Harmful tax competition?

[Voltron]

http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/conf11.gif

BERLIN – In two days of closed-door meetings recently, an international bureaucracy of industrialized nations—whose membership is dominated by “old Europe”—was attempting to “persuade” low-tax nations to raise taxes and eviscerate financial privacy.

The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which receives some $50 million annually from U.S. taxpayers, has for six years pushed for eliminating what it calls “harmful tax competition”—which can be best described as any policy that undermines the ability of welfare states like France, Belgium, and Germany to maintain extraordinarily high tax rates.

The stated goal of this project is to stamp out so-called “tax havens”—jurisdictions that have appealing tax and privacy laws, and thus attract investment capital and business from high-tax regions, primarily European welfare states. The OECD even has a blacklist, and has threatened these jurisdictions with financial protectionism.

The problem, at least from the OECD perspective, is that the jurisdictions they are targeting insist that they shouldn’t be forced to surrender their fiscal sovereignty until all nations and territories agree to the same policy.

This “level playing field” requirement puts the Paris-based bureaucracy in a quandary since member countries such as Switzerland, Luxembourg, and even the United States, are tax havens under the OECD’s standards. Each has little to no taxes on non-resident investors, and those foreign investors generally can structure their affairs to avoid the reporting of their financial information to home country tax authorities.

Hah --- France thinks the USA has low tax rates. http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif

Yet the OECD has been unsuccessful to date in “persuading” its own tax haven members to adopt bad tax policy, in part because it is much more polite when dealing with its own member nations. There are no threats of protectionism and no blacklist. The bureaucrats apparently realize the futility in fighting nations that can fight back.

So it is little wonder that smaller nations like Panama and the Bahamas felt unduly picked upon when their supposed sin is adopting rules for foreign investment modeled on those of several OECD members.

Representatives from several low-tax countries on the OECD’s hit list attended the free market event and told this journalist afterward that they had heard more than enough to convince them that the OECD was not playing fair. And over the next two days, they stood their ground.

It appears that the OECD conference was doomed from the start. Small countries not privileged enough to be included in the OECD were determined not to cave, particularly since OECD members like Switzerland probably never will. The affair, ironically, was not terribly contentious, as low-tax nations politely smiled and nodded, but in the end, brushed off the tax cartel’s entreaties.

Plunking down $50 million a year should buy a lot of influence, yet for some reason, the White House has stayed largely passive, allowing Treasury Department officials to give the OECD more or less free rein to push tax policy that is clearly antithetical to President Bush’s well-stated beliefs.

And if a fierce tax cutting Bush administration can’t thwart the OECD’s expanding mission, then what might happen under a President Kerry or (heaven forbid) a President Clinton?

The OECD would like nothing more than for the U.S. to end its status as the world’s largest “tax haven”—there is roughly $5 trillion in passive foreign investment sitting inside the United States, capital that generally can avoid being taxed by any government.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/jm20040621.shtml

If we are such a tax haven how many businesses from Europe have outsourced their manufacturing product to our country? And why is it businesses have to put their HQ's over seas to escape from our overburdened taxes?http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/new_icecream.gif

[Desertrat]

For your first question, I note that BMW, Mercedes and Toyota have assembly plants here--and are building more--in order to have a greater net-profit benefit. The production is for the US market, of course.

As for the other, corporations move their headquarters offshore to go from some given tax structure to a lesser-cost structure. While we might be lower-tax than France, that doesn't mean US rates are as low as in the Bahamas.

You have two forces at work in the world: Those who want to keep as much of their money as they can; and those who want to tax them for some social purpose. It's only common sense to figure out a way to avoid this latter group.

:), 'Rat

[takao]

If we are such a tax haven how many businesses from Europe have outsourced their manufacturing product to our country?

funny how chrylser produces their cars in austria....(which has higher tax rates than germany) ?
many comapnies pay higher taxes here than in germany but there are still maufacturing here
guess who is the biggest railway track manufactuer of europe (and after a recent purchase even in the _US_) ? voest linz...still paying taxes in austria...


comparing luxemburg,lichtenstein to US is kinda way off the topic about 'tax paradises'
many companies profit from the austrian/german/french infrastructure of very good roads/railways etc. which are paid by taxes from citizents...so citizent have to pay taxes for those companies if they just open a bureau in lichtenstein ?

imagine GM would say "we have a bureau in lichtenstein so we don't pay any taxes anymore" ....

yeah and the US is far from being a tax heaven ... there are places where there are _zero_ taxes..... and thats the problem not some 10% tax difference

[wwworry]

My problem is the way mega-corp plays states and municipalities off eachother to get "special" tax deals. Only the big ones have the clout to do this so everyone else ends up paying for either their special deal here or their special deal across the state border.

All perfectly leagal of course, but unfortunate.

[skunk]

comparing luxemburg,lichtenstein to US is kinda way off the topic about 'tax paradises'
many companies profit from the austrian/german/french infrastructure of very good roads/railways etc. which are paid by taxes from citizents...so citizent have to pay taxes for those companies if they just open a bureau in lichtenstein ?

imagine GM would say "we have a bureau in lichtenstein so we don't pay any taxes anymore" ....
Ford UK does route sales through Lichtenstein to avoid UK taxes.

[Desertrat]

You don't need tax havens, although they can save a lot of money. Toyota for years worked quite a deal for its US sales. Toyota of Japan sold to an allegedly independent Toyota of the US. ToyUS operated at a thin profit margin, as it "paid" much higher prices to ToyJ than a Ford dealer would have paid FoMoCo. ToyJ avoided being in an ownership position of a highly profitable US sales arm which would have paid US taxes on the profits.

'Rat

[skunk]

You don't need tax havens, although they can save a lot of money. Toyota for years worked quite a deal for its US sales. Toyota of Japan sold to an allegedly independent Toyota of the US. ToyUS operated at a thin profit margin, as it "paid" much higher prices to ToyJ than a Ford dealer would have paid FoMoCo. ToyJ avoided being in an ownership position of a highly profitable US sales arm which would have paid US taxes on the profits.

'Rat
Yeah, that was about the shape of the Ford deal, too.

[zimv20]

seems to me that, absent other factors, the prime motivation for moving a manufacturing base somewhere is low labor costs, not corporate tax structure.

[Chip NoVaMac]

http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/conf11.gif

Hah --- France thinks the USA has low tax rates. http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif

If we are such a tax haven how many businesses from Europe have outsourced their manufacturing product to our country? And why is it businesses have to put their HQ's over seas to escape from our overburdened taxes?http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/new_icecream.gif

Columnists are great to debate. But why waste the time? Where are your own thoughts from REAL news sources? You try and try again to bait people with this drivel. Some take the bait, some of us know better - sice teh only opinion that maters is the political ones that support yours.

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Voltron
Hah --- France thinks the USA has low tax rates.

If we are such a tax haven how many businesses from Europe have outsourced their manufacturing product to our country? And why is it businesses have to put their HQ's over seas to escape from our overburdened taxes?

[QUOTE=Chip NoVaMac]Columnists are great to debate. But why waste the time? Where are your own thoughts from REAL news sources? You try and try again to bait people with this drivel. Some take the bait, some of us know better - sice teh only opinion that maters is the political ones that support yours.
Are you saying that France doesn't think USA's taxes are too low?
Are you saying that information I imparted was wrong or lies?
And I guess discussion Europes increase in outsources is just drivel.

I didn't realize you controlled what could and what couldn't be discussed on these forums.

If it is the truth who freaken cares about the source.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Are you saying that France doesn't think USA's taxes are too low?
Are you saying that information I imparted was wrong or lies?

If it is the truth who freaken cares about the source.

I may think that the Uk taxes are too high from my US perspective. But then again i don't have the benefit of their "social services" that makes a difference to my way of life.

I had the opportunity to see the benefits of "socialized" medical care. My Dad served 20+ years in the military. Because of my student status I had military medical care available to me till 1979. It may not be perfect. But for those with health insurance, it is the only hope to maintain a productive lief for the betterment of the country as a whole.

I would personally prefer to see higher taxes and a better way of life than lower taxes, and only the rich being able to benefit.

[zimv20]

i'm unclear on who or what is the embodiment of "France." or does french soil hold an opinion?

[Voltron]

I would personally prefer to see higher taxes and a better way of life than lower taxes, and only the rich being able to benefit.
Here in the US the poor don't pay income tax. You have to make at least 15,000 dollars before you owe the government more than you get back in tax refunds. If you have kids that number goes up to something like 30,000 bucks. Guess what --- 30,000 bucks aint being poor.

Now how can you cut taxes to less than 0? Unless of course you want to have our government pay them simply for the priveledge of having them as citizens.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif Tax cuts help those who pay taxes. Who else would it freaken help?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Here in the US the poor don't pay income tax. You have to make at least 15,000 dollars before you owe the government more than you get back in tax refunds. If you have kids that number goes up to something like 30,000 bucks. Guess what --- 30,000 bucks aint being poor.

Now how can you cut taxes to less than 0? Unless of course you want to have our government pay them simply for the priveledge of having them as citizens.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif Tax cuts help those who pay taxes. Who else would it freaken help?

I really want to know where a family of three or four even can "live" on $30K a year in most of the country of the US. In the DC area 30K can barely make ends meet with apartments going for $850 to $1000 for an studio to one bedroom apartment. That equates to to under $600 a week at $30K before taxes!

A society can be judged on on it helps those that can not help themselves. And in the case of the US, we spend many more "real" dollars on helping those that don't have the means to support themselves than we do to help those within our own borders.

To those that point to those with money to invest. How do those jobs equate to a living wage? The Republicans want to give tax breaks to those that invest in America. Yet Republicans do not penalize those companies that move off shore. They reward "investors" that send jobs to other countries. They reward "investors" that create lower paying jobs. While boosting the standard of living overseas.

I challenge you to move to the DC area and see just how far as a single person you can make it on your own! To make it easier, maybe I should say NYC, SF, Chicago, or any other main US city!

Now if you are talking of the US "policy" of "rewarding" those that have more dependents than they can afford, that is a whole different topic.

For it brings to the front who should be punished. The parents who have too many children, or the children born to those parents that can not afford to have them?

[Voltron]

I really want to know where a family of three or four even can "live" on $30K a year in most of the country of the US. In the DC area 30K can barely make ends meet with apartments going for $850 to $1000 for an studio to one bedroom apartment. That equates to to under $600 a week at $30K before taxes!

?
A 3 bedroom 2 bath in a middle income neighborhood with good schools nearby cost my sister 625 bucks a month plus utilities etc. Port St. John Florida.

People who only make 30k a year shouldn't live in Washington DC, NY City, or the other high priced towns.

[Voltron]

A society can be judged on on it helps those that can not help themselves. And in the case of the US, we spend many more "real" dollars on helping those that don't have the means to support themselves than we do to help those within our own borders.


There is nothing wrong with charity.
There is something wrong with taking money from those who earn it at a point of a gun and giving it to those who don't.

Let say that you are considered righteous if you don't read porn magazines.
If Porn is free and freely available and you resist temptation then you are righteous. However, if it is illegal to have porn mags, and you can't get ahold of one no matter how hard you try that doesn't make you righteous. Being forced to abide by a moral standard does not make you moral.

Being forced to give to charity is not the same as giving charity of your own free will. You should not judge a society based on stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. However, nothing is wrong with judging a society based on individual gifting to those in need if it is done out of the goodness of their heart and not at the point of a gun held by the IRS enforcement agency.

[Voltron]

To those that point to those with money to invest. How do those jobs equate to a living wage? The Republicans want to give tax breaks to those that invest in America. Yet Republicans do not penalize those companies that move off shore. They reward "investors" that send jobs to other countries. They reward "investors" that create lower paying jobs. While boosting the standard of living overseas.


if it is not a livign wage than their employees would starve to death and die and they would be forced to pay more in order to insure their employees survive to work. Most companies realize keeping an employee alive is alot cheaper than retraining new employees. If you cannot survive on the wages that a particular employer is paying then don't work for that employer. He will raise his rates if necessary.

It is unfair if employers have to pay more than they make selling the product they manufacture and end up having to go out of business. Increases wages require increases in the cost of the goods they sell. Which makes it more expensive to buy those goods so we who don't work for that company can no longer afford their products and stop buying them and then the company goes bankrupt and now nobody has any job that pays any amount of money in that company. Unless of course that company was smart enough to outsource before they had to file bankruptcy.

[Voltron]

Now if you are talking of the US "policy" of "rewarding" those that have more dependents than they can afford, that is a whole different topic.

For it brings to the front who should be punished. The parents who have too many children, or the children born to those parents that can not afford to have them?
Are you recommending that we take away those children and stick them in orphanages? What about those parents who refuse to stop having kids, because its so much fun, or whatever reason they use?

[skunk]

However, nothing is wrong with judging a society based on individual gifting to those in need if it is done out of the goodness of their heart and not at the point of a gun held by the IRS enforcement agency.
What happens to "those in need" who don't find a sponsor?

[Voltron]

What happens to "those in need" who don't find a sponsor?
it is not the responsibility of the national government to insure to the needs of every single individual. It is their responsibility to regulate trade with other nations and to protect us with a well armed militia.

You can not be free to succeed if you are not also free to fail. It is not right to take from those who succeed, thus handicapping their ability to succeed, and give to those who fail. If they wish to give to charitably that should be their free choice to do so, not to do so at the point of a gun.

[skunk]

it is not the responsibility of the national government to insure to the needs of every single individual. It is their responsibility to regulate trade with other nations and to protect us with a well armed militia.

You can not be free to succeed if you are not also free to fail. It is not right to take from those who succeed, thus handicapping their ability to succeed, and give to those who fail. If they wish to give to charitably that should be their free choice to do so, not to do so at the point of a gun.
So your answer is? Let them starve to death?

[zimv20]

what's the opposite of a bleeding heart? a bleeding brain?

[skunk]

what's the opposite of a bleeding heart? a bleeding brain?
A bleeding stone?

[Voltron]

So your answer is? Let them starve to death?
If you don't think they should starve to death then there is no problem with you giving them a job, or you giving them money, nobody is stopping you.

[blackfox]

People who only make 30k a year shouldn't live in Washington DC, NY City, or the other high priced towns.
You conveniently ignore the fact that their poverty may preclude them from moving in the first place, or the fact that they might not be able to find comparable employment in another locale. Part of the reason some cities are so large is because of employment opportunities, which drew settlement. Why is it the people's fault? Does someone who earns 30K or less, less deseving or less hard-working? As society needs people to do menial work as well as well-paid professional work to function, why s**t on those who find themselves on the lower-end of the spectrum?
There is nothing wrong with charity.
There is something wrong with taking money from those who earn it at a point of a gun and giving it to those who don't.
This stance ignores the fact that economic success is not acheived in a vacuum. Society is the springboard that helps individuals acheive their earning potential, so it seems fair to have to give back to that which helped you get where you are. It is amazing how self-centered and myopic some people can be.

There is also the issue of Societal stability. Poverty breeds desperation and desperation can lead to some very extreme actions. It is in no-one's interest to abandon a segment of society, as they will not dissapear if they are merely ignored. The resultant problems will require solutions that would cost at least as much in fiscal terms as the "forced charity" you describe, as well as a substantial cost in terms of the moral and psychological health of the society. Even if we were to decide to put all the poor in Prison, that itself would cost an exorbidant amount, as the average cost for annual incarceration of an inmate in US Prisons is $21K, not taking into account the cost of building new prisons.

Is "forced charity" completely fair to the individual. No. It is, however, imo the best option to a healthy and successful society. It is not a matter of morality as it is of pragmatism.

[skunk]

If you don't think they should starve to death then there is no problem with you giving them a job, or you giving them money, nobody is stopping you.
Maybe I can't afford it.

[Voltron]

Maybe I can't afford it.
Then you don't have the right to go rip someone else off in order to give it to those who need it. Need is not a legal defense for theft.

[blackfox]

Then you don't have the right to go rip someone else off in order to give it to those who need it. Need is not a legal defense for theft.
Semantics is not a legal defense for being a selfish bastard.

[skunk]

Semantics is not a legal defense for being a selfish bastard.
Depends what you mean by "semantics"... :rolleyes:

[Desertrat]

blackfox said, "You conveniently ignore the fact that their poverty may preclude them from moving in the first place..."

Aha! We have no illegal alien problem! Their poverty precludes them from moving here!

Sorry. Sometimes my out-of-context button gets all spontaneous.

:D, 'Rat

[blackfox]

blackfox said, "You conveniently ignore the fact that their poverty may preclude them from moving in the first place..."

Aha! We have no illegal alien problem! Their poverty precludes them from moving here!

Sorry. Sometimes my out-of-context button gets all spontaneous.

:D, 'Rat
Good (albeit rhetorical) point, 'Rat...you're a cheeky one :)

[Frohickey]

You have two forces at work in the world: Those who want to keep as much of their money as they can; and those who want to tax them for some social purpose. It's only common sense to figure out a way to avoid this latter group.

:), 'Rat

Yeah.

Too bad we can't ship all the people in the 2nd group to their own little country. And then we will see how long they will be able to survive.

[Frohickey]

I would personally prefer to see higher taxes and a better way of life than lower taxes, and only the rich being able to benefit.

I would personally prefer to see lower taxes, and a better way of life than social spending programs for the unproductive, and only the productive people being able to improve their lot.

Growing up, mom had a nice saying when she tells me to set the table and I pout and grumble, "You don't work, you don't eat."

[Frohickey]

I really want to know where a family of three or four even can "live" on $30K a year in most of the country of the US. In the DC area 30K can barely make ends meet with apartments going for $850 to $1000 for an studio to one bedroom apartment. That equates to to under $600 a week at $30K before taxes!

A society can be judged on on it helps those that can not help themselves. And in the case of the US, we spend many more "real" dollars on helping those that don't have the means to support themselves than we do to help those within our own borders.

To those that point to those with money to invest. How do those jobs equate to a living wage? The Republicans want to give tax breaks to those that invest in America. Yet Republicans do not penalize those companies that move off shore. They reward "investors" that send jobs to other countries. They reward "investors" that create lower paying jobs. While boosting the standard of living overseas.

I challenge you to move to the DC area and see just how far as a single person you can make it on your own! To make it easier, maybe I should say NYC, SF, Chicago, or any other main US city!

Now if you are talking of the US "policy" of "rewarding" those that have more dependents than they can afford, that is a whole different topic.

For it brings to the front who should be punished. The parents who have too many children, or the children born to those parents that can not afford to have them?

I consider the base unit as the family. I'm not one to separate children from their parents or parents from their children. If you are making $30K a year, you should be responsible enough to not have created that family of 4. If you happen to have the family of 4, and your income suddenly dropped, you should have been responsible enough to have saved for that rainy day that you are in.

You are correct in that the mark of a good society is helping those that need help. But charity cannot be forced, nor should it be forced. Assistance should be voluntary, and not predatory.

Wages are paid by employers for services rendered. If the job performed doesn't generate enough revenue to recover the wages paid, that job will cease to exist. How does mandating a 'living wage' benefit the unskilled workers who find themselves out of a job when the job ceases to exist? How does mandating a 'living wage' benefit the low skilled worker who finds herself in a 'living wage' job while prices rise in order to recover the lost revenue from paying out a 'living wage'?

There should be a range of wages, each one commensurate to the skills of the employee. As the employee's skill increases, the wages increase. But the range of wages should not be so high as to preclude jobs suited for no skilled labor. You need to start somewhere. No skill, low skill, high skill, etc.

Do you know who benefits the most from 'living wage' laws? Government and organizations that get tax revenue.

[Frohickey]

What happens to "those in need" who don't find a sponsor?

Is being one of 'those in need' the only prerequisite to being given assistance? How about if I make myself 'needy' by refusing to work because I know there are sponsors like you to support me. Or because I know there are people like you that would make government force people to surrender a part of their labor (and money) in order to support me.

Remember, nothing government does is free. Its always taken from you and me.

[Frohickey]

You conveniently ignore the fact that their poverty may preclude them from moving in the first place, or the fact that they might not be able to find comparable employment in another locale. Part of the reason some cities are so large is because of employment opportunities, which drew settlement. Why is it the people's fault? Does someone who earns 30K or less, less deseving or less hard-working? As society needs people to do menial work as well as well-paid professional work to function, why s**t on those who find themselves on the lower-end of the spectrum?

This stance ignores the fact that economic success is not acheived in a vacuum. Society is the springboard that helps individuals acheive their earning potential, so it seems fair to have to give back to that which helped you get where you are. It is amazing how self-centered and myopic some people can be.

There is also the issue of Societal stability. Poverty breeds desperation and desperation can lead to some very extreme actions. It is in no-one's interest to abandon a segment of society, as they will not dissapear if they are merely ignored. The resultant problems will require solutions that would cost at least as much in fiscal terms as the "forced charity" you describe, as well as a substantial cost in terms of the moral and psychological health of the society. Even if we were to decide to put all the poor in Prison, that itself would cost an exorbidant amount, as the average cost for annual incarceration of an inmate in US Prisons is $21K, not taking into account the cost of building new prisons.

Is "forced charity" completely fair to the individual. No. It is, however, imo the best option to a healthy and successful society. It is not a matter of morality as it is of pragmatism.

How is it the best option for a healthy and successful society? Is it healthy and successful to subsidize the lives of the unproductive and allowing them to multiply. Or is it healthy and successful to allow the productive to flourish and grow?

In your thesis that poverty breeds desperation and desperation leading to extreme actions, haven't you just given an excuse for lawlessness and crime? There is no excuse for the taking of another's property or life by force, fraud or coercion. None.

[Frohickey]

Semantics is not a legal defense for being a selfish bastard.

Could be that I want to save in case I find myself suddenly unemployed.
Could be that I want to save as much now and enjoy myself while I am still young enough to enjoy it.
Could be that I want to save as much now and give to my offspring so that they would have a running start in life.
Could be that I want to spend everything now because I have a terminal illness and I might not get to enjoy it later.
Could be that I want to spend everything now because I could be hit by a runaway bus tomorrow.

You do not see, in any of the cases listed above, a situation where "I" require, nay, expect assistance from any person unwilling to provide it.

What society need is more responsible members, responsible for themselves, and for others, and able to, at a minimum provide for themselves, and hopefully, provide for others.

What society *DOES NOT* need is more irresponsible members, unable to provide for themselves, and requiring the assistance of others.

In enacting laws that penalize the 1st group and rewards the 2nd group, you are encouraging some of the 1st group to belong to the 2nd group.

[blackfox]

Frohicky, your position(s) are valid, but I believe we are looking at different aspects of a complex problem. Your characterization of those who receive assistance as "unproductive", while partly true, is also partly false. This also brings up the question of how you define "productiveness" in the first place...is it contributing to society financially, by other means? If you are a starving artist (excuse the cliche), you may take public assistance to live, but your work may make a positive contribution to Culture. There are a myriad of diverse examples...

Basically, though, I do not think we will ever agree. While I applaud your push for personal responsibility, that in an of itself is not always enough to forstall a disaster, although it will certainly help mitigate one. People, especially young ones, do tend to make mistakes though, and to a degree, this should not condemn them. Also, is a hard-working, yet perhaps unskilled either in general or of those skills that have become in vogue, less deserving of living a dignified existence, with access to adequate health care, education and the variety of things that exemplify the best of our societies' acheivements because they cannot afford the pricetag? In order for there to be a rich, there must also be a poor, and it is a sign of a societies' sophistication how they handle those necessary less-fortunates. Of course, there will be those, who as with any system, who subvert and manipulate it...that does not necessarily deny the validity of that system, or it's general premise.
I personally advocate a system (or attempts therof) that takes care of those deserving at the expense serving some who do not. The alternative is the reverse. I cannot abide that.

This is, of course, my opinion Frohicky and I do understand why if you oppose such a system you might wish to be excluded...but in the (seemingly ever-decreasing) Democracy we have here, it is ultimately up to the majority to decide...we shall see which opinion wins out...could go either way...

[Desertrat]

"If you are a starving artist (excuse the cliche), you may take public assistance to live, but your work may make a positive contribution to Culture."

Having been around the world of folk music for longer than IJ's been breathing, I've known a lot of starving artists of the musical persuasion. (Known a lot of the daubing kind, as well.)

There's a saying among them, "Don't quit your day job, kid."

Not just in this thread but in many others--and in many other forums around the Web--there seems to be a lot of confusion about the purpose of what's lumped together as "Welfare" and "Living wage" and suchlike.

I've met few conservatives who are against the safety-net concept. I've met many liberals who seem to separate the concepts of personal responsibility and government support. It strikes me as having gone beyond the safety-net concept to see third-generation welfare folks--and many do exist--which leads to complaints from those who pay taxes. It strikes me as unwise for the good of the nation to ignore the concept of personal responsibility as so many ouf our government programs inherently do--I and many others do not believe it's "society's fault".

As far as "living wage", how does one justify minimum wage to those who cannot read fractions on a ruler, or who cannot make change? What do people like these "deserve"? Why should any employer keep someone on his payroll when the employee's desire for instant gratification leads to behavior that engenders malingering or absenteeism?

'Rat

[mactastic]

If the rightists had their way there would be no minimum wage, and no saftey net. Only those who 'the market' could bear would be suffered to live by the rich. All others would deserve to die in their eyes. This much has been admitted to around here.

Remember, the middle class is an artificial construct. Without an effort to tame pure market forces there would be a very small but rich ruling class, and a very large but very poor working class. This is how it was prior to modern times. Feudal society comes to mind. Without the anti-trust laws, worker protection laws, unions etc. there would be no middle class. If we want to preserve the middle class (and I think many around here would gladly see it go) we need to keep a balance between the needs of corporations and the needs of people.

Now I'd also like to see some reform of the problems with the saftey net. I don't like the idea of anyone gaming the system to get free money that they don't deserve any more than I like corporations gaming the tax code to get free money. Personal responsibility plays a large role here. If you can work, you should, although I've yet to hear of an effective way to force someone to do something happily. And without a decent attitude, you won't get far at work.

[Desertrat]

Amen, mac.

"Rightist" is probably a better descriptive word than "consevative".

"If you can work, you should, although I've yet to hear of an effective way to force someone to do something happily."

:) Force is not needed. It's an incentive program: Work or go hungry.

Thinking about costs of living in various places, wage scales and lifestyle: If the best a person can do or is willing to do is earn some sort of minimum-wage-level income, what makes them think they can have a life? What makes them think they can have and raise kids? All my life, when I couldn't afford something I did without it. "Go to the Chaplain, boy; he'll punch your TS card." My earlier years, there's no way I could have supported three or four kids. I knew that at the time. So, I basically contented myself with raising one--in fairly good style.

Why am I supposed to have sympathy for the instant-gratification crowd? Or somehow think it's good that they are subsidized by the taxes resulting from the fruits of my labors?

(As usual, this a "some" thing, not an "all" thing. It's just IMO that the "some" is a higher percentage than it oughta be, based on what I see and read.)

Rant mode off,

'Rat

Goin' on the road in the mornin'. Big Birthday Bash in Terlingua. :)

[Frohickey]

Frohicky, your position(s) are valid, but I believe we are looking at different aspects of a complex problem. Your characterization of those who receive assistance as "unproductive", while partly true, is also partly false. This also brings up the question of how you define "productiveness" in the first place...is it contributing to society financially, by other means? If you are a starving artist (excuse the cliche), you may take public assistance to live, but your work may make a positive contribution to Culture. There are a myriad of diverse examples...

Basically, though, I do not think we will ever agree. While I applaud your push for personal responsibility, that in an of itself is not always enough to forstall a disaster, although it will certainly help mitigate one. People, especially young ones, do tend to make mistakes though, and to a degree, this should not condemn them. Also, is a hard-working, yet perhaps unskilled either in general or of those skills that have become in vogue, less deserving of living a dignified existence, with access to adequate health care, education and the variety of things that exemplify the best of our societies' acheivements because they cannot afford the pricetag? In order for there to be a rich, there must also be a poor, and it is a sign of a societies' sophistication how they handle those necessary less-fortunates. Of course, there will be those, who as with any system, who subvert and manipulate it...that does not necessarily deny the validity of that system, or it's general premise.
I personally advocate a system (or attempts therof) that takes care of those deserving at the expense serving some who do not. The alternative is the reverse. I cannot abide that.

This is, of course, my opinion Frohicky and I do understand why if you oppose such a system you might wish to be excluded...but in the (seemingly ever-decreasing) Democracy we have here, it is ultimately up to the majority to decide...we shall see which opinion wins out...could go either way...

My definition of productive, is someone that doesn't require assistance in order to go about their daily lives; self sufficient; independent.

If a starving artist contributes to society via their art, contribute to society via culture, and the starving artist is productive, then someone in society must derive some value from the artist's work, something of value can be bought and sold, therefore, a starving artist that is productive would not need public assistance.

If you say that a starving artist might be contributing to society via their art, but their art is not valued at this time enough for the the starving artist to be self-sufficient, then how is this any different from any of the other entrepreneurs who fail in the marketplace whether it be from bad product design, or bad marketing, or both. If its of potential value, then its up to the artist to show the potential future value, so that he could eat.

I personally advocate a system that rewards those who make the correct decisions and conversely, penalizes those who make incorrect decisions. While this system might seem harsh, doing the opposite encourages the wrong direction for society. To address your concerns, however, I am willing to have the 'bad decision makers' to be assisted voluntarilly by the 'correct decision makers', as long as its voluntary, and not mandatory.

You seem to be of the opinion that a democracy is the apex of civilized society. Democracy, also called by some as the 'tyranny of the masses' is still tyranny. Democracy is only desired if its limited by inalienable rights, which not even the majority could take away from the individual. Democracy tempered by the concept of inalienable rights of individuals is what the United States is all about. The Founding Fathers were loathe of democracies.

Are you willing to say that an innocent individual, lets say an individual that has a special ability or trait. The individual could be exceedingly rich, the individual could be exceedingly talented, or the individual could be immune to all diseases. Does the majority have the means with which to take from the individual, to force the individual to labor for the majority, to force the individual to be imprisoned and subject to scientific study? Yes, the majority has the means. But does the majority have the right to do so? No.

Everytime the majority infringes/suspends the rights enjoyed by the individual, society is diminished. It is of no consolation to the individual that the majority has benefited.

[zimv20]

If a starving artist contributes to society via their art, contribute to society via culture, and the starving artist is productive, then someone in society must derive some value from the artist's work, something of value can be bought and sold, therefore, a starving artist that is productive would not need public assistance.
if you think being in the arts pays what it's worth to society, then you are obviously not in the art world. mozart was broke, you know. billions of other examples apply.

[Frohickey]

Now I'd also like to see some reform of the problems with the saftey net. I don't like the idea of anyone gaming the system to get free money that they don't deserve any more than I like corporations gaming the tax code to get free money. Personal responsibility plays a large role here. If you can work, you should, although I've yet to hear of an effective way to force someone to do something happily. And without a decent attitude, you won't get far at work.

Why should we force anyone to work? That would require paying the people that will do the 'forcing'. Just allow the system to perform. Work or go hungry.

The safety net should be voluntary charities.

As far as corporations gaming the tax code to get free money, let me pose you this question. In a competitive industry with multiple corporate entities vying for the same consumer dollar, what is the result of a reduction in the taxes paid by a corporation? Wouldn't that be a reduction in the price of the product sold (by the corporation) and bought by consumers?

What is the result of an increase in taxes paid by a corporation? Wouldn't that be an increase in the price of a product sold (by the corporation) and bought by consumers?

Maybe you would like to return to the days where the majority of taxes are paid for by corporations. Either way, the taxman gets his share, it only depends who he visits to get it.

[miloblithe]

Starving artists aren't really the issue. You're talking about a handful of people. The real issue is the millions of working poor, the millions of people who are only occasionally employed, people who are permanently disabled, and so on.

Keep in mind, the U.S. economy is incapable of providing universal employment. There are not enough jobs out there for everyone to find one if they would just look. Unemployment is a fact, and even though individuals can and should 'look for work,' the fact remains that there will always be unemployed people.

[miloblithe]

In a competitive industry with multiple corporate entities vying for the same consumer dollar, what is the result of a reduction in the taxes paid by a corporation? Wouldn't that be a reduction in the price of the product sold (by the corporation) and bought by consumers?

That is such economics 101 crap. There are no perfect markets. There are perfectly informed consumers (advertizing certainly helps in that).

[Frohickey]

Starving artists aren't really the issue. You're talking about a handful of people. The real issue is the millions of working poor, the millions of people who are only occasionally employed, people who are permanently disabled, and so on.

Keep in mind, the U.S. economy is incapable of providing universal employment. There are not enough jobs out there for everyone to find one if they would just look. Unemployment is a fact, and even though individuals can and should 'look for work,' the fact remains that there will always be unemployed people.

Agreed. Imagine how things would be if the borders were properly enforced and guarded, and we don't have illegal aliens coming in here to do the work Americans aren't willing to do. :eek: :eek: :eek:

(end_sarcasm)

[Frohickey]

if you think being in the arts pays what it's worth to society, then you are obviously not in the art world. mozart was broke, you know. billions of other examples apply.

Yes. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart died broke. So what is your point. Either he overspent what he earned, or he didn't earn enough for what he did. If he were alive, and you think his contributions to music are of value, there is no law stopping you, or any other patrons from purchasing his music.

To say that some people, be they musicians, artists, teachers, etc. are entitled to a special place in society because of their chosen profession is ludicrous. The market is perfectly capable of rewarding individuals performing desired tasks within society... at least for capitalist ones.

[blackfox]

'Rat, I am sorry, my argument was indeed overly simplistic...

I guess my position can be summed up as I feel the journey through life is a group endeavor, not just an individual one. Just one man's opinion...

Frohicky, as far as the "tyranny of the masses" and Democracy being the "pinnacle of society", that latter is not my opinion, after consideration, I still find an enlightened monachy (or some such) to be superior (if rare). As far as tyranny of the masses, it will probably always appear that way to some...

*edit* I see my arbitrary (and cliche) example is being run with...how about, for difference, a teacher? Most make around 30K a year, work very hard w/ long hours, and are absolutely essential to society...yet in many places, with a family, that wage cannot adequately support these people who do deserve more...what say you?

Also Zim, I enjoy your question about the value of Art...I will muse over it...

[zimv20]

To say that some people, be they musicians, artists, teachers, etc. are entitled to a special place in society because of their chosen profession is ludicrous. The market is perfectly capable of rewarding individuals performing desired tasks within society... at least for capitalist ones.
i did not assert that society should pay to support anyone who chooses to be an artist (though, in that regard, i don't think i know anyone who is an artist by choice).

my point is that society does not pay for art at the level for which it values it. i'm sorry, but market economics simply do not apply in this case. it's clear from your views on art that you're not in that world, either as a participant or consumer.

if you visit chicago, i'll take you to see some very cool and very vibrant art, both gallery-wise and performance-wise. it is a vital part of my own life, both as a participant and as a consumer. i don't ask anyone to pay to support me, i do that myself (and for now, by non-art means), but i do encourage people to get out and see what's out there. there's WAY too much great art being made that isn't being seen. and it's a crime.

now i ask you -- what role does art play in society?

[Frohickey]

my point is that society does not pay for art at the level for which it values it. i'm sorry, but market economics simply do not apply in this case. it's clear from your views on art that you're not in that world, either as a participant or consumer.

if you visit chicago, i'll take you to see some very cool and very vibrant art, both gallery-wise and performance-wise. it is a vital part of my own life, both as a participant and as a consumer. i don't ask anyone to pay to support me, i do that myself (and for now, by non-art means), but i do encourage people to get out and see what's out there. there's WAY too much great art being made that isn't being seen. and it's a crime.

now i ask you -- what role does art play in society?

I think that society pays art at the level that it values it. Its just that some people within society values it more than others, and think others should pay into something they do not value.

I think I am a participant and consumer of art. I value a nice looking sports car and the effort exerted in its manufacture. I value an ergonomically designed chair or table. I even value a photograph of a good looking naked person. :eek: :D

I sincerely hope that the comment about "WAY too much great art" is made in jest. Because if you are going to propose that people be imprisoned or punished for not seeing art, I think you belong to a different type of society.

As to what role art plays in society, I say that it would be the same as that played by religion, science, medicine, recreation, etc. Meaning, between none to all depending on the consumer.

[zimv20]

I think I am a participant and consumer of art. I value a nice looking sports car and the effort exerted in its manufacture.
and i thought _my_ definition of art was broad. :-)

what about art that is purely form, no function?


I sincerely hope that the comment about "WAY too much great art" is made in jest. Because if you are going to propose that people be imprisoned or punished for not seeing art, I think you belong to a different type of society.
i did not mean to imply that.


As to what role art plays in society, I say that it would be the same as that played by religion, science, medicine, recreation, etc. Meaning, between none to all depending on the consumer.
how about to you in particular?

[blackfox]

Frohicky, is there not more to it than somethings' merit from a consumer standpoint? Is it not true that value and utility can be measured by other criteria? To risk going off-topic, what is your opinion of the National Endowment for the Arts (such as it is)? How does that compare to Gov. funding of scientific endeavors (including sociological, psychological and labratory science theory and application)? Are tax dollars merited?

[Desertrat]

blackfox, that's a question for a whole bunch of thought. :)

The great music halls of Europe were sponsored by the ruling class, who were the governments of that time. From that view, such as the NEA is a continuation of historic supporting of the arts. "Fine art" was not considered to be something for the mass audience--which, I guess, is relatively unchanged. Sorta hard to equate Hank Williams with Bach. (For all that I love Hank Williams' music.)

I've spent a lot of time around Arts majors; I paid for my ex-wife's last two years of college, for her BFA. My "next ex-wife" (I don't say that around her, of course. :D ) has been active in the world of tole painting. I'm no expert, but I've been around a helluva lot of painting and sculpture through the years. During my Paris years, the Louvre was a regular stopping spot for me...

So for the NEA? I guess a rather tepid/qualified "Yes." My problem is that what seems to get their aegis is a bit too far out in left field for me to be willing to really consider it as art...

As far as the government being directly involved in the sciences, I can understand the reasons why--but that doesn't mean I approve. I guess it varies with the particular arena of research.

Damfino.

'Rat

[blackfox]

'Rat, in reference to your comments about Gov. involvement in the Sciences, although I am inclined to agree to an extent (especially with your qualifier), we have already seen some of the alternative with Corporate funding (and ownership) of scientific/intellectual development...generally not a pretty picture.

At the risk of presenting a seriously weak argument (wouldn't be the first time), you might consider that examples applicability to gov. funded anything, including social services. The current system is far from perfect, but at least it is beholden to something more than shareholders, and perhaps by inference, consumer interests...

[Frohickey]

NEA... waste of money
Give us a tax cut and we can buy and pay for our own museum, and art galleries.

As to scientific advancement by government funding, I'd rather that scientific advances be in the private sector. That way, it could be enjoyed by as many people as quickly as possible. And failures would be borne by the investors, and not the taxpayers. Only government involvement with the sciences should be in protecting patents.

And if that means going to war in order to protect our patent on cascading thermonuclear reactions, so be it. :eek: :p :D

[blackfox]

Frohicky, explain to me how private-sector involvement in the Sciences (or the Arts) necessarily means access to and enjoyment of those fruits by both the maximum number and in the quickest of time-frames. Do not almost always Financial/Market interests and the proprietary nature of Corporate investment, preclude certainly the former, if not always the latter? With regards to say the development of a Cancer-curing medication or new type of energy production, agricultural development, or in the realm of Art, say a design and premise for architectural evolution/solutions (such as pre-fab), this intellectual property will often be doled out in a way that makes a profit, or otherwise makes sense from an ecomomic standpoint, which does not seem to imply that those with the least amount of power in the economic system (ie the Poor), will have access to these developments...and this has application to other social services. How is the market fairer than government involvement in these same areas? Because you have a choice to opt-out of a private system when it suits you? Well, if under a private system, you cannot afford these services/assistance, where is your choice then? I assume a good % of Americans earn under 30K a year, and are their choices (when given) not made harder than yours are now? Anyway, I look forward to your comments...

[miloblithe]

NEA... waste of money
Give us a tax cut and we can buy and pay for our own museum, and art galleries.

The problem is that it would probably never happen. You need to understand what a collective action dilemma is. It means that while it is in everyone's collective interest (or most people's interest) to contribute to a project in terms of what will be accomplished and shared , it is in everyone's individual interest not to contribute themselves. In other words, if everyone pays $10 for an art gallery, it will be built and everyone can enjoy it, but if everyone decides that they individually don't need to contribute (because everyone else can do it and they can spend their $10 on fries and a coke), it won't be built and no one will benefit.

The reality is that society needs a healthy mix of state, business, and non-profit sectors, because each sector responds well to particular types of initiatives, incentives, and projects. Business rules at what business does, but it does not and cannot do everything.


P.S. I don't think the NEA pays for Museums. I think they fund exhibitions, shows, etc.

[blackfox]

Thankyou milo...

[Frohickey]

Frohicky, explain to me how private-sector involvement in the Sciences (or the Arts) necessarily means access to and enjoyment of those fruits by both the maximum number and in the quickest of time-frames. Do not almost always Financial/Market interests and the proprietary nature of Corporate investment, preclude certainly the former, if not always the latter? With regards to say the development of a Cancer-curing medication or new type of energy production, agricultural development, or in the realm of Art, say a design and premise for architectural evolution/solutions (such as pre-fab), this intellectual property will often be doled out in a way that makes a profit, or otherwise makes sense from an ecomomic standpoint, which does not seem to imply that those with the least amount of power in the economic system (ie the Poor), will have access to these developments...and this has application to other social services. How is the market fairer than government involvement in these same areas? Because you have a choice to opt-out of a private system when it suits you? Well, if under a private system, you cannot afford these services/assistance, where is your choice then? I assume a good % of Americans earn under 30K a year, and are their choices (when given) not made harder than yours are now? Anyway, I look forward to your comments...

The market is fair in that the ones that can afford it are the ones to benefit and pay for the costs of it (it being the new developments/technologies). Take for example the early situation of television, or the telephone, or mobile phones, computers, automobiles, or today's HDTV.

In the beginning, the ones that could afford the early technology are the ones to benefit and buy the technology. These early adopters are the ones that funded further development and refinement of the technology. Soon, the prices drop and more consumers join in. Afterwards, the late adopters receive a time-tested design for fractions of the cost of the first prototypes, with more features.

The poor cannot afford access to these early technologies, but they are not paying for it either. The people who do not want access to these early technologies are not paying for it either. So, its equitable in that the ones that benefit from it are the ones subsidizing it, and contributing to its further development.

Not so with the public sector. Everyone has to carry their share of the burden, but they are not the ones to benefit from it.

[Neserk]

P.S. I don't think the NEA pays for Museums. I think they fund exhibitions, shows, etc.

I thought it funded artists :confused:

[Frohickey]

The problem is that it would probably never happen. You need to understand what a collective action dilemma is. It means that while it is in everyone's collective interest (or most people's interest) to contribute to a project in terms of what will be accomplished and shared , it is in everyone's individual interest not to contribute themselves. In other words, if everyone pays $10 for an art gallery, it will be built and everyone can enjoy it, but if everyone decides that they individually don't need to contribute (because everyone else can do it and they can spend their $10 on fries and a coke), it won't be built and no one will benefit.

