A new frame for taxes?

[More Than A Feeling]

It seems to me that the number one thing that defines the Republican Party right now is the unwillingness to pay taxes for social services. Yet, on the atrios blog right now is a letter from a Republican talking about how Sen. Wellstone will never receive his "contribution" to social security back. That "contribution", was his payroll "tax". Leaving aside the stupidity involved in the Wellstone line of thought, it seems that this person, and perhaps Republicans in general, might have less of a problem with taxes if we encouraged them to think of them as "contributions". What do you guys think?

[Colorado Blue]

1. I think you're right! BTW I think corporations should pay

their fair share of taxes too (sorry - I meant, MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS!)

Especially since they're busily exporting our jobs.

[DebJ]

2. on that line; the more you get out of the system, the more you

should pay into it. Corps get 99% of the benefits, let them pay 99% of the costs.

[More Than A Feeling]

4. I agree that corporations should not shirk their fair share

however, taxing them as much as you suggest may do nothing more than cause them to pass the cost of those taxes on to the consumer (depending on the elasticity of demand, which determines how much demand changes as prices change. If companies can raise their prices to defray the cost of the tax, and still remain profitable, they will do so) If that is the case, then all taxing them more would do would be to raise prices for the average person who buys those products. I am not sure that is what we want.

[ClassWarrior]

7. But they can't raise prices too much, or the average person might...

...decide he or she doesn't need that plastic piece of crap and do without. So, so what if it forces them to raise their prices? The cheaters will have to pay either way - either by paying their fare share of their dues to America, or through lost business.

NGU.

[More Than A Feeling]

8. I am just worried that it might negatively impact economic growth.

There is no guarantee that wages would go up as well. The minimum wage has been losing ground to inflation for how long now? If wages did not improve, and prices went up, then certain people would be poorer, relatively speaking, and the gap between the rich and poor would grow wider.

This isn't just about the corporations, its about consumers too. There are a lot of consumers in this country, and we cannot forget about them, when we focus on corporations.

[ClassWarrior]

9. But your argument seem to grant all kinds of power to corporations...

...and very little to consumers. What corporations want, more than anything, is stability. Solid, steady profits. They'll damn well adjust their profit margins before they'll throw enough people out of work to create another Depression-style crisis.

By the way, I prefer to think of people as people, not consumers. And I never forget about the people. Some of my best friends are people.

NGU.

[More Than A Feeling]

17. Your argument assumes that they have room to adjust their margins

depending on the industry we are talking about, it could be that the individual corporations do not have room to adjust their margins and remain competitive, especially when other corporations are looking for every edge.

If a corporation has zero economic profits (which happens when price equals marginal cost), any additional taxes will have to be passed on to the consumer or else the firm will have to operate at a loss, and it may be make more sense for the firm to shut down. At which point, many jobs will be lost.

Now, it is rare that price actually equals marginal costs, because there aren't many cases of perfect competition, but the point remains that corporations have a limited number of choices if they want to survive in a cutthroat environment.

If people want to band together and use conscious collective choice to influence corporate practice ( hmmm, consumer unions? "United Shoe buyers of America!"), that would be fine. If that does not happen, though, government cannot use a taxing model that would be unrealistic under the current system.

(by the way, I was speaking in economic terms, which is why I referred to people as consumers, because that is the function they perform in the market. I am fully aware that people aren't just consumers.)

[ClassWarrior]

18. I didn't mean to imply you think consumers aren't people.

I just believe that the language we use is important, and can influence perspectives - others' and our own.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

19. Now that I think about it, there's a fundamental issue here.

If we CAN'T tax corporations to the degree that they use national resources, perhaps they need to use fewer resources. But then, that would drive up costs, which the cutthroat bastards would then pass on to the people as well.

So then we need to figure out whether we exist as a society to support these "artificial people," corporations, and the corporatist leeches who thrive off of them. Can corporations BE responsible to the society that allows them to exist? Do we need a fundamental revision of what, exactly, a corporation is?

