3rdnlng Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us workers... :wallbash: :wallbash: Yes, stealing from the bondholders and giving to the unions was the American way. Not following our country's laws was the way to deal with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 its called corporatism, not democratic/republic govt.... you see its not govt, its corporations using govt against the people.... I've got a 3 step idea idea: 1. Give the government more power to tax more money out of the rich people and corporations that run said government. 2. ??? 3. Profits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) which was the right thing to do, because although its not a purely owned state enterprise like the post office now, it forced the corporation to keep workers with the bailout instead of cutting an running... you see, most of the time there is a bailout for capital, ie banks, investors, etc. the auto bailout was for workers primarily. So when Baine bails out a company it's for the company and the higher ups. When the government does it it's for the workers? What a maroon. Edited May 13, 2012 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Great and then who will tax revenue come from? Oh wait, the middle class. They have to pay their "fair" share to support the ignorant masses yearning to mooch off the system! The middle class are the 1%! Well, they will be eventually... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 its called corporatism, not democratic/republic govt.... you see its not govt, its corporations using govt against the people.... So, are you going to answer the question by providing some evidence that Romney doesn't pay taxes, or just spout more nonsensical out-of-context slogans like a typical liberal retard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 So when Baine bails out a company it's for the company and the higher ups. When the government does it it's for the workers? What a maroon. Yes, when bain injects capital, they want to maximize profits. so company x has failed for whatever reason, bad management, better competition, bad investments, risky actions, w/e it may be. keep in mind this happens with the wealth labor creates and sustains. what happens is bain will offer new capital with contractual obligations that tear up old ones. so get rid of unions, streamline and create an environmnet favorable for bain profits and profits for company x and their capital owners. in other words, labor suffers when company x fails or when a investment firm like bain comes in. many times a firm like bain capital will leverage that company out and insure the risks. creating a win win for capital owners and shareholders while many laborers get fired when the bottom falls out. its the last resort to gain a buck when you know the game is over. it would be one thing if the company was democratically owned and then agreed to this or were risky themselves or whatever. but here labor is subject to the whim of capital, even though they created the vast majority of property. its called alienation from surplus value. a key property loss in capitalism. this just becomes exacerbated to a comical level and immoral level when corporations and investment firms get tax subsidies from the tax payer. so again, company x is in bankruptcy, ( through the fault of capital decisions, not workers), gets tax payer loans indirectly from the government( ie bain capital), and then either makes workers pay the price for their risk, or they defualt all together and take the parachute from companies like aig or the govt. keep in mind this insurance is not applicable to workers and what they created, which was lost by shareholders and capital owners. student loans work the same way, where investment firms are insured through the tax payer if that person defaults. many times that person will pay half their loan plus interest before they default, and the govt will cover the rest plus 20%, (120%)... not to mention grandparents and parents co-sign, so they even go after co-signers before they default, and then take the rest through govt protection. its a situation where riskier loans are more profitable, becaue its a guarantee the govt will bail that investment firm out. again, a win win... this is why subprime was so profitable, rates could rise and rise and all the time, they were rooting for default, because the govt would back up all risk, creating incentive to raise interest rates to ungodly levels. hey, its free money! again, this is not a democratic/republic of govt. the doctrine here is to protect corporations. this is why the auto bailout was different, they kept chrysler and gm from cutting and running after the bailout, ie cover the loss plus some profits from the tax payer and start a new plant in china/mexico. worker friendly and business friendly are different and it is zero-sum from a structural view. paul farmer in his book pathologies of power talks about this. great read! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 So, are you going to answer the question by providing some evidence that Romney doesn't pay taxes, or just spout more nonsensical out-of-context slogans like a typical liberal retard? i believe he paid 13.5% in 010... if you also count tax subsidies for that fiscal year, (tax subsidies are not income), that number is even lower... say you get 100$ from business a, and that is your capital gains for that year, part of those capital gains are not his, but belong to tax payers, ie, free money. hypothetically, 20$ of that could be totally free. hes only paying 13% on his 80$ from capital and labor, the other 20% doesnt matter and wouldnt exist if it werent for capital injections from govt. ( essentially the govt is taxing their own invetment, while giving free money to mitt. ) 13% on 80$, plus the extra free money left over after the tax on that free 20$. its the same thing as me giving you a million dollars and then when you make money off that, you only pay 13%... who cares, the extra is free money that you didnt earn. you cant get free capital gains, and then say im being taxed on my money, its not his money. this is why you have to count the free gains against his tax rate... agian, its even lower if you count tax subsidies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Bain Capital's tax subsidies are credited against Romney's individual income tax? (Romney paid 14% in 2010.) Has nothing to do with the current administration. GE's income tax was offset by a tax credit from GE Capital (or their income was offset by a GE Capital loss - I forget which exactly). GE actually paid something like $2B in taxes...GE Capital had a $2B+ credit, most of which went to GE's coffers, as they're the majority owner of GE Capital. That would have happened in any administration. Doesn't ANYONE know how the real world works? Clearly not. Otherwise we wouldn't be explaining deferred tax, loss carry forwards and other implications of accrual accounting and listening to "regressive tax code" and "only the poor pay taxes" in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) Clearly not. Otherwise we wouldn't be explaining deferred tax, loss