The reality is that society needs a healthy mix of state, business, and non-profit sectors, because each sector responds well to particular types of initiatives, incentives, and projects. Business rules at what business does, but it does not and cannot do everything.


P.S. I don't think the NEA pays for Museums. I think they fund exhibitions, shows, etc.

Your 'collective action dilemma' does not preclude private and voluntary participation.

If the Sierra Club, and PETA could convince people that it is in their best interest to contribute to save the rainforests or Bambi, why couldn't the 'Miloblithe's Association of Art Admirers' pool their collective resources together and fund their own art exhibits and grants for new art that only members could enjoy?

Businesses could be built from the M.A.A.A. as they charge admission or membership fees from the public. Or the M.A.A.A. could remain an exclusive and private association. There is no reason that it has to be done via the public sector with public sector money.

If your group manages to convince the politicians that it is a good idea to have a program for the Arts, then that means another group can manage to convince the politicians that it is a good idea to have a program for farm subsidies. Then another group comes up with another idea paid for with tax dollars. Do you see how this leads to a large bloated government with its commensurate high tax rates?

PS. The NEA pays for elephant dung exhibits. :eek:

[zimv20]

I thought it funded artists :confused:
the NEA funds all sorts of things, including symphonies.

[zimv20]

PS. The NEA pays for elephant dung exhibits. :eek:
if you're referring to the work of chris ofili, i should let you know i saw an exhibit of his in london and it was absolutely the best show i've ever seen. i was truly blown away.

a work of his in the tate (http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/20years/ofili.htm)

the dung, btw, is holy to some african tribes.

you judge from a position of ignorance.

[blackfox]

Frohicky, with reference to bloated government and commensurate tax-increases, I do not see how that necessarily has a relation to whether the Government should be spending taxpayer dollars on various programs, only that we should pay attention to what those programs should be...Under Reagan and GW, while social-services and education funding has declined or stayed relatively flat, Government spending still rose, as did deficits...which sooner or later require tax adjustments...I just feel that it is problem of priorities...after all, if we still ran a surplus, we might both be happy...expanded social-services and lower taxes...because we could afford to...

[Frohickey]

if you're referring to the work of chris ofili, i should let you know i saw an exhibit of his in london and it was absolutely the best show i've ever seen. i was truly blown away.

a work of his in the tate (http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/20years/ofili.htm)

the dung, btw, is holy to some african tribes.

you judge from a position of ignorance.

Why can't the African tribes pay for his exhibit then?
I do not seek to judge. I just don't want my money going to purposes I do not agree with. My money likes to live in my wallet, at least for a little bit. :p

[Frohickey]

Frohicky, with reference to bloated government and commensurate tax-increases, I do not see how that necessarily has a relation to whether the Government should be spending taxpayer dollars on various programs, only that we should pay attention to what those programs should be...Under Reagan and GW, while social-services and education funding has declined or stayed relatively flat, Government spending still rose, as did deficits...which sooner or later require tax adjustments...I just feel that it is problem of priorities...after all, if we still ran a surplus, we might both be happy...expanded social-services and lower taxes...because we could afford to...

How about elimination of social services, put everything into defense and protection of civil rights purposes, and give everyone else a tax break? Then, we can provide for our own social services, or give to charity to help provide social services to others that are deserving of it.

[zimv20]

I just don't want my money going to purposes I do not agree with.
well guess what -- no one does. i don't like $120 billion being dumped into this war.

it is never going to be the case that all taxpayers agree on anything, so what's the point of bitching about less than $100 million (the nea grants for 2002) for something that supposed to enrich everyone's lives and exalts humanity?

yeah, i guess i don't expect you to understand. after all, that's nearly 35 cents out of your pocket so people can hear symphonies, kids can be taught music, books can be written, painting can be hung, art can be brought to radio and TV, older art can be preserved, communities can be bought supplies, etc.

a real burden on you, eh?

[takao]

hm untill coming up of the the renaissance there where 2 big groups who gave money for art: the feudalistic leaders,the church (at least in europe)
privatly sponsered/buyed art ? was perhaps 10% of all the art (of course there where exceptions)

but comparing that period to today is difficult
back then most money were in the hands a few people who owned most of the land ... today the money/wealth is spread more across the population...

how much do i pay tax for a saftey net for local poor artists ? less than 0,80 euro cent a month...OMG now i can't buy something for myself and i'm going into poverty
many artists can help themself put there always be some who don't and those have to be supported...
art has its function in a society....yeah perhaps not cheap...but money is not everything...sometimes the same discussion comes up here too..the i only tell those complaining what is funded by their money and then i ask "would you want that these things cease to exist?"...even the most art ignoring person says "no"

after all the KHM vienna has a pretty funny shop
how about the crown from the holy roman empire german nation out of paper for your kids:
http://ecomm.khm.at/cgi-bin/khmmuseumsshop.storefront/40dbf84e017994a42717c1ab3ff6071c/Product/View/10861

[Voltron]

The problem is that it would probably never happen. You need to understand what a collective action dilemma is. It means that while it is in everyone's collective interest (or most people's interest) to contribute to a project in terms of what will be accomplished and shared , it is in everyone's individual interest not to contribute themselves. In other words, if everyone pays $10 for an art gallery, it will be built and everyone can enjoy it, but if everyone decides that they individually don't need to contribute (because everyone else can do it and they can spend their $10 on fries and a coke), it won't be built and no one will benefit.


It is not my best interest to disply excrement art in NY City, or anywhere else for that matter.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/party32.gif

[Chip NoVaMac]

Why can't the African tribes pay for his exhibit then?
I do not seek to judge. I just don't want my money going to purposes I do not agree with. My money likes to live in my wallet, at least for a little bit. :p

But where does it stop? I don't want my tax money building stadiums for millionaire sports team owners. I don't want my tax money going to encourage a farmer not to plant. I don't want my tax money spent to sweeten the pot so a company will move in to the area. I don't want my tax money to give someone a tax credit for buying a Hummer H2.

[Voltron]

But where does it stop? I don't want my tax money building stadiums for millionaire sports team owners. I don't want my tax money going to encourage a farmer not to plant. I don't want my tax money spent to sweeten the pot so a company will move in to the area. I don't want my tax money to give someone a tax credit for buying a Hummer H2.
All that sounds good to me lets all of us save our money. Well except sweetening the pot so a company will move in to the area. In that case you are creating jobs which you might not need but changed the number of potential employees vs the number of available jobs formulas and could drive your wages up.

[wwworry]

As for govt. support of the arts - some economic factors (sorry no links - no time)

A vibrant arts community adds all sorts of value to neighborhoods and makes life better = higher real estate values = higher tax revenue. I have personnally seen this happen several times. Artists move into crappy city neighborhoods, galleries, bars follow, then restaurants, then fast rising real-estate values, then lots of new construction. THEN, that same process is pushed out one neighborhood over. Look at rising real-estate values - they always rise fastest where the artists are (at least in cities).

Children learn better when they are enrolled in arts programs.

From: KS
To: Councilwoman Blackwell, Councilman Clarke, Councilman Cohen, Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Goode, Councilman Kelly, Councilman Kenney, Councilwoman Krajewski, Councilman Mariano, Councilwoman Miller, Councilman Nutter, Councilman O'Neill, Councilman Ramos, Councilwoman Reynolds Brown, Councilman Rizzo, Mayor Street, Councilwoman Tasco, Council President Verna
Date: Monday, 05/17/04
Subject: Don't starve the Arts!

Dear Mayor Street & City Council:

For every dollar that is spent on the arts in Philadelphia,
there is an $8 return. Suporting the arts, is an investment in
the future. Supporting arts generates money for the city and
improves the 'saleability' of region at a national level. I
implore you to reconsider funding cuts to the arts. The arts are
not a luxury, but a vital part of the equation that attracts
outside investment to the region. The arts educates, illuminates
and more than pays for itself. Please reconsider your position.

People move into cities and regions for the cultural factors. Not for sports teams (loyalties are made early and held dearly with sports. If I grew up a Steelers fan I will always be a Steelers fan no matter where I go.).

High income people tend to care more about culture and those are the kind of people you want living in your town.

Lastly, who is going to fund general culture? Not private enterprise; they tend to fund well established organizations. The point is that govt. cultural funding pays for itself many times over and not in direct ways that private enterprise has to measure.

[Frohickey]

well guess what -- no one does. i don't like $120 billion being dumped into this war.

it is never going to be the case that all taxpayers agree on anything, so what's the point of bitching about less than $100 million (the nea grants for 2002) for something that supposed to enrich everyone's lives and exalts humanity?

yeah, i guess i don't expect you to understand. after all, that's nearly 35 cents out of your pocket so people can hear symphonies, kids can be taught music, books can be written, painting can be hung, art can be brought to radio and TV, older art can be preserved, communities can be bought supplies, etc.

a real burden on you, eh?

