At what point do the corporations right off the American economy?

[matmar]

According to people like Robert Reich corporations are swimming in cash yet refuse to use that money to hire people because there is no economic demand to justify it.

Corporations are making their money outside of the country where demand is higher.

Why is demand higher outside of the US? Could it be that social-democratic economies/societies provide their people a higher standard of living in the form of higher wages, health care that doesn't cause personal bankruptcies, a mindset that rejects the idea of tax-cuts cause economic growth?

Are we supposed to compete with Third World nations and Chinese slavery for jobs?

[durablend]

1. They've already written it off

That's why any calls for "job creation" are lip service at best (no matter which side proposes it)

[greymattermom]

2. Who buys stuff in China and India

not the low paid worker. Corporations depend on an upper middle and upper class everywhere.

[chrisa]

8. A hive of termites will chew on a tree until it falls and crushes them all

[Bragi]

3. Reich is correct

Corporations and the oligarchs that own them are siting on mountains of cash. They have bought everything imaginable three times over, so even they are having trouble finding new things to buy, and they don't want to invest in America because the people they stole the money from can't afford anything new, so what's the point in investing.

It is in this context that further tax cuts and more reductions in spending on programs that help the poor, the unemployed and economically insecure are now being demanded by the oligarchs and their political supporters on the right.

The idea of giving their potential U.S customers a boost through an income redistribution from the rich is just not on, of course. Which means that, in the police state that America has become, this can only end badly.

This realization is why the rest of the world now looks at America not with envy, but with pity.

[Atman]

4. Dam strate!

Well sed.

[Broderick]

5. If they are swimming in cash then

Seize the assets. It's stolen money from the people.


We need to seriously discuss asset tax. That will separate the wheat from the chaff. Lots of rich so called progressives talk the talk but would never walk the walk. So few have so much and the hoard it. Time to tax it.

[badtoworse]

9. Asset tax?

You mean let's just take their property. If our constitution allowed that (which it doesn't), what makes you believe your property would be safe?

[Broderick]

10. All assets

With exemptions of course. But those people, businesses and entities that want to sit on assets ought be taxed on them. Like property taxes plus. Federaly though. Have millions in property between all the vacation homes -tax. Have millions sitting in the bank - tax it. Have fifty cars in your garage - tax them. Have yachts on every coast - tax it. Got planes and helicopters - tax it. True federal asset tax on everything.

[badtoworse]

11. Thankfully, the government does not have that power.

But, keep fantacizing about it if you want to.

[Broderick]

12. Huh?

It has the power to force taxation for social security, income taxes, medicare, and now health care. I think it falls in the same legal vein.

[AngryAmish]

14. 5th Amendment

[Broderick]

15. This?????

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


How is taxation on assets depriving anyone of property or using private property for public use? It's not eminent domain related. It's merely taxation on the assets of the wealthy that hoard. States like Virginia have property taxes on assets other than land. I think that amendment doesn't suffice as an argument.

[AngryAmish]

16. Lets examine the takings clause, shall we:

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

So if the folks who wrote the Constitution wanted to restrict eminent domain to real property the text would say "...nor shall private REAL property be taken for public use, without just compensation." emphasis mine.

Income taxes are cool constitutionally because there is a specific amendment allowing it. Real property taxes are cool because when the Constitution was written (and under English common law) it was a known and contemplated tax like tariffs and the ilk. Taxing bank accounts have never been part of our system and is considered a taking.

[Broderick]

19. So you have a problem with taxing assets that are in the form

of liquid-able cash? I would like to see a Democrat appointed Supreme court neuter that. Maybe some appointments are coming. See, they already do this by way of the federal estate tax. On the reverse side, the taxpayers of America already fund the banks via Bailouts.

[AngryAmish]

20. I have no problem with it, it is merely unconstitutional.

Taxes for transactions have always been constitutionally kosher (and estate taxes hit at the transfer - that is why people put money in trust so there is no transfer).

I don't see why you think I am expressing my policy preferences when I am telling you the known state of US constitutional jurisprudence. When something is sitting there then you can't tax it. It is considered a taking. This is well settled.

If you don't like it you can change the constitution. Since you seem unfamiliar with this document, I'll give you a cite.

Article V - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

It is a straightforward process.

Next I suppose you think to save money rich folks should have to put marines in the spare bedroom and feed them...

