[Rictor]

But no one is talking about taxing them disproportionately, just fairly. Many of the largest and richest corporations are simply paying no taxes at all. With tax-heavens and creative accountants, and with "your man" in office, is it really so hard to see why the rich, and large corporations in particular are not paying their fair share?

Though the same principle applies to small and medium businesses, the Mom 'n Pop store down the street if you will, and large multinational corporations, there are several (hundred?) orders of magnitutde that seperate them. Its the difference between allowed to carry a gun, and being allowed to raise a 10,000 man armed militia. Techinically, they're the same principle, but its absurd to treat them as equals.

I think Ford makes an excellent point, that the "hands off" appraoch to government doesn't work unless we embrace a very cynical "surival of the fittest" model, which I think most people are not read to do. I'de add more, but he just about summed it up.

Kaz: as always, its a pleasure talking to you, you add some much needed entertainment to these politcal threads. I especially like the the angry red text, constant CAPITALIZATION, and vague insults, it shows a level of sophistication and restraint that I had previously thought impossible.. You know, if you put Tin Can, ionia, Beowulf and yourself in a room, and you all agreed to only talk about foreign policy, you'de all be the best of friends.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by vyper
Economic Globalization started with the Empire.

economic globalisation started with Europe going/sailing beyond its borders and discovering/claiming the rest of the world.
Empire was just the completion of phase 1.

the political phase started  in earnest post WW2 (with a failed start with the LoN).

The UN is part of it, but it's main result for now is the EU. Whatever people may say: there is nothing in the world quite like the EU: no other political body has so many nations working together this closely through the means of shared souvereignity. It's unique in the world today.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
But no one is talking about taxing them disproportionately, just fairly. Many of the largest and richest corporations are simply paying no taxes at all. With tax-heavens and creative accountants, and with "your man" in office, is it really so hard to see why the rich, and large corporations in particular are not paying their fair share?

Though the same principle applies to small and medium businesses, the Mom 'n Pop store down the street if you will, and large multinational corporations, there are several (hundred?) orders of magnitutde that seperate them. Its the difference between allowed to carry a gun, and being allowed to raise a 10,000 man armed militia. Techinically, they're the same principle, but its absurd to treat them as equals.

I think Ford makes an excellent point, that the "hands off" appraoch to government doesn't work unless we embrace a very cynical "surival of the fittest" model, which I think most people are not read to do. I'de add more, but he just about summed it up.

Well, the point I was raising is that fair taxation is hard to define...as such, I hear alamr bellls when people talk about forcing the rich to pay up.  Plus you never even mentioned taxing corporations, just people.

[Rictor]

ivan: I ****ing love you man, thats exactly it. But somehow I think it'll have greater credibility to Kaz coming from someone who is not me.

modern globalization started with Pinochet and Mitlon Friedman (and his Chicago Boys.)

aldo: sorry if I didn't get my point across..I actually think that corporations are cheating the system the most, more than individuals. They bear the brunt of my scorn.

[Kazan]

rictor: i have no respect for you and hence I don't try rational arguments with you since you wouldn't understand them

Crazy_Ivan80: no, there are people who are _actually_ antiglobalization, rictor appears to be one of them.   I am in total agreement with the fact that capitalism needs rules.

vyper: saying that progressive taxation "punishes the succesful" is purely crap -- progressive taxation is fair due to 'dimishing returns' -- the marginal utility of a single dollar is less the more dollars you have

so 10% of $10,000 is 'more expensive' than 10% of $100,000 due to  the second person having less margional utility per dollar

[Ford Prefect]

Kazan, if Rictor is totally anti-globalization, then why did he just express his undying love for Crazy_Ivan?

And I also agree with that assessment of globalization: It's not that it shouldn't happen, just that it's happening the wrong way.

[vyper]

[q]vyper: saying that progressive taxation "punishes the succesful" is purely crap -- progressive taxation is fair due to 'dimishing returns' -- the marginal utility of a single dollar is less the more dollars you have[/q]

I didn't say that you argumentative bastard. I was saying that I support a system that taxes in relation to the ability of the payer - progressive taxation doesn't like that way in practise.

[Zarax]

Kazan, why are you scared of a social system that has been carefully developed for over a century?
They started with charity, and then mutualism.
It was a simple form of insurance, in case bad luck happens... Something ultra liberists tends to forget...
I also suggest you to get a modern economics book, i've got one written by Katz and Rosen, it's american and they are surely not commies...
Ironically it's the US that "invented" the welfare state...
Keynes showed that only social spending can effectively balance the market...
Does it means a free for all environment? Surely not.
It only means that everyone gets equity, somewhat lessening the differences between people starting to develop their life.
This is not to be misjudged as equalitarism, which is a nonsense, but it's a form of social security.
Also, many of the so called no globals calls themselves new globals...
You're right, you cannot stop globalization, but do we have to get it done by the corponations (no typo)?
Also, progressive taxation does not harm the upper classes if done reasonabily... Even liberals recognize it's a way to rebalance the market, and it's justified in economy by the principle that over a certain threshold any extra dollar has an increasingly lower marginal utility.

Finally, i've also heard some compsumption taxes stuff...
Please, please read a good history book...
States moved away from having it as main income mean because it did not offer a reliable source, fluctuates way too much and it's a joke to cheat on them...

If you want to talk about extremes, both pure market and supply economy theories says they works fully only on a simplified environment, as the "human factor" is capable of screwing them both...
Humans can cheat, theories cannot...

[ShadowWolf_IH]

ummmm.......while everyone is in here arguing, i think i'll work on Freespace.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Good call ShadowWolf.

Well it seems aparent no one respects anyone for their political views whatsoever, and only for things other than that. I respect Kazan for his Ferrium Project, which I think shows a brighter tomorrow, today. As for everyone else, I respect them for... um... er...

Its coming to me...

Uh...

Well I respect you! *does drunken Stewy impersonation*

However, no one has any reason to respect me, because I am only the whiney insulting n00b which every board needs to make it whole.