Check this out:

How Corporate Law Inhibits Social Responsibility
by Robert Hinkley (originally published at www.commondreams.org )

<snip>

In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads:

...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders...

Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders.

<snip>

The specific change I suggest is simple: add 26 words to corporate law and thus create what I call the "Code for Corporate Citizenship." In Maine, this would mean amending section 716 to add the following clause. Directors and officers would still have a duty to make money for shareholders,

...but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates or the dignity of its employees.

This simple amendment would effect a dramatic change in the underlying mechanism that drives corporate malfeasance.

<snip>

I don't have the link to this article anymore. It's a year or two old. But if anyone wants to read the full thing, PM me and I'll send it to you.

NGU.

[More Than A Feeling]

21. The change you suggest

That would be a good change to make, if it were made at the same time for every corporation. That way, none of them would have any additional advantage, other than what they create for themselves. Also, if you found some way to assign economic costs to any damage they do, they could be taxed or else a system of permits could be set up, so that they have economic incentive to search for alternative approaches. That is the way it is done in environmental economics, and it could work for other externalites as well

[loudsue]

31. You're leaving out of your discussion one BIG red herring.....

Much of corporate bruhaha these days is about making their stockholders wealthier, not so much about competing to SERVE the little guy, the "consumer". In case you haven't noticed, corporations don't give a rats ass about customers much anymore. I'm not talking about small, privately owned businesses. I'm talking about large corporations, whose tax contributions would make a big difference in the overall scheme of things.

All corporations care about these days is to sell their stock, so that their CEO's stock options are worth more, and they do this by cutting back on employees and services, and by providing cheaper and cheaper products so that their profit goes to the stockholders.

The core values have changed in business. The old economic models are built from the values of a different age. Capitalism -- the ownership of the capital -- is the focus. Competition as we were raised to believe in the old economic model, meant competing for customers by building a better mouse trap that the customers would really want to buy. In case you haven't noticed, customers are getting shafted more royally every day.

Now, customers are little "advertising success units", who go out and buy cheaper, more plastic, uglier "stuff", because they're pretty well programmed by the advertising. Meanwhile, the stockholders ride the coattails of the CEOs who are inventing new and better accounting schemes for a pretty "bottom line", to sell stock, and drive stock prices up, so their stock options are worth more.

The MBA proliferation that started in the 80's during the Reagan years started a corporatist meme that took the real power out of the hands of the people (consumers) and put the focus on the stockholders and star CEOs. They were taught all about making the bottom line better...not the products, and certainly NOT serving customers better to "compete" in the market place. They've made it a numbers game.

And ever since then, every consumer has had to listen to "for option A, press 1" "for option B, press 2". It's sure as hell not about customers and what they want. And in case nobody is noticing, it's killing our country and our economy.

:kick::kick::kick:

[More Than A Feeling]

32. ok, so if I understand you right...

you are suggesting that because advertising is very successful, corporations can get away with avoiding customer satisfaction, because they will buy any damn piece of crap. The extra profits then go to CEOs and stockholders. Does that sum up your argument pretty well?

If advertising is indeed as successful as you say, I ask you what remedies government could provide for this? Governments may intervene in markets to promote a certain desirable goal, but people can debate whether or not that should happen. They can weigh the costs and benefits and look at alternatives. What isn't, in my opinion, debatable, is when government intervenes to heal market inefficiencies. That intervention is unquestionably justified. However, There is no economic inefficiency in the scenario you describe. Customer's preferences are being met, at the lowest possible cost. Whether those preferences are different after advertising matters not at all for the purposes of this discussion.

The only solution that I can see would be counter advertising aimed at reshaping customer preferences back to what they were before corporate advertising. Otherwise, government should not do anything, as it is likely they would just make the situation worse.

[ClassWarrior]

33. Why the assumption that government would make things worse?

Seems to me that's another corporatist meme designed to promote the "free market" - which is almost never free, because the corporatist cheaters manipulate it (and government) to increase their already-filthy profits, while talking out the other sides of their lying mouths. Truth is, most big corporations are bigger bumbling burocracies than most governments. That I've seen myself. And we already have PROOF that THEY will make the situation worse - as the previous poster pointed out.

NGU.

[More Than A Feeling]

44. I asked what possible remedies government could use?

I suppose the government could give out even more corporate subsidies to encourage people not to buy cheap crap that they evidently prefer because of advertising (in this scenario). Other than that, it would be very tough for the government to cause people to reshape their preferences (that have been altered because of corporate advertising.), except by some kind of counter advertising.

Otherwise, if people want to buy the cheapest products, even if they have to sacrifice quality, then that is exactly what the market and corporations will deliver. But then, cheaper doesn't always mean "of lower quality" Today's laptops are cheaper than the first computers, would you say they are of lower quality?

In summary, it has little to do with corpratists, and everything to do with economics and the preferences of the people who are doing the buying.

[Hidden Stillness]

49. Corporate IS Political to Repubs

This post (#31) gets at an important point that I think relates back strongly to the whole general discussion about "framing" political issues--("because Republicans do!")--and that is that there is a fundamental difference between what we intend to do , and what Repubs, (or, "The Devil," as I lovingly call them), intend. This is why direct imitation of their deceitful ways is not appropriate. Repubs are trying to trick people to do what they actually do not want and would never support, (no Repub big-business programs are ever popular), if it were told as it is; so people are tricked and kept in the dark about what will actually happen--and often there is a huge uprising against it as soon as they find out. All of this is to deliver the gullible crowd to the Repub's real concern, the wealthy corporate contributor, trying to rip up yet another thing that Democrats, unions, feminists, environmentalists, or etc. etc. have accomplished over the years. That is their only interest, and they do not care about our country. This is why they must spend so many years and decades and generations developing their researched propaganda techniques, and why they will never tell the truth or speak plainly. They never tell what they were really getting at, ever.

Our concern is totally different--we want to advance the concerns of powerless people, the citizens, against those same corporate obstructionists. The approaches must be different: We are trying to get people to understand the way things are, the way a system works and what its threats are, what needs to be done, etc. It is the difference between the corporate/Repub researched campaign that has to delude to win, and our way where people instantly know the truth we tell as something they already experienced on some level, but now think clearly. The whole point of their "craft" is that they are trying to achieve things against the people's will, can't have their support on the merits, and therefore lie and re-cast so the people will not block it until it is too late. Our whole point is a "desperate," if you will, effort to get the truth out and get people to understand.

[merbex]

3. Taxes are investments that support our infrastructure

and our future like a child's education

People or corporations that use our infrastructure without paying to support it are "stealing" or robbing it

Fire departments,police,education -which provides corporations a skilled and intelligent workforce, the very roads we drive on enable businesses to deliver their goods and services - these are the investments taxes support

Social programs promote stability which enables a corporation to do business in a safe environment

Some framing ideas

[satya]

6. Investments--that's good. I think that sells better to conservatives than

"contributions". They need to realize that "their" money was accumulated due to the investments others have made in the infrastructure. There are no self-made millionaires.

[Igel]

14. Sounds like an NPR pitch for $. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

5. Lakoff suggests "investment" or "dues."

Our predecessors invested their taxes so we could have highways, medical breakthroughs, safe streets, etc. So it's our responsibility to continue to invest in America, the greatest nation on earth.

or...

Taxes are the dues we pay to live in the greatest nation on earth. We get freedom, opportunity, and equality, but it's our responsibility to pay our dues to maintain that. What's more, it wouldn't be such a burden on us all if big corporations, who use most of our national resources, paid their dues responsibly.

NGU.

[merbex]

10. Taxes support the "common good" that a society deems

important

Budgets and how we prioritize and how we tax(rates) show our values

It is morally bad to reward those people who use the "common good" without supporting it
For example:

It is morally bad to give corporations prefential tax treatment when they persist in shifting jobs overseas

[ClassWarrior]

11. Correct. But a good frame makes an idea concrete and tangible.

Thus "investment" or "dues." which are both concepts with which people are already familiar. Unlike "common good," which to my ear sounds vaguely academic.

NGU.

[merbex]

12. As a resident of the Commonwealth of Mass I believe the use

of the words common wealth and common good have a strong resonance to people from this part of the country; at least it was taught to me growing up here in my social studies classes and during field trips to Plymouth Plantation and the Adams historical sites

Common defense,common good, common ideals that we all cherish such as liberty and freedom which B* is hijacking

Maybe by saying we are going to identify what the common good of the 21st century is and use tax investments to achieve it we are beginning the reframing process

Frankly, I don't think the repugs believe in the common good of anything. They are out to destroy public education,pollute the environment; education and the envronment are just 2 things that are part of the commongood of society

[ClassWarrior]

13. I hear ya.

I'm just saying we need to use illustrative language with average folks. And most of them, sad to say, would probably rather forget social studies class.

FWIW.

NGU.

[Clarkie1]

15. Taxes are investments in America n/t

[Kenneth ken]

16. exactly

that's why I read the whole thread before posting - you already said what I wanted to say.

[forgethell]

20. It will never work.

Repukes are too simple to ever be deceived by a such an obvious ploy. They will still be be opposed, just as they were to SS, originally. They will look on the fact that they have no choice but to pay as a "tax" no matter what it is called.

[ClassWarrior]

24. Fuck them... this is for mom & pop who've been duped by those spawns...

...of Satan.

NGU.

[forgethell]

25. That's basically

who I was referring to.

[ClassWarrior]

26. So then give up? There's no hope? Permanent minority status?

Give me a frickin' break.

NGU.

[forgethell]

27. I certainly hope not.

On the other hand, we may have to change our stand on some issues until we can educate the electorate. Whining about "stolen elections" accomplishes nothing, although I think we should work to eliminate fraud of all sorts. We lost on the issues, though, IMO, and we need to face that and determine how to combat the conservative climate that now rules in America.

Part of it would be regaining power, even if we had to abandon some positions in order to do so. We can always return to them later, after preparing the voters properly.

Much of a break as I can honestly cut you. Sorry.

[ClassWarrior]

29. We don't need to change our stand on anything.

We just need to better articulate our Progressive values. Framing, as the OP said. Read "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff. It'll make you think of things completely differently.

NGU.

[forgethell]

34. read it.

It's bullshit. "Reframing" is a crock. Nobody who doesn't, for instance, want to pay taxes is going to care if it is called something else. They will say, "We pay enough already." or maybe, "The gopvernment will just waste it". Republicans, despite popular opinion on this board, will not be fooled.

So maybe we should learn to walk before we try to run, because, IMO, the last 4 years have crippled us, and we need to start again.l

[ClassWarrior]

35. Thanks for that intelligent, insightful critique.

And let me guess... Lakoff is a poopy-head?

NGU.

[forgethell]

37. Let me "reframe" that,

since my previous commentary was too insightful for you to digest comfortably.

When I was very young, I would visit my grandmother, who would promptly dose me with milk of magnesia. That way she didn't have to worry about me getting into trouble the next day; she knew where I was.

To make it more acceptable to me, she would mix it with orange juice to cover the taste. Well, it didn't cover the taste, it made it twice as bad because there was now twice as much of horrible stuff to drink.

A little bit of sugar does not make the medicine go down.

Now don't you feel better about that nasty milk... I mean, those wonderful contributions to the greater good of society?

Look, if we need higher taxes, we need to make the case. We also need to eliminate programs that the voters don't want to spend money on. We can feel wonderfully self-righteous, of we can, not abandon, but scale back, on what the American people either do not want or are not yet ready for.

