmark in the Department of Defense budget, to use the military to "protect the planet" by buying solar panels.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/516918/final-department-of-everything-by-senator-tom.pdf

More money to these idiots, is just more money wasted. We don't need more money given to your left-wing buddies and special interest groups.

 

[Andylusion]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Low taxes alone will end lobbying. Again, lobbying is a massively expensive undertaking. The value of lobbying, is how much money it saves. Obviously if taxes are 50% of a billion dollar profit..... then $100 Million to lobby for a savings of $500 million a year, is a good deal. But if taxes are 10%, of a Billion.... then no $100 Million is not a good trade.

Whether you have a flat tax, or not, does not matter. if taxes are low, lobbying will die out. If taxes are high, lobbying will grow.

It's that simple.

As far as the links... it garbage. The examples given were crap.

Chesapeake Energy paid its CEO Aubrey McClendon $21 million last year but paid zero federal corporate income tax in 2010.

Really? The year after a massive recession, which caused thousands of companies to post a loss, which as with any business, a loss can be written off? How mysterious.

Online retailer eBay paid its CEO John Donahoe $21.4 million last year while collecting a federal tax refund of $131 million. eBay’ 31 subsidiaries in Switzerland, Singapore, and seven other tax havens facilitate its efforts to move money around the planet as a tax-dodging strategy.

Really? So they paid too much in taxes, and got a refund, just like basically anyone anywhere in the country gets a refund when they over pay taxes?

Insurance brokerage giant Marsh & McLennan paid its CEO Brian Duperrault $14 million yet collected a $90 million tax refund from Uncle Sam. The company has 105 subsidiaries in 20 off shore tax havens, including 25 in Bermuda — a favorite locale for insurance companies seeking to avoid both taxes and regulation.

Really? Companies do not bring profits made outside the US, into the US, when US corporate tax was 39%, and the OECD average was 26%? Holy crap.... people don't want to lose 2/5ths of their income in taxes? Shocking! Shocking I say.

These are retarded. Lots of companies didn't pay corporate tax after the recession hit, because profits went down, or even lost money. We know this because companies like GM and Chrysler went bankrupt.

Moreover, it is not surprising that CEOs get paid money, when the company hits a pot hole. What would you do, if the moment the company lost some money, they demanded you work without compensation? You would work elsewhere. Same with a CEO. The last thing you need, is for your executive management to walk out, during a down turn.

I'm not sure why left-wingers expect CEOs to work under conditions, that no left-winger would ever work under.

 

[Andylusion]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

I find it interesting how you Progressives NEED to use the Gov as an enforcement agency for your every little whim.

I find it interesting how you Progressives NEED to use the Gov as an enforcement agency for your every little whim.

Progressives have noticed US capitalism is not working for a majority of Americans anymore. Corporate greed is the biggest reason why. What other agency besides government can correct such an imbalance?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Section 5(b)(2) requires US corporations to have the purpose of 'creating a general public benefit', while section 5(c) requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term."

Really? Look at everything in the room your in. Name one thing, not created by a company, and that you are not getting a "general public benefit" from?

Good luck with that.

 

[Andylusion]

How 'bout mandatory profit sharing?

Starting at Whole Foods?

Whole Foods (Owner Bezos Is Worth Billion) Is Cutting Health Care Coverage for Part-Time Workers

So your system isn't working? Got it.

You did that. Not Bezos. Bezos, is just reacting to the incentives you created for him, with Obama Care. You did that.

 

[Andylusion]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

Good? You do realize that I got paid more than uncle sam in taxes, right? That's a good thing. Uncle Sam collected $3.3 Trillion in taxes last year. They collected enough. They don't need any more of our money.

 

[daveman]

You didn't answer why a senior after working for 40-50 years, should be required to stand on her feet for forty hours a week after retiring? Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Yeah, I kind of skipped over that, because it was a dumb question.

How about because they don't want to be homeless? Or how about because they don't want to starve to death?

Those seem like normal answers for why all people of any age, tend to work.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

But the real reason I ignored your question, is because it was irrelevant to the topic.

The average Social Security check is $1300 a month. That means 50% of all those on Social Security, get LESS than $1300 a month. In short, if you intend to retire on Social Security, then you intend to be impoverished until you die.

And by the way, the most likely way that they will "fix" Social Security, is by raising the retirement age. Again, you people seem to ignore a fundamental called "math".

Again, no system on the face of the Earth has avoided this problem.... the problem of "math".

Take Greece for example. The average pension in Greece is just $960 a month. Yet the Greek government, even with drastically higher taxes than the US, went bankrupt.

The idea the younger generation of workers, are just going to pay out so the older generation can be lazy.... is just simply not how life works.

My personal opinion on whether an older person should be required to work or not, doesn't matter. What matters is math. There is no money for old people to not work. Unless they want to be impoverished for life. Which is what we've seen.

Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Well, I doubt I'll ever get old enough to see your side of this argument, because I grew up in a family were work ethic was part of being a morally good Christian person.

My parents both continued to work into their 70s. In fact after they retired TWICE.... they still work. My parents have always been productive. Ironically now that they are both millionaires, they keep working. They honestly could hire people to serve them martinis on a beach for the rest of their life, and never run out of money. But instead, both of them are still working full time positions at different jobs even now.

So no, I don't think I'll ever get to the point myself, where I just sit at home, like a bloated leach on the butt of society, sucking away money from working people. I just don't see that in my future.

The only exception to that, would be if I literally am physically unable to work. And I have sympathy for those who are physically unable to work. My entire discussion asumes able bodied people. If you are able to work, I think you should, unless you are living off your own saved money.

I've been assured by Democrats that math is racist.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Future of American Labor – Ralph Nader Radio Hour

 

[georgephillip]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

Good? You do realize that I got paid more than uncle sam in taxes, right? That's a good thing. Uncle Sam collected $3.3 Trillion in taxes last year. They collected enough. They don't need any more of our money.

Good? You do realize that I got paid more than uncle sam in taxes, right? That's a good thing. Uncle Sam collected $3.3 Trillion in taxes last year. They collected enough. They don't need any more of our money.

Why do you continually conflate your net worth with that of your corporate masters?

• "Tax avoidance through offshore tax loopholes is a significant reason why corporations, which paid one-third of federal revenues 60 years ago, now pay one-tenth of federal revenues.
• U.S. corporations dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than a post office box — in tax havens."

Fact Sheet: Offshore Corporate Loopholes - Americans For Tax Fairness

 

[Andylusion]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

Good? You do realize that I got paid more than uncle sam in taxes, right? That's a good thing. Uncle Sam collected $3.3 Trillion in taxes last year. They collected enough. They don't need any more of our money.

Good? You do realize that I got paid more than uncle sam in taxes, right? That's a good thing. Uncle Sam collected $3.3 Trillion in taxes last year. They collected enough. They don't need any more of our money.

Why do you continually conflate your net worth with that of your corporate masters?

• "Tax avoidance through offshore tax loopholes is a significant reason why corporations, which paid one-third of federal revenues 60 years ago, now pay one-tenth of federal revenues.
• U.S. corporations dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than a post office box — in tax havens."

Fact Sheet: Offshore Corporate Loopholes - Americans For Tax Fairness

Your post makes no point.

Are you preparing for a session on Jeopardy?

And what exactly am I 'conflating'?

Can you make a point when you post, instead of just spamming pointless crap?

 

[Richard-H]

How 'bout mandatory profit sharing?

Hypothetical.....

You are in a company with declining market share. You need to focus research and design on a new product to save the company.

The law requires you pay out profits to employees.

Result, you don't have the resources to fund the R&D, and the company falls into obscurity and closes.

I'm all for profit sharing.... But the above, is the reason I'm against a 'one size fits all' solution. You don't know what a company is going through. You can look at a profit number in the moment, but you don't know if that profit is based on existing products that are going obsolete, or not.

I'll give you a perfect example. I worked for a company that focused on industrial printers. While the company was pulling down multiple millions a year in profit.... what you did not know looking at the profit numbers, was the company was losing ground year over years. The companies biggest selling product, was a printer designed in the 1980s, and quickly becoming obsolete.

The company was desperately trying to use those profits to create a new product, to generate new income.

If you had put in place a profit sharing requirement, that could have been devastating to the company.

Profit sharing is based on net profits, not gross profits.

Profit sharing has been working for a very long time...but it's only offered to a select few.

 

[JustAGuy1]

How do you square this circle: The structure and legal basis of the modern MAGA corporation bears a great deal of resemblance to feudal estates, and this reality is at odds in an era that claims to value democracy over the Divine Right of Kings?

Warren has a plan:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) S. 3348 is a proposed federal bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.

"It would require that employees elect 40% of a board of directors of any corporation with over $1 billion in tax receipts, and that 75% of shareholders and directors must approve any political spending.

"Corporations with revenue over $1 billion would be required to obtain a federal corporate charter.

"The Act contains a 'constituency statute' that would give directors a duty of 'creating a general public benefit' with regard to a corporation's stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the environment, and the interests of the enterprise in the long-term.[1]"

The US is among a minority of OECD countries that gives no representation to the workforce (majority) in corporate governance.

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

Now her Accountable Capitalism Act demands that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

Are you calling Lizzie mommy now? What is wrong with you people? Need the Gov to take of you.

 

[georgephillip]

I get the impression courts are underfunded, like much of government. Perhaps some elements aren't paying their fair share?

Corporations fracking US tax code

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

 

[georgephillip]

What explains the racial disparity in US prisons?

Jim Crow or redlining?

Or.... people that commit violence crimes end up prison?

People who commit non-violent crimes end up in prison too. And that's the problem. The regulatory state might seem invisible to people with a regular income. It's just an expense of life that they write off. But when you're dead broke, it's damned hard to stay legal. The system pushes the poor into state dependency by regulating away their right to look out for themselves.

I've been poor most of my life. I have never found it 'hard to stay legal'. If you want to buy something you don't have money for.... Wendy's is hiring. Work. Earn money, and buy what you want.

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

So what is the point?

And yes non-violent crime sometimes end up in prison, I get that. But you can't tell me, that the majority of people in prison, are not there because they committed a crime. And if they committed a crime, then that is why they are in prison.

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

Prove it. Prove that black people are sent to prison on little to no evidence. Prove it.
I actually know a public defender, and he was darn good at his job, and I never heard him complain he didn't have the resources to help people.

Prove it. Prove that black people are sent to prison on little to no evidence. Prove it.
I actually know a public defender, and he was darn good at his job, and I never heard him complain he didn't have the resources to help people.

What's the caseload of your (alleged) acquaintance?

Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System | The Sentencing Project

"The United States criminal justice system is the largest in the world. At yearend 2015, over 6.7 million individuals1) were under some form of correctional control in the United States, including 2.2 million incarcerated in federal, state, or local prisons and jails.2)

"The U.S. is a world leader in its rate of incarceration, dwarfing the rate of nearly every other nation.3)

"Such broad statistics mask the racial disparity that pervades the U.S. criminal justice system, and for African Americans in particular.

"African Americans are more likely than white Americans to be arrested; once arrested, they are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, and they are more likely to experience lengthy prison sentences.

"African-American adults are 5.9 times as likely to be incarcerated than whites and Hispanics are 3.1 times as likely.4)

"As of 2001, one of every three black boys born in that year could expect to go to prison in his lifetime, as could one of every six Latinos—compared to one of every seventeen white boys.5)

"Racial and ethnic disparities among women are less substantial than among men but remain prevalent."

In a country founded by white supremacists, why would any thinking adult doubt the existence of racial discrimination in its criminal justice system?

 

[georgephillip]

You didn't answer why a senior after working for 40-50 years, should be required to stand on her feet for forty hours a week after retiring? Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Yeah, I kind of skipped over that, because it was a dumb question.

How about because they don't want to be homeless? Or how about because they don't want to starve to death?

Those seem like normal answers for why all people of any age, tend to work.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

But the real reason I ignored your question, is because it was irrelevant to the topic.

The average Social Security check is $1300 a month. That means 50% of all those on Social Security, get LESS than $1300 a month. In short, if you intend to retire on Social Security, then you intend to be impoverished until you die.

And by the way, the most likely way that they will "fix" Social Security, is by raising the retirement age. Again, you people seem to ignore a fundamental called "math".

Again, no system on the face of the Earth has avoided this problem.... the problem of "math".

Take Greece for example. The average pension in Greece is just $960 a month. Yet the Greek government, even with drastically higher taxes than the US, went bankrupt.

The idea the younger generation of workers, are just going to pay out so the older generation can be lazy.... is just simply not how life works.

My personal opinion on whether an older person should be required to work or not, doesn't matter. What matters is math. There is no money for old people to not work. Unless they want to be impoverished for life. Which is what we've seen.

Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Well, I doubt I'll ever get old enough to see your side of this argument, because I grew up in a family were work ethic was part of being a morally good Christian person.

My parents both continued to work into their 70s. In fact after they retired TWICE.... they still work. My parents have always been productive. Ironically now that they are both millionaires, they keep working. They honestly could hire people to serve them martinis on a beach for the rest of their life, and never run out of money. But instead, both of them are still working full time positions at different jobs even now.

So no, I don't think I'll ever get to the point myself, where I just sit at home, like a bloated leach on the butt of society, sucking away money from working people. I just don't see that in my future.

The only exception to that, would be if I literally am physically unable to work. And I have sympathy for those who are physically unable to work. My entire discussion asumes able bodied people. If you are able to work, I think you should, unless you are living off your own saved money.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

We were discussing a senior who had already worked forty to fifty years. Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?