I don't think that the NEA was in existence prior to the first symphonies, music lessons for kids, Gutenberg's press, paintings, etc.

How about we try a 10 year experiment? Cut out NEA funding and lets see if everything you say ceases to happen. :p

[Frohickey]

But where does it stop?
I don't want my tax money building stadiums for millionaire sports team owners.
I don't want my tax money going to encourage a farmer not to plant.
I don't want my tax money spent to sweeten the pot so a company will move in to the area.
I don't want my tax money to give someone a tax credit for buying a Hummer H2.

Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed.

What was it that someone said?
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." -- Alexander Tytler

Unfortunately, everyone thinks that we live in a democracy. We do not. We live in a republic.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I don't think that the NEA was in existence prior to the first symphonies, music lessons for kids, Gutenberg's press, paintings, etc.

How about we try a 10 year experiment? Cut out NEA funding and lets see if everything you say ceases to happen. :p

And what favored spending program would you give up that you support in exchange?

[takao]

Unfortunately, everyone thinks that we live in a democracy. We do not. We live in a republic.

a democratic republic ;)

BTW: what is the official 'name' of the USA ?
austria is official "republic of austria" / "Republik Österreich"

[zimv20]

BTW: what is the official 'name' of the USA ?

The United States of America, Incorporated, a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton, Inc., The Carlyle Group, and SecreCorp of America.

[blackfox]

BTW: what is the official 'name' of the USA ?

either: "Divided States of Opinion" or perhaps to the rest of the world,
"The Evil Empire, now fortified w/ Capitalism" or " America, where ignorance and arrogance meet..."

[zimv20]

and our new slogan:
"C'mon! Nothing that big could burn in one night!"

[miloblithe]

If the Sierra Club, and PETA could convince people that it is in their best interest to contribute to save the rainforests or Bambi, why couldn't the 'Miloblithe's Association of Art Admirers' pool their collective resources together and fund their own art exhibits and grants for new art that only members could enjoy?

Businesses could be built from the M.A.A.A. as they charge admission or membership fees from the public. Or the M.A.A.A. could remain an exclusive and private association. There is no reason that it has to be done via the public sector with public sector money.

If your group manages to convince the politicians that it is a good idea to have a program for the Arts, then that means another group can manage to convince the politicians that it is a good idea to have a program for farm subsidies. Then another group comes up with another idea paid for with tax dollars. Do you see how this leads to a large bloated government with its commensurate high tax rates?

The problem with this argument is that really, only the government can protect the environment. Groups like the Sierra Club can promote environmental causes; they can fund clean-up projects; and so on. But only the government can make polluting illegal. The Sierra club can push for environmental legislation, but only the government can pass it and enforce it. Businesses have little to no incentive to protect the environment because they are focused on profits, not 'the good of all.' And they should be. Businesses are good at what they do and should focus on it, but they need to play by the rules set and enforced by government and promoted and watchdogged by public associations.

As for art, saying that there is no role for government seems unlikely. I think there is room for government to contribute to what is primarily a business.

[zimv20]

and what happens when environmentalists take matters into their own hands? they vandalize SUVs and are labeled terrorists.

i like the lobbying thing better.

[Frohickey]

a democratic republic ;)

BTW: what is the official 'name' of the USA ?
austria is official "republic of austria" / "Republik Österreich"

According to the World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html), the United States (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)' government type is: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Govt)

Austria is a federal republic... also known as Birthplace of the RINO Grope-inator Governator. :eek:

[skunk]

According to the World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html), the United States (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)' government type is: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Govt)
You believe this? It's from the CIA...they probably got it from Ahmed Chalabi :eek: :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

The problem with this argument is that really, only the government can protect the environment. Groups like the Sierra Club can promote environmental causes; they can fund clean-up projects; and so on. But only the government can make polluting illegal. The Sierra club can push for environmental legislation, but only the government can pass it and enforce it. Businesses have little to no incentive to protect the environment because they are focused on profits, not 'the good of all.' And they should be. Businesses are good at what they do and should focus on it, but they need to play by the rules set and enforced by government and promoted and watchdogged by public associations.

As for art, saying that there is no role for government seems unlikely. I think there is room for government to contribute to what is primarily a business.

You seem to attribute too many powers to government, powers that is given to government which ultimately comes from the people. That is a concept that needs to be relearned.

I see an environment that is protected by private property owners. Nothing occurs in a vacuum and today's tax structure encourages development of the land if nothing else to pay for the property taxes incurred by government.

[Frohickey]

You believe this? It's from the CIA...they probably got it from Ahmed Chalabi :eek: :rolleyes:

Yep. I believe it, even if its from the CIA. Cuz not only have I read history books and the writings of the Founding Fathers, I entirely believe that our ancestors kicked your ancestors butts, 228 years ago. :eek: :p :D

The only thing that I am in disbelief over is that the French helped us out back then. They must have been wanting to kick British butts too. :p ;) :eek:

[zimv20]

You seem to attribute too many powers to government, powers that is given to government which ultimately comes from the people. That is a concept that needs to be relearned.

I see an environment that is protected by private property owners. Nothing occurs in a vacuum and today's tax structure encourages development of the land if nothing else to pay for the property taxes incurred by government.
i have a very good imagination, and i cannot imagine that working.

ever see the chicago and cleveland great lake coasts? chicago's coasts are protected by the Burnham Plan (a gov't construct that gives the rights of the lakeshore to the people; it's almost exclusively parkland), cleveland had no such protection, and it's still mostly factories.

one example of many. it won't work.

the Burnham Plan, btw, was hotly contested (over 100 years ago) and almost didn't pass. but it did pass, to everyone's benefit.

[skunk]

Yep. I believe it, even if its from the CIA. Cuz not only have I read history books and the writings of the Founding Fathers, I entirely believe that our ancestors kicked your ancestors butts, 228 years ago. :eek: :p :D

The only thing that I am in disbelief over is that the French helped us out back then. They must have been wanting to kick British butts too. :p ;) :eek:
What a gratuitously irrelevant, xenophobic and childish riposte.

[Neserk]

What a gratuitously irrelevant, xenophobic and childish riposte.


Don't mind him, Skunk. He doesn't realize that if your ancestors had actually wanted to keep the colonies they would have. They certainly had the manpower to do so. It was an option to not fight for it. Besides the colonies were a huge financial burden.

[Frohickey]

Don't mind him, Skunk. He doesn't realize that if your ancestors had actually wanted to keep the colonies they would have. They certainly had the manpower to do so. It was an option to not fight for it. Besides the colonies were a huge financial burden.

Hehehe... :D

Actually, what started the ball rolling was the various new taxation schemes, Stamp Act, etc. These were started to pay for the costs of the war against the French and the Indians. :eek:

[Voltron]

Yep. I believe it, even if its from the CIA. Cuz not only have I read history books and the writings of the Founding Fathers, I entirely believe that our ancestors kicked your ancestors butts, 228 years ago. :eek: :p :D

The only thing that I am in disbelief over is that the French helped us out back then. They must have been wanting to kick British butts too. :p ;) :eek:
Um King Louis the XIV helped us out because they hated the British. They were using us to weaken the UK and distract them. They had no idea that our revolution would be the spark to ignite their own rather lengthy revolution. I got a B in Humanities and this was part of it. Yes I know I simplified the French revolution but I want to go to bed sometime tonight. Their revolution was much longer, larger, bloody, than our own was.

Louis the XVI was a weak monarch and the people trounced on him. Then there was the directorate with the beheading of anyone that locked cross eyed, replaced by Bonaparte with his creation of their laws, replaced by what they have now.

Yes I know Louis the XIV wasn't a weak monarch. Check the order of the roman numerals.

[miloblithe]

I got a B in Humanities and this was part of it. Yes I know I simplified the French revolution but I want to go to bed sometime tonight. Their revolution was much longer, larger, bloody, than our own was.

Not if you consider the American Civil War as part of the process of revolution and forming our nation.

[miloblithe]

You seem to attribute too many powers to government, powers that is given to government which ultimately comes from the people. That is a concept that needs to be relearned.

I see an environment that is protected by private property owners. Nothing occurs in a vacuum and today's tax structure encourages development of the land if nothing else to pay for the property taxes incurred by government.

I say that your first paragraph here is empty, meaningless rhetoric, and that the second is vague and then confused. How does the tax structure, which you seem to believe to be dangerously high, encourage development with high property taxes? That doesn't sound like the simplistic logic you usually espouse. Please explain.

How would private property owners protect the environment?

[Sun Baked]

IRS Announces New Procedure for U.S. Tax Certification (http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=123818,00.html)

IR-2004-78, June 8, 2004

WASHINGTON — A new IRS tax form, Form 8802, Application for United States Residency Certification, will make it easier for U.S. individuals and businesses to establish that they are entitled to lower foreign tax rates provided by U.S. income tax treaties.

The United States has tax treaties with many countries, which generally will reduce the statutory tax rate for income paid to U.S. citizens and businesses investing or operating in those countries. Upon receiving proof of U.S. residency, some countries will allow withholding of that country’s tax at the treaty-reduced rate, some even as low as zero.

Beginning July 5, taxpayers who need proof of U.S. residence to qualify for lower treaty rates while working or investing overseas must use Form 8802. As in the past, IRS will then issue a letter that confirms the tax status of the taxpayer for purposes of claiming treaty benefits.

The new Form 8802 replaces the current procedure, which requires the requestor to write a letter to the IRS. “Sometimes the letters we get are incomplete,” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. “The new form is designed to streamline the process for these certification requests because the form asks for everything we need.”

The IRS issued more than 1.5 million residency certifications in 2003 and is expecting to issue nearly 3 million for 2004, largely because of the increase in investment overseas.

Although the mandatory use of the form does not become effective until July, the IRS will accept and process the new Form 8802 immediately. The form can be either:

* Faxed to the IRS at 215-516-1035 or 215-516-2485 (not toll-free numbers), or
* Mailed to the following address:

Internal Revenue Service
Philadelphia Service Center
U.S. Residency Certification Request
P.O. Box 16347
Philadelphia, PA 19114-0447
U.S.A.

Generally, processing of the form and issuing the certification takes less than 30 days. “We expect that the form will reduce the time it takes to get a certification and decrease the number of cases requiring additional information or correspondence,” Everson said.

Once received, the certificate of U.S. residency should be included with the application materials required by the country where the individual or business is seeking the reduced tax rate.

Form 8802 is available on the IRS Web site or by calling (toll-free) 1-800-TAX-FORM (1-800-829-3676).Seems there are some tax treaties in use. http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9395&stc=1

[Frohickey]

Not if you consider the American Civil War as part of the process of revolution and forming our nation.

Yes. The Civil War also formed the US. But the main reason for the Civil War was known back in 1776. There were bills, proposed by Thomas Jefferson himself, on the state level that sought to abolish slavery. But the state legislature would not go along with it.

TJ was out of the loop though, when the Constitutional Convention was convened. He was in France.

[Frohickey]

I say that your first paragraph here is empty, meaningless rhetoric, and that the second is vague and then confused. How does the tax structure, which you seem to believe to be dangerously high, encourage development with high property taxes? That doesn't sound like the simplistic logic you usually espouse. Please explain.

How would private property owners protect the environment?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. - 10th Amendment.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That tells me that the powers delegated to government comes from the people.

Answering your question, "How does the tax structure, which you seem to believe to be dangerously high, encourage development with high property taxes?"

How are taxes levied at the current moment? Property taxes are incurred just for owning property. If you owned 10,000 acres of land, and you decide you want to get away from everyone, live off your land, hunt and fish for food, plant a garden, raise some livestock (after paying for sales tax), build a log cabin, and not receive a paycheck or give a paycheck to anyone, how long before part of your 10K acres are confiscated for non-payment of taxes?

To keep our 10K acres, you would develop that land to grow crops to sell (to pay property taxes, and to pay for capital expenditures, to pay for workers, to pay income taxes). Or to raise some livestock. Or build a $10 billion state-of-the-art semiconductor fabrication facility. Etc.

Now, if there were no property taxes...

[miloblithe]

Oops. You're right. That makes sense. Actually, I can't remember how I was looking at property taxes before.

But still, how would private property owners protect the environment. Even if people are not taxed on their property, there are still monetary incentives to develop the land (private gain), and relatively few to protect the land. There are few incentives to conserve the land as well. If land is easily transferable and buyable, wouldn't it be easier to exhaust your plot and then buy a new one than to invest in truly renewable development? Polution? If your plot of land is upwind, what incentive do you have not to polute? And so on.

[tristan]

Yeah, I like froohickey's way of thinking, but economics also teaches us that the government has to step in when there's a potential for market failure. That way government protects the greatest good for the greatest number. Examples:

- Zoning laws. I don't want to pay $500k for my house, and someone puts a factory next to it that runs 24/7. The zoning laws protect this value.

- Industry regulation. My local deli has an incentive to cut costs by slacking off on health regulations, so the govt funds a health inspector. Airlines could cut corners on safety, so there's the FAA.

- Lack of competition. The water company's prices are regulated so that they can't raise my utility rates 100% and say "if you don't like it, find another water company".

Pretty much every industry needs some kind of regulation. (Child labor, consumer protection, etc.) If you go to some other third world country that doesn't have these kind of regulations you find Afghani kids weaving carpets for 90 cents a day in a sweat shop. That environment has tremendous long term costs for society, which is why wealthy societies have some kind of compulsory formal education - which is paid by property taxes in this country, which brings me back to the property tax topic.

[Frohickey]

Oops. You're right. That makes sense. Actually, I can't remember how I was looking at property taxes before.

But still, how would private property owners protect the environment. Even if people are not taxed on their property, there are still monetary incentives to develop the land (private gain), and relatively few to protect the land. There are few incentives to conserve the land as well. If land is easily transferable and buyable, wouldn't it be easier to exhaust your plot and then buy a new one than to invest in truly renewable development? Polution? If your plot of land is upwind, what incentive do you have not to polute? And so on.

If property tax rates are graduated, would be one way. Property is taxed at 100% of its value when it is bought, and over 5 years, this tax is reduced to 0%. Any ongoing NEW development incurs a property assessment, and since the property tax is based on this, the tax paid for the property never drops below 100% assessment. Business endeavors that do not have new construction would be assessed 100% as well, but since there is no NEW development, the tax incurred is the original purchase price.

Property owners that build one house on their 30 acres, and nothing else would eventually have no taxes due. Regular upkeep of the property is exempt, and this might encourage non-development of the land.

The disincentive to pollute is when it comes time to sell that piece of land.
The disincentive to pollute upwind is the damages incurred when the other property owners sues you.

[Voltron]

If property tax rates are graduated, would be one way. Property is taxed at 100% of its value when it is bought, and over 5 years, this tax is reduced to 0%. Any ongoing NEW development incurs a property assessment, and since the property tax is based on this, the tax paid for the property never drops below 100% assessment. Business endeavors that do not have new construction would be assessed 100% as well, but since there is no NEW development, the tax incurred is the original purchase price.

Property owners that build one house on their 30 acres, and nothing else would eventually have no taxes due. Regular upkeep of the property is exempt, and this might encourage non-development of the land.

The disincentive to pollute is when it comes time to sell that piece of land.
The disincentive to pollute upwind is the damages incurred when the other property owners sues you.
Problem is the stuff that specific tax pays for, highways and schools, fees don't slowly drop down to 0.

Additionally, I'm thinking of something I'm having trouble putting into words. I remember homesteading awhile back the property is yours for as long as you make it productive. If you claim the property and don't use it then it reverts to open land. This of course was back in the 1800's maybe even the early 1900's. They have a point, someone purchase land and then just sits on it for ever and ever and ever might not be such a good idea.

Corporations would be inclined to purchase every piece of land that is available for purchase until no land was being sold and only corportions own land. They wouldn't do anything with it except hold on to it for possible future use. Not a viable option necessarily if they have to pay taxes on it every year. However if their tax liability drops to 0 it would be a worthy investment and eventually there would be a rapid increase in property prices due to the fact that those holding on to the property aren't selling it to those who need a place to live. We'd end up with middle class homeless people. Of course I might be exagerating a little bit.

[Frohickey]

Problem is the stuff that specific tax pays for, highways and schools, fees don't slowly drop down to 0.

Additionally, I'm thinking of something I'm having trouble putting into words. I remember homesteading awhile back the property is yours for as long as you make it productive. If you claim the property and don't use it then it reverts to open land. This of course was back in the 1800's maybe even the early 1900's. They have a point, someone purchase land and then just sits on it for ever and ever and ever might not be such a good idea.

Corporations would be inclined to purchase every piece of land that is available for purchase until no land was being sold and only corportions own land. They wouldn't do anything with it except hold on to it for possible future use. Not a viable option necessarily if they have to pay taxes on it every year. However if their tax liability drops to 0 it would be a worthy investment and eventually there would be a rapid increase in property prices due to the fact that those holding on to the property aren't selling it to those who need a place to live. We'd end up with middle class homeless people. Of course I might be exagerating a little bit.

Well, there are the loopholes in my idea that need to be ironed out.
I actually thought that a corporation might be inclined to purchase as much land as they could, but to purchase land, you would require income. Income is taxed, and as said, businesses would pay property taxes, and the tax does not decrease over time.