"corporate occupied territory"

[krossfyter]

Naders got me thinking a lot about this aspect of politics. How bad is it up there? Is it really all that bad or has he created a bigger issue then there really is?

Nader has in his mind that corporate = satan I believe. I'm not naive enough to think for a second that corporations do not do bad thinks... i know they do... but how many do good things?... and wheres the evidence to wiegh out if they are doing more harm then good? I know corporations do things for charity... so i heard... so i assume. Is that it? Corporations employ millions of people and many of them donate millions of dollars to charity every year.

If Nader goes to washington is he going to kick out all the corporations out of politics?


I'm unclear on why Nader is making a broad case like this.

Just how legitimite is this asserstion that he is making?



help if possible thanks.

[krossfyter]

anybody like to have a go at this one?


did i ask to hard/complex of a question?

[IJ Reilly]

Nader believes that the US government should not be run as a subsidiary of corporate America, and he is correct to say that this is the situation as it exists today. I agree, which is why I voted for him in 2000.

[krossfyter]

is there any hard evidence indicating that the government is more so serving corporate america as opposed to the other way around? i need some facts.

say if he does become president (which is highly unlikely) how does he plan to fix this?



thanks man... that helps a little.

[DavisBAnimal]

Yeah, I mean, Nader is very vocal against "corporate interests" and "unpatriotic corporations" and on and on down the line, but I don't know I would characterize his position as one being "no corporations" but really one of hoping for increased corporate accountability.

Look at his editorial here:
http://www.essential.org/features/corporatesocialism.html

He's calling for increased shareholder control, lessened reliance on corporate interests in the government, and a push for more corporate responsibility. I'm not sure he wants to eliminate corporations, just take the scandle out.

Davis

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by krossfyter
is there any hard evidence indicating that the government is more so serving corporate america as opposed to the other way around? i need some facts.


This isn't a question a group of mac-addicts on a web forum are going to be able to suffinciently answer with a handful of web links. If you're really interested, I suggest reading "Corporation Nation" by Charles Derber:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031225461X/qid=1077580221//ref=pd_ka_1/002-6247541-2570408?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It's a great read, and a great summary of what is wrong with the current corporate structure, and what can be done to reform it (step 1: reverse the 19th century Supreme Court decision that granted corporations constitutional status as a human being).

Davis

[DavisBAnimal]

From the man himself:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312302584/ref=pd_sim_books_1/002-6247541-2570408?v=glance&s=books

[krossfyter]

thanks DavisBAnimal for your help.

some say whats most dangerous about nader is that he is naive especially about military and foreign affairs. does he hate the military? is his foreign policy basically to send flowers to all the nations?

doesnt it say he will cut the military budget by 50 percent? i heard that he thinks its bloated.... so its 50 percent bloated?

[IJ Reilly]

I posted a link to this program a few days ago.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/

Here also is the introduction to the show, which I highly recommend.

It was one of corporate America's biggest hidden profit centers in the past decade -- the tax shelter -- and it became so lucrative that last year it helped major U.S. companies cut their tax rate to just half of what they had historically paid, leaving individual taxpayers to make up the difference.

The General Accounting Office estimates that illegitimate tax shelters cost the government more than $85 billion in recent years.

"Anything that's not being paid that should be paid, that's basically what the honest taxpayer is making up," asserts Charles Rossotti, a Republican businessman who became commissioner of Internal Revenue in 1997 and spent five years battling bogus shelters. Rossotti estimates that because the government is not collecting all that is owed -- the biggest piece of which is illegitimate tax shelters -- everyone else is paying 15 percent more than they should.

In "Tax Me If You Can," FRONTLINE correspondent Hedrick Smith investigates the rampant abuse of tax shelters since the late 1990s. Through interviews with government officials, tax experts, and industry insiders, Smith uncovers an avalanche of bogus transactions -- created by some of America's biggest and most-respected accounting firms, law firms, and investment banks -- that were then aggressively marketed to big corporations and wealthy individuals.

"These were close to sham transactions -- some were clearly sham transactions, [that] had nothing to do with investment," says John "Buck" Chapoton, former treasury department policymaker in the Reagan administration. "They simply were financial mechanisms for creating losses -- tax losses, not economic losses."

FRONTLINE's Smith notes, "Chasing bogus tax shelters for the IRS was like a game of cat and mouse. The IRS had a terrible time finding them because they were hidden deep in tax returns. Once the IRS spotted one type of shelter and issued a regulation to block it, the shelter promoters had designed a new one. The IRS was forever playing catch-up."

To overcome this problem, Rossotti argues that Congress must now enact sweeping legislation to ban any tax shelters that do not have legitimate business purpose. And he warns of the danger of inaction.

"I think this thing is going to rebound in a serious way as the economy improves," Rossotti tells FRONTLINE. "The fundamental drivers of this are still there. It's still a very profitable business for the promoters. The law is still way too weak and too murky."

In "Tax Me If You Can," Smith follows the tax shelter trail to some surprising places. Smith discovers that sewer pipes in the city of Bochum, Germany, for example, have offered a huge tax write-off to the major American bank Wachovia, of Charlotte, NC.

It was a deal that Bochum city officials couldn't refuse: Through a complex, long-term lease-and-service transaction, the city would lease out its underground sewer pipes to Wachovia for $500 million. The city would then immediately lease the pipes back, thus retaining use of its sewer system, and repay the lease over a period of many years. In return, Bochum was immediately paid a $20 million fee. Wachovia would eventually get its money back -- plus a fast, multi-million-dollar tax write-off.

Wachovia declined to be interviewed by FRONTLINE. But working with Wachovia's annual reports, Robert McIntyre, director of the Institute for Taxation and Finance, details the payoff to Wachovia's bottom line from many leasing deals similar to the Bochum transaction.

"Amazingly, in 2002 -- even though it reported $4 billion in profits -- [Wachovia] reported that it didn't pay any taxes," McIntyre tells FRONTLINE. "They worked it by sheltering all of their income. They said they saved $3 billion in taxes over the last three years from leasing -- huge write-offs."

"Tax Me If You Can" also reveals how some of America's most respected accounting firms drove the tax shelter wave, generating dozens of shelters that were mass marketed and then found to be illegitimate by the IRS and the courts. In the documentary, Smith speaks with a former tax attorney for KPMG, who describes how the firm's accountants and attorneys were ordered by KPMG tax executives to design -- and market aggressively -- as many tax shelters as possible, since the firm made a profit based on how much it saved its clients in taxes.

KPMG declined to speak to FRONTLINE. But recently the firm fired and/or retired several of its leading tax partners who had overseen KPMG's tax shelter operation, after they had been called to testify in a congressional investigation. And on Feb. 19, the company announced that federal prosecutors have launched an investigation related to "certain tax strategies" no longer offered by the firm.

"Tax Me If You Can" concludes by reporting that while the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate has passed broad tax shelter reform legislation, both the Bush administration and private sector companies, such as accounting and leasing firms, oppose a Senate-backed provision requiring that shelters have economic substance and genuine business purpose to be legal. The House of Representatives has so far declined to pass such legislation, which remains bottled up in the Ways and Means Committee.

"You're talking about powerful accounting firms, powerful legal firms, powerful investment bankers in a conspiracy to promote these tax shelters," declares Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who sponsored the Senate bill. "They also have a fourth arm. They hire some of the most powerful lobbyists in town to work against this legislation."

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I posted a link to this program a few days ago.


i think i know why my investments did so well last year.

[Desertrat]

Another one of those things for which I've found no satisfying answer has to do with consumers and corporate taxes. the income taxes on profits, anyhow. Isn't the consumer the actual payer of these taxes? If a corporation wants to have some profit margin, after taxes are paid, wouldn't it adjust its prices accordingly? Would not a group of competing corporations do the same, for all that they are competing-price conscious?

It seems to me that if corporations paid no taxes at all on profits, their prices would be lower by roughly that amount. (Again, marketplace competition.) Sort of a six of one, a half-dozen of the other deal. You as an individual consumer would pay a bit more, if the government had to have the tax money, but you would pay less at the checkout counter.

After all, no corporation has any money except as they sell a product. Same deal for government; a government has no money except as it takes your money in the form of taxes.

'Rat

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Another one of those things for which I've found no satisfying answer has to do with consumers and corporate taxes. the income taxes on profits, anyhow. Isn't the consumer the actual payer of these taxes? If a corporation wants to have some profit margin, after taxes are paid, wouldn't it adjust its prices accordingly? Would not a group of competing corporations do the same, for all that they are competing-price conscious?

It seems to me that if corporations paid no taxes at all on profits, their prices would be lower by roughly that amount. (Again, marketplace competition.) Sort of a six of one, a half-dozen of the other deal. You as an individual consumer would pay a bit more, if the government had to have the tax money, but you would pay less at the checkout counter.

After all, no corporation has any money except as they sell a product. Same deal for government; a government has no money except as it takes your money in the form of taxes.

'Rat

That's a reall nice theory, but I just don't think it works like that. I think if you take away the tax dollars the prices stay the same, cause, hey, profit motive, more profit with same prices and lower taxes. I think people trust too much in these coporations and in the system.

Maybe I'm wrong, but when all those car companies moved their factories to Mexico to take advantage of the cheaper labor, did the car prices go down, or did the raw profits of the company go up along with the pay rates of the executives?

I feel the same way about deregulation. Seems like a nice theory, the market should work itself out, be the best for the consummer, but everytime they deregulate up here my damn phone bill get higher! What gives?

Davis

[IJ Reilly]

Philosophical questions about taxation are separate and apart from the issue of corporations engaging in fraudulent schemes to avoid paying taxes which have been lawfully assessed, while Congress looks the other way. We were challenged to come up with an example of Congress selling out to corporations. This is just one of them.

[Desertrat]

Davis, I gotta argue with you about deregulation. I called home from Korea in 1954; $12.00 per minute. When companies are begging you to buy their long distance phone service for a nickel a minute in the U.S., I gotta compare that with the old-days rates of 40 and 50 cents per minute.

In 1975, the going price for regulated natural gass was $4 per 1,000 cubic feet. After deregulation, almost overnight the price fell to $2.

BAck to Nader: I happened to hear a radio talkshow called "For the People"; a guy named Chuck Harder from White City, Florida. He had Nader on as a guest, for a lengthy discussion period.

It was a love fest of conspiracy theory. "They" are trying to wreck the US economy with things like NAFTA and GATT. (Why those who see us as their primary market would want to wreck our buying power escapes me.)

Note that "Unsafe At Any Speed" was primarily about a car which was no longer in production, and wasn't nearly as bad as Nader made it sound. But, it gave him fame and publicity, and he became the Grand Guru of consumer safety. He apparently never found a "protection" law or regulation he didn't like, and I long ago coined the word "Naderism" to express an idea: If we pass enough laws and write enough regulations, we'll all live in a nice, warm, safe swaddling-cloth world. One aspect of this, of course, is that costs be damned . Another is that you are too stupid and government must protect you from yourself.

While some degree of consumer protection is indeed a Good Thing, a side-effect is that personal security from all hazards has become a shibboleth in this country. And that, chilluns, is why we have so many people willing to trade liberty and personal sovereignty for government's protection agains terrorism.

So, while I share Nader's concerns to some degree on many subjects, I damned well don't need Big Nanny to watch over me.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat, if you check out his website, votenader.org, you will see he's promoting a platform that goes far beyond consumer protection issues. If you want to criticize Nader, perhaps you should criticize him for the stands he is taking today, not for a book he wrote 40 years ago.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Another one of those things for which I've found no satisfying answer has to do with consumers and corporate taxes. the income taxes on profits, anyhow. Isn't the consumer the actual payer of these taxes? If a corporation wants to have some profit margin, after taxes are paid, wouldn't it adjust its prices accordingly? Would not a group of competing corporations do the same, for all that they are competing-price conscious?

