Ask the boys down at the treasury, goldman, morgan and AIG about the corporatist state.
Think they plan on changing any time soon ?

Just something I want to say about "savings", like someone else said, "savings" are not stagnant. The money does not just sit in a hole in the ground. It is more like this, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

When you "save" your money in a bank, you are basically loaning the bank your money. Which is why you recieve interest payments from them.

They then loan this money to other people, at a higher rate, thus they make their money.

So it's not just sitting doing nothing. The only savings that are not moving are the ones in a paper bag under the floor boards, or hidden under the mattress, etc.

|||

However, I think it is completely wrong to say that all "rich people" work harder or are more deserving of money than everyone else. The financial sector are not "hard workers" necessarily, or more than in other professions, they are just good at "manipulating money". In fact it really generally is not the "hard working honest people" that become rich, a lot of people do it by cheating, exploiting, lieing, etc, etc. Just like that guy that ran off with 50 billion dollars the other day, I forget his name.

Does a banker or "financial advisor" work harder than a carpenter? Are they more "skilled" than a carpenter? Is their work more productive? Or than a plumbers/mechanics/engineers/teachers/police officers/defence force workers/etc, etc? Not really, or at least I don't think so. They simply manipulate money. I would almost go so far as to say that the "financial sector" by and large, take the most out of the economy and contribute the least. Wall Street is basically a wank, it just gets exploited by a lot of "short selling" and "get rich quick" schemes.

I don't really see proportional tax increases based on wealth as punishing the rich. The country enabled them to become highly "successful" or just gain money, so they contribute more proportionally towards the community. I would call it more an "obliagtion" than a "punishment". It would be great if all rich people were honest, moral, trustworthy individuals and had the best interests of everyone at heart. But generally speaking they don't, which is how they became rich in the first place.

We have proportional tax rates based on income in Australia. We still have very rich people. Rich people are still going to be rich. We aren't communists, we have an essentially "free market" as in America, just some tougher regulations, especially in the banking sector it now appears. We have various socialist elements, yet still have a strong economy. We are far from being "communists" as you all group socialist ideas with, yet we are not a completely "free market" either. I don't see why you have to be completely one or the other. Both extremes are too easily exploited and corrupted imo, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Ask Aig why the cut back on te bonuses they were going to give after the bailout?
Could it possibly have something to do with the people's opinion?

Without the AMERICAN WORKER/TAXPAYER MORGAN AND AIG AIN'T GOT NOTHIN.

Without the support of the American people they wouldn't be where there are today,and if the people turn their back on them they won't have shxt tommorrow.

I agree, it seems like you even mention equal financia capibilities or fair trade or fair wage you are labled either a socialist, or a communist in America.

They need the support of the american people ?
Your irony would be funny if it weren't so sad.
The government supports the dependent masses now.
Maybe you plan on grabbing a pitch fork ?

Corporations don't pay taxes. Never have, never shall. What corporations do is to pass along that tax to the consumer--in the form of higher prices--so that it is ultimately John Q. Public who pays it.

Or, alternatively, corporations simply do not expand when the tax rate is too burdensome, and therefore hire fewer people; or give wage-per-hour workers fewer hours per week than they previously did; or both.

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of shared sacrifice during wartime; as regarding which, both rationing coupons and "Victory Gardens" were emblamatic. Sugar, meat, gasoline, and cigarettes (which were not then known to be the killers that they are) were diverted principally to the troops by American policy. And that is as it should be.

If one would like to set forth the proposition that some crisis of the moment demands a similar mindset, that is surely a position that is worth discussing. I would advance the negative, in such a debate.

But let us not pretend that corporations simply absorb any additional taxes that are directed their way. That is simply naive.

Excepting the fact that the new definition of "rich" is utterly ridiculous, and does nothing but cut the throats of the middle class, while the "rich", who earn little w-2 income, will go unscathed. But your thirst for blood will be quenched none the less.

How much should your taxes go up, in order to pitch in and help ?

That's a joke, your rate will go up when the wealthy persons does. They pass any tax burden on to the lower class people by adding it to the goods and services they provide. Only fools believe that taxing the wealthy benefits them, it does the exact opposite.

If they raise my tax rates I'll lower my employees pay by not giving raises as regularly as I do. Any new hire will work more for less to compensate for the extra tax I'll be charged.