carry forwards and other implications of accrual accounting and listening to "regressive tax code" and "only the poor pay taxes" in return. ever heard of alienation of labor? you see its this fact that production creates substantially more in wealth than the initial investment, yet loses that wealth to initial capital. in other words, i created the plant, with my tools, and with my brain, and my weatlh, yet i dont get those profits. or i invest a 100$, but the millions and billions created by others belong to me. its called neo-feudalism :wallbash: Edited May 13, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) ever heard of alienation of labor? you see its this fact that production creates substantially more in wealth than the initial investment, yet loses that wealth to initial capital. in other words, i created the plant, with my tools, and with my brain, and my weatlh, yet i dont get those profits. or i invest a 100$, but the millions and billions created by others belong to me. its called neo-feudalism :wallbash: You've made it to the ignore list. One of the privileged few. Edited May 13, 2012 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) You've made it to the ignore list. One of the privileged few. cant deal with reality? :wallbash: Edited May 13, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Yes, when bain injects capital, they want to maximize profits. so company x has failed for whatever reason, bad management, better competition, bad investments, risky actions, w/e it may be. keep in mind this happens with the wealth labor creates and sustains. what happens is bain will offer new capital with contractual obligations that tear up old ones. so get rid of unions, streamline and create an environmnet favorable for bain profits and profits for company x and their capital owners. in other words, labor suffers when company x fails or when a investment firm like bain comes in. many times a firm like bain capital will leverage that company out and insure the risks. creating a win win for capital owners and shareholders while many laborers get fired when the bottom falls out. its the last resort to gain a buck when you know the game is over. it would be one thing if the company was democratically owned and then agreed to this or were risky themselves or whatever. but here labor is subject to the whim of capital, even though they created the vast majority of property. its called alienation from surplus value. a key property loss in capitalism. this just becomes exacerbated to a comical level and immoral level when corporations and investment firms get tax subsidies from the tax payer. so again, company x is in bankruptcy, ( through the fault of capital decisions, not workers), gets tax payer loans indirectly from the government( ie bain capital), and then either makes workers pay the price for their risk, or they defualt all together and take the parachute from companies like aig or the govt. keep in mind this insurance is not applicable to workers and what they created, which was lost by shareholders and capital owners. student loans work the same way, where investment firms are insured through the tax payer if that person defaults. many times that person will pay half their loan plus interest before they default, and the govt will cover the rest plus 20%, (120%)... not to mention grandparents and parents co-sign, so they even go after co-signers before they default, and then take the rest through govt protection. its a situation where riskier loans are more profitable, becaue its a guarantee the govt will bail that investment firm out. again, a win win... this is why subprime was so profitable, rates could rise and rise and all the time, they were rooting for default, because the govt would back up all risk, creating incentive to raise interest rates to ungodly levels. hey, its free money! again, this is not a democratic/republic of govt. the doctrine here is to protect corporations. this is why the auto bailout was different, they kept chrysler and gm from cutting and running after the bailout, ie cover the loss plus some profits from the tax payer and start a new plant in china/mexico. worker friendly and business friendly are different and it is zero-sum from a structural view. paul farmer in his book pathologies of power talks about this. great read! "Pathologies of Power"? Now I know you're just a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 "Pathologies of Power"? Now I know you're just a troll. have you read the book? its really good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 have you read the book? its really good. I have. And it's a decent book about the medical cost of economic inequality. And referencing it in the context of this thread is absolutely, insanely hilarious. Congrats on stepping beyond wikipedia to an actual book, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 I have. And it's a decent book about the medical cost of economic inequality. And referencing it in the context of this thread is absolutely, insanely hilarious. Congrats on stepping beyond wikipedia to an actual book, though. you dont think those costs get passed on to other people? we are still talking about privatization and the govt protecting those pro business interests... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) you dont think those costs get passed on to other people? we are still talking about privatization and the govt protecting those pro business interests... You seem to have fairly selective recognition of costs that get passed on. Edited May 13, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 You seem to have fairly selective recognition of costs that get passed on. i think thats your dept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 you dont think those costs get passed on to other people? we are still talking about privatization and the govt protecting those pro business interests... You CLEARLY haven't read the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 i think thats your dept. good one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 i believe he paid 13.5% in 010... if you also count tax subsidies for that fiscal year, (tax subsidies are not income), that number is even lower... say you get 100$ from business a, and that is your capital gains for that year, part of those capital gains are not his, but belong to tax payers, ie, free money. hypothetically, 20$ of that could be totally free. hes only paying 13% on his 80$ from capital and labor, the other 20% doesnt matter and wouldnt exist if it werent for capital injections from govt. ( essentially the govt is taxing their own invetment, while giving free money to mitt. ) 13% on 80$, plus the extra free money left over after the tax on that free 20$. its the same thing as me giving you a million dollars and then when you make money off that, you only pay 13%... who cares, the extra is free money that you didnt earn. you cant get free capital gains, and then say im being taxed on my money, its not his money. this is why you have to count the free gains against his tax rate... agian, its even lower if you count tax subsidies. Nice try at backpedