Posted on 03/21/2006 11:37:40 PM PST by Nasty McPhilthy
You want corporate taxes to be 100%?
I'm not an MBA type, but I like business history. Corporations have limited life spans for one reason or another. Sometimes they morph into other companies, like Chrysler, and sometimes they kind of fall apart, like ITT (a corporate giant in the 1950s and 1960s). Railroads were once powerful corporation in America.
So, probably not. They don't live forever like the robot in Terminator.
Mmmm... If form holds from the automotive industry, Jim's R&D team will not be able to keep up fast enough. They'll be put out of business, or purchased by a foreign entity who will either re-employ Jim's staff for a pittance, or lay them off outright. The Chinese gain further advantage, and are better able to advance their form of socialist totalitarianism (across our borders, if we don't wise-up).
Money is power. Technology is as well.
Not looking for a flounder in a tree, at all. I'd just rather put down a rabid dog than have myself or family bit. I personally consider America my extended family. Probably a bit sappy, but that's just me. Old Yeller's death was sad, but it had to be done for the safety of the family, and indeed for the good of the pooch itself.
Unfortunately 'Old Yeller' in this case weighs something on the order of 800lbs, and we've nothing to assault it with but sling-shots and ambition. This last row over the DPW deal has obviously gotten his attention (not in a good way). We'll just have to keep reloading until the beast falls. The other option isn't pretty.
And since you neglected to bother with anything else I posted, I can only surmise that you can't.
"You want corporate taxes to be 100%?"
Heavens no!
I misunderstood your 40% number if that was taxes rather than the percentage of net-profit that actually stayed in-country.
No doubt you are an American who considers himself both a good citizen and patriotic. I consider myself the same. I believe this is something to be admired. However, I don't hold corporations to the same standards as I hold people.
China is set to offer its first car in the U.S. Probably within the next year or so. We'll see how that goes.
Are you aware that "day traders" don't always buy and sell financial instruments the same day?
No, if you are "one little guy", you have NO say in how corporations are run, nor in the day to day operations of any company/corporation!
Thanks for the suggestion; it sounds like a good book! :-)
Charles Dickens used Mayhew's books, to help flesh out many of his characters ( especially in OLIVER TWIST )and to add verisimilitude to his underworld types.
Please explain that to my paternal Grandfather. He's dead. Died from lung cancer brought-on by smoking tobacco (onset was 5 years after he'd quit in 1972). Ripe old age of 55, he was. Family history of cancer? Nope. Did he commit suicide, or was he poisoned? You make the call...
Philip Morris execs publicly insisting that there were no health hazards involved in smoking tobacco up until the late '70's. (As of 1961, they already had strong scientific evidence that tar was a carcinogen). Tobacco was even readily available to children in retail outlets at that point in time.
No different than if they'd served him a strychnine-tainted cocktail, and assured him it was safe. It wasn't 100% sure to kill him, but it did.
Not all smokers die from smoking and most assuredly, not all smokers get lung cancer.
Belated condolences on the death of your grandfather, but please don't use his death, for refutation.
"Not all smokers die from smoking"
Ah... but a good many do. I really haven't much sypmpathy for those nowadays. It's widely known and publicly admitted by the Tobacco Industry. It wasn't back then.
Don't you know that Nuevo Free Trade-ism requires that everyone worship the dogma that, among other things, requires its adherents to believe and chant:
It was WIDELY known, MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED YEARS AGO that smoking tobacco was "harmful". I suggest that YOU need to do a lot more reading about historical things. :-)
You really are quite out of your depth here.
Now we approach the crux of the matter. Whether it is removing the shield from liability of shareholders, or banning the manufacture of "ephedrinates," you are suggesting a course of action that requires a greater level of collectivism1. Yet in your mind, "The modern multi-national corporation is a form of collectivism." [emphasis added]
Personally, I am curious to see what word you would use to describe the method of achieving the outcome you seek. Steve Forbes' distinction between "collectivists" and "free-marketers" is central to his essay, and he probably couldn't imagine anyone who would disagree with his terminology. He would be astounded to discover that, according to you, he got it completely backward: the free-marketers are the collectivists.
_____
1col·lec·tiv·ism
Function: noun
: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
That's right, you heard it correctly, our government gets a cut of that U.S. ping-pong ball plant in Shanghai. There are any number of ways to limit that tax liability, but not eliminate it. I can explain how, for a fee.
I did too. I agree, he would have made a fine President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.