Hillary Clinton running on the Communist party ticket

As was pointed out earlier, it's called taxation. The government plays a VERY big role in determining what -- within a large realm of possibilities, granted -- I can spend my income on.

If you don't want the profits touched, then tax the fuck out of them to help pay for this research and implementation.

 

So in theory, the federal government could take every dollar anyone earns over $20,000 in a year. And since they have the right to lay taxes, we're left with nothing to do but give them a standing ovation.

Okay, it's an extreme example, but there's such a thing as fair taxation, and the way Hillary lays it out, I don't think this qualifies. She didn't say "tax" their profits. She said "take" them. Which, without clarification, sounds like she thinks it's wrong that oil companies are allowed to have any profit at all.

Could be that she didn't really enunciated her thought properly, but on its face, a potentially scary belief.

 

I hope Madison and Hamilton enjoy their collective stroke. In fact, I'd like to add to it.

I certainly think it IS appropriate to tax one industry more than another. More than fair, in fact. And if you think it doesn't already happen, I can refer you to several hundred pieces of legislation that gives certain industries breaks while others get none. I can't believe you aren't already familiar with the concept.

If the automotive industry were responsible for X percentage of the pollution generated in the U.S., a percentage higher than the telecommunications industry, then yes, I say it's perfectly appropriate to have them pay a higher rate (or get less of a tax cut/break). If the gas/automotive industry knows there's a way to implement reasonably priced alternative-fueled vehicles on a MASS PRODUCTION scale, then I'd be willing to give them a tax break in that implementation, or raise their taxes to help fund that. Since both industries are responsible for an incredible amount of impact on the environment, I'd have zero problem with that.

And by the way, Madison and Hamilton are both dead, so who really gives a swut if either of them have a "collective stroke?"

 

The only thing I can think of, and this is at the state level, so it's a different ballgame, is cigarette taxes.

 

Ragu & MM,

NICE posts - this is good to see especially from Democrat/Liberals.

It is comforting that SOME are not willing to be sheep led to slaughter and care about their liberty and freedom.

Alright, lot to cover here & honestly it would take to long today (being SB and all) to lay the foundation to deal with AA.

But here is a quick overview

Yes, their is unfair/uneven "taxation" of industries in a few ways

1.) You are right that tax credits are gov's ways of picking winners & losers and impact overall tax rate/burden on industries. All things being equal if you tax more of something you get more of it & if you tax less you get less.

2.) Gov also does this to foreign firms in the form of tariffs (ask our Canadian friends how much they dig our lumber tariffs & how fair those are).

3.) A big way there is uneven taxation is through regulation, fees, and difficult compliance. Not only does this cost more it also reduces the amount of competition in a sector by raising the barriers to entry. Thus, all things being equal, hurting the consumer more by pushing up pricing and reducing choices.

4.) Consumption &/or taxes (on cigs & gas for example but not on most food) hurts consumers and hurts the industry. By increasing the price on something you are messing around with the supply/demand curve. The harm of which is passed off to BOTH the consumer and industry (less ppl buy = less profits, etc.)

Now, without getting into reasons (good and bad) why you want to do the above (as that would take too long) suffice it to say Ragu & MM are right.

You ARE picking winners and losers & that is a MAJOR blow to freedom & liberty for us all. You cheer when it is something you want, but I don't as it hurts us all. Today it may be something you want and tomorrow they could come after you or your industry.

Moreover, as Ragu & MM point out - show me a case where the gov got it right & were more efficient than the market?

It is the sad case that many gov programs don't work well, yet spend huge amounts of out money all while the bureaucracies grow and grow with no end.

Continued below

 

Continued from above

So, the cliff-note version of this is you need gov, we know that, but you need it only in certain areas in certain ways. In other words the question is how do you use gov the least and in what instances is gov action in the market needed.

That is another huge topic but typically speaking you are talking about areas of externalities (pollution for instance), monopolies, or asymmetric information (lemon laws and the like).

The other Q is when you ID areas of Gov intervention HOW do you have the gov come in?

Well, you could do what you propose AA - anyone who pollutes more than X is shut down or fined heavy.

Alright, that is one approach, but not really the best/most efficient.

Often market solutions are a MUCH better answer.

For instance, what about having tradeable pollution rights (like credits) that you pay for if one firm is more efficient then they can sell some to another firm, etc. The most efficient firms get the most money, but you also don't shut down firms that may be needed in country that emit just over the gov standard. Plus, this then sets up a vibrant pollution abatement industry as now private companies can make money helping companies abate pollution (as opposed to set limit of pollution where you have no incentive to reduce below the set level)

Thus, the net effect of that program is most econ efficient AND environmentally friendly. Best of both worlds. Now that is smart.

So, when gov PICKS winners and losers it is usually disaster for ALL of us & we lose our freedoms & liberties. That is a nightmare.

What we should want is gov to set up the best least restrictive playing field possible, then things work out for the best.

Take cars for instance ppl don't like paying for gas & don't want to pollute. Just look at the popularity of hybrids. I know you think that the "Big Three" (that just changed by the way - lol) have this huge conspiracy going on and all that. Maybe, but I really doubt it.

One thing I do know is all these companies compete on a global level and there are MANY alternative fuels in the works. I know plenty of VC's funding and companies developing alternative fuels, engines, and vehicles. This is part of my business. These are some of the deals I work on every day.

The point is once a cool car comes out that runs on water - plain H2O (and they are working on it) how many ppl are going to want that? Everybody. They all know that and want to capture that market.

Yeah, that will hurt the oil companies but they will still be selling oil for dif stuff. Such is capitalism.

If you think gov is so damn efficient, just ask those Katrina victims how their gov relief is coming (and the gov is trying really hard), or ask the taxpayers (us) how we feel about the over $1B in fraud that got handed to us since we handed out those $2K debit cards like that were candy at Halloween down there.

JDV

 

Comrade Clinton arrives at Exxon Headquarters, brandishing her manifesto - "two chickens in every pot, a flying car in every garage, and a reprint of the 1917 Excess Profits Tax Law."






http://www.bartleby.com/65/ex/excesspr.html

 

When did Ragu become a liberal?

 

Ragu's a libertarian, which means that the "liberal-conservative" line graph doesn't work well for placing his politics. Don't know about Ragu specifically, but many libertarians are social liberals and economic conservatives.