It seems to me that if corporations paid no taxes at all on profits, their prices would be lower by roughly that amount. (Again, marketplace competition.) Sort of a six of one, a half-dozen of the other deal. You as an individual consumer would pay a bit more, if the government had to have the tax money, but you would pay less at the checkout counter.

After all, no corporation has any money except as they sell a product. Same deal for government; a government has no money except as it takes your money in the form of taxes.

'Rat

That theory relies on a disinterested perfectly tuned marketplace which does not and can not exist. Take your apple computer, is it cheaper now than it was 2 years ago? Have not corporate profits gone way up in the last year while general wages remained stagnent? If there is uncertainty in the oil market prices at the pump rise immediately but when crude oil prices fall it takes 2 months for prices at the pump to fall.

Prices might fall IF the CEO feels like lowering them. Why should I have to make up the difference in my payroll taxes just hoping for cheaper Fritos? What if I do not consume a lot of products? Why does my economy of means, if the position you are holding is that cheaper corporate tax is balanced by cheaper products, mean the I get less benefit than someone who buys every latest do-dad?

THere's the theory and then there's reality.

[Desertrat]

wwworry, lemme try one more time: Corporate profits may be up, but when measured as "profitability" or return on investment, they suck. They've been in the toilet for over twenty years. Why else are corporations moving their operations out of the U.S.? 'Cause the stockholders are POed, that's why; they ain't making no money from dividends.

P/E is a measure: Price to earnings ratio. The S&P 500 averages 30. That's 3.3% gross profits before taxes.

Say it cost you $1,000 a month for all necessary expenses. Call these your "cost of doing business". Your monthly income is $1,033, or a 3.3% return: Your P/E ratio is 30. You're in deep doodoo, and move to Mexico for a lower cost of living...

IJ, I am fully aware that Nader is interested in many things beyond consumer protection. However, he wants government to expand its powers in all these many things; he always has. You cannot have such expansion without increasing the police powers of all government, whether the SEC or OSHA or the TSA, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad vomitum. Haven't Clinton and Bush done enough of that?

I'm fed up with all this "I'm gonna save you!" scare-tactic stuff. Lyndon ws gonna save us from poverty. Duh? Several trillion bucks later, and? "We need a strong military and counter espionage!" Okay. Several trillion dollars later; hey! Where's the WTC? "We need better education!" A gazillion federal bucks later and Johnny can't make change or read a ruler.

Right now, I sorta think I'd be happy with a bunch of non-compassionate folks who are mostly isolationist in their thinking. Not necessarily for the long haul, but I need a break from all this do-good stuff that's wrecked the economics of us and a lot of the rest of the world.

I don't know whether to write in Ron Paul or Howdy Doody, but all the other options are worse.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat, as I've said, I'm not going to vote for Nader this year, but that doesn't change the fact that he's raising issues that nobody else in the race has the guts to even mention, the most serious of which IMO is the corporatization of the US government. I don't necessarily have to buy into any Nader package beyond this, let alone defend or excuse everything the man has ever said over his 40 years in public life.

[Desertrat]

Sure, there's no doubt that Nader has and will address issues the others will run from. But, so did David Duke. :)

I totally disrecall the science fiction novel from back in the 1950s that addressed the issue of "Corporate America" as de facto becoming the government. One of Kornbluth's? Anyhow, the thing to remember is that so long as government gets ever more involved in business, the people in business will lobby as hard as they can afford, to either avoid more regulation, or change the format to their benefit. The pace and effort of the lobbying have been steadily increasing over these last forty or so years that I've been watching.

But where are you gonna find the "best and brightest"? In the public sector, or in the private sector? I'd bet on the latter, and I'd bet the brightest usually win.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

I'd answer your question, but I can't get beyond your comparison of Ralph Nader to klansman. That is truly offensive.