[Broderick]

22. I am familiar with the document so please save that for someone else

I may be unfamiliar with the "jurisprudence" history of decisions in detail. Interpretation varies immensely as you should ought know. This is why we have a supreme court. And even at that level it goes 5-4 on decisions regarding the constitutionality and meaning of an argument. There is no need to change the constitution but you are reading into the document as you see fit to read it as. I see it differently. Have a Democrat appointed supreme court, and perhaps the argument that estate taxes at death are the same as taxing personal assets at the federal level while alive - then we move in the right direction.

[AngryAmish]

24. Then you run into the stare decisis problem...

Or is stare decisis something that the supreme court can decide does not exist?

Seizing assets are a taking. Full stop. I am not making this up.

[Broderick]

25. I would love to seize assets in the gated communities

I am not allowed in, but I don't believe a fair tax on assets is seizing assets you see so this argument is different. I am more inclined to think the estate tax is more of a seizure than say, a property tax on those assets during living time. Again, those that can afford lawyers and accountants to hide money in trusts are not subject to what many middle class folks are with the estate tax. We do asset taxes at the state levels, albeit, not the liquid cash in banks. There is tax on the interest revenue however. If corporations are sitting on massive cash assets, it ought be taxed (in moderation) so that it forces the companies to invest or pay some price. Right now companies move things overseas and avoid income tax by withholding those profits overseas unless they are subjected to less taxation before bringing it back into the country. This is highway robbery in my opinion. A family that sits on billions of dollars and mansions everywhere are only subject to property tax at the state level. Some states have an asset tax on boats for instance, so they move their boats to states that do not to avoid paying taxes. If there was a federal tax, at least there is some level of taxation on those assets.

[badtoworse]

29. Would you be comfortable with a right wing government being able seize assets?

I wouldn't be, but then I wouldn't want any government to have that power. I'm a strong believer in ALL of our civil rights, including the right to private property. I guess depriving people.of their rights is OK if it fits your agenda. That doesn't seem very progressive to me. How are you any better that a right winger who takes away someone's right to vote?

[RC]

18. Yes it does. It is called "Property Tax"

And not just on land/houses either. Missouri has a property tax on automobiles, for example.

[Broderick]

21. At the state level CORRECT

We need a federal level asset tax. The hoarders hold their bounty they stole from the backs of American's, and then pass it on to worthless spawn that live the good life and look down at the serfs the assets were built on. I say we should get some of that back. The estate tax is in line with this but they get around it with Trusts. We need to raid those trust funds. The estate tax has hurt the middle class more than anything and never touches the privileged class who can afford the lawyers and consultants that hide the money from taxation.

[Occulus]

23. National security.

And actually, a very good argument could be made that the operating policies of various financial institutions and US corporations do, in fact, represent a clear and present danger to the security of the nation. I'm thinking in terms of both financial and physical well-being.

I'm operating on the theory that what we're actually witnessing here is actually the greatest heist in human history. We need to figure out how to stop it before it's complete and America has been bled completely dry.

[Dreamer Tatum]

26. How the FUCK is corporate cash "stolen from the people?"

Apple has people standing in line for their products and they have over $50B in cash. Was THAT "stolen from the people?"

Jesus. Get a grip.

[Broderick]

27. Fine

Tax that 50B then. Force them to invest in higher wages or expansion or penalize them for the cash. For me, I would rather nationalize these companies and charge the true price for the product and bring the manufacturing back to the US. But I know that is a pipedream I am not going to see in my lifetime. In the interim, put that cash back in circulation. If they can have that much cash laying around, they can pay their employees at the street level more. If they want to hoard, then tax the shit out of them.

[WinkyDink]

6. "Right off"?

[Le Taz Hot]

28. +1

I try to hold my tongue on these but sometimes . . .

[DaveJ]

7. Well, because their infrastructure is incomplete

They buy more because they currently have less and are trying to catch up with our standard of living. I'm not sure if you didn't know this, or if your question above is rhetorical.

As far as the rest goes, we probably should change the paradigm in terms of what companies make the U.S. great. Companies that do most their hiring overseas probably should not be considered American companies anymore. We should not buy from companies that hire slave labor. We should have social healthcare here in the U.S., but Republicans block it at ever turn because they think it will make us work less hard. Yes it is frustrating.

[bemildred]

13. Thirty years ago at least. nt

[hifiguy]

17. They are in the final stages of doing so right now

and started about 25-30 years ago. My opinion is that they should be denied the benefits of US law in return.