[ClassWarrior]

38. So which Progressive values do YOU want to abandon? Responsibility?...

Empathy?... Caring?... Equality?... Hope?...

And framing is all about "making the case." So I guess you agree with me on taxes.

NGU.

[forgethell]

40. None of those.

And I am not really suggesting that we abandon our values, only some policy positions. And I am not even advocating abandoning them, only to stop pushing for them until we return to power. And I am not even suggesting which ones, only that the issue should be discussed freely and openly without everybody getting their drawers in a knot.

I am an economic Democrat. See if you can figure out which issues I think cost us the last election.

[ClassWarrior]

42. So I guess you, Lakoff, and I aren't so far apart after all.

NGU.

[forgethell]

43. Ijust don't think

that calling taxes something else is going to make anybody opposed to them change their mind. I don't think showing how much good we're going to do with our marvelous new is going to convince anyone who thinks the government takes in more than enough right now, and waste it, or who disapproves of our marvelouw new program.

I think the same can be said about our stand on the social issue, defense, and a host of other Democratic positions. We either have to change our positions or educate the public, but I don't think we should try fooling the public. If they see through it, and they will, then out we go.

Just my opinion, of course, but I think I'm right.

[ClassWarrior]

45. Who said anything about fooling the public?

This IS all about educating the public, about deprogramming the satanic spew they've had pumped into their brains by HeadRush and Insanity and the rest, about reminding them that America's best values are Progressive values.

What reframing does is invite someone think of something in a different way. Haven't you ever said, "Gee, I never thought of it that way?" And considering how little thought Joe Lunchbucket gives to all this to begin with, that shouldn't be all that hard.

And if someone's bullheaded and refuses to change his or her mind... well then, that person's bullheaded and refuses to change his or her mind. Doesn't matter if we persuade all the people, as long as we persuade most of the people.

NGU.

[forgethell]

46. There you see, we

see it in different "frames". OK, let's say that I accept your definitions. But where you are making your mistake is in thinking that just because the public considers the issues from our frame of reference, does not mean that he is "bull-headed" if he rejects them. It could mean that he has found weaknesses in our positions that we don't see. It could mean that even if she can't, she doesn't see how it would benefit her. Maybe she thinks that she is the one called on to sacrifice without a corresponding benefit that she is interested in. Could be any number of reasons. Disagreeing with your position does not make anyone "bull-headed".

There is no way to frame "taxes" as any thing other than money out of one's pocket. What needs to be framed, or rather explained, is why this is better than keeping it in your pocket. Right now, we have not been real successful at it.

[ClassWarrior]

47. "What needs to be framed, or rather explained, is why this is better..."

"...than keeping it in your pocket." Exactly. I told you we're not at all far apart.

And there are no weaknesses in my position, the Progressive position. The only place there could be weaknesses is in my language. That's why framing is important.

What's more, I know what you're saying about how rejection doesn't have equal "bull-headedness." That's basically Lakoff's "strict father/nurturant parent" dichotomy. I simply used the word "bullheaded" as shorthand for obstinate or die-hard. Sorry, poor framing. <LOL>

NGU.

[forgethell]

48. OK, but that

isn't what I got from my previous reading. We'll just have to see how successful it is.

I prefer jsut out and out stating my position without worrying about how it will be received. But then I have no ambitions for political, or any other, office.

Cheers.

[ClassWarrior]

50. Yes, but...

...the Radical RW has the Corporate Whore Media at their backs to get their filthy language out there. In our case, WE have to be the media. So, for the cause, for Progressive values, please try to frame a little instead of just out and out stating?... Please?

By the way, a side note on the last post. If people weren't being taxed, they WOULDN'T be keeping those simoleans in their pockets anyway. They'd be shoveling out two and three and 10 TIMES the amount paying for private garbage removal, a new suspension on the car from lack of paved roads, medical attention for water poisoning (and poor attention at that since the NIH can't afford to conduct research), full college tuitions, etc... etc... etc...

NGU.

[American Tragedy]

22. I will never complain about the cost of income tax as long as I live

although I will bitch about how it is spent and distributed, in general I appreciate the idea of having a government, military, police force, roads & infrastructure, etc.

Despite what Republicans have claimed over the past years, these things cost money! A great deal of money, in fact; the few institutions that I listed above constitute well over half of the budget. I've tried to explain this to people many times before, but some folks have a very hard time grasping it.

[Hidden Stillness]

23. "Proud Tax-Paying American" Again

Well I suppose the best perspective on this topic is a real civic-minded attitude that "we are all in this together," "we all want to pitch in and contribute to our society," etc., that it is "we" and "us," not "me" and "mine," and I always think of the WWII generation on this. They were united on the efforts to end the Depression and win the war, and although the sacrifices were hard, we were all sacrificing, and together we will win, etc. Carole Lombard, the great movie star, famously (then), said it was "a privilege to pay taxes," and that she was proud to be an American, and this was one way to show it. Return the idea of tax-paying to being an American and proud of it. Of course, when your President is an asshole prick, and all their class goes jetting around and buying yachts while we eat cat food--little exaggeration there--then I suppose there isn't a whole hell of a lot of "team spirit" left.

There is that general way of appreciating what taxes do, and what things are paid for by them--schools, roads, police and fire, Social Security, drug safety inspections and water purification (until this asshole came along, anyway), parks and recreation, etc. etc. There is also the approach of getting people to imagine what everything would cost to them personally if there were no government programs, and they just had to take care of all of these things themselves. If there were no tax-paid-for garbage pickup, and you had to pay a contractor to haul it away every week, if there were no police, and you had to pay a commercial security guard, etc., you would immediately be broke; no one could handle the bill. It CAN'T be done that way. Think of a situation that goes the other way, where we are going broke BECAUSE it is not paid for by taxes: medical bills. If health insurance were just another taxed item, a regular small amount with all the rest, no one--not individuals, not employers--would ever go bankrupt because of medical bills, as they do all the time now; no one. The payments would be LESS.

Also, don't fall into this Republican trap of believing that everyone "hates" taxes: poll after poll shows that people overwhelmingly want taxes on rich people and corporations raised, and bitterly resent that these people are allowed to cheat their way out of paying their fair share. Also, polls always show people willing to raise their own taxes too, for such things as schools, roads and infrastructure, toward Social Security, etc.

After all these years of a treasonous corporate media cheering on tax cheats and trying to encourage rebellion against taxes--which they will then subvert to a scheme to lower their own (rich people's) taxes and shift it onto you, never forget--the call for rich people and polluting, outsourcing corporations to pay their damn taxes, the way we do, is another possible anti-corporate clarion call. "Better our government than your capitalist, tax-cheating boss," this kind of thing.

[NAO]

28. Federal Income Taxes, not magnetic ribbons, Support the Troops

[dansolo]

30. Most people don't recoup insurance premiums

Talk to the Republicans in their own language. Do they avoid paying for car insurance, even though they most likely will pay more in premiums than they will ever get back from the insurance companies?

[annabanana]

36. more than contributions... They are INVESTMENTS!

Invest in the future of our children by funding public education! Invest in your health care, invest in YOUR country's security,invest in your own security.

[fob]

39. I always think of them as the cost of freedom (at least the kind we USED

to have), especially when I se one of those "Freedom isn't Free" stickers that is meant to question my patriotism if I don't support bush* 100% (and currently I am at -400% bush* support level). No Freedom ISN'T free, that's whay I pay taxes for assholes!!

Other "costs" of freedom are;
Voting

Jury Duty (I think deliberatly lying or trying to get out of Jury Duty is one of the lowest things possible. It should be treason. Jury Duty is a prime example of democracy, trial by a jury of your PEERS, how can anyone want to subvert that?)

[RafterMan]

41. God loves a cheerful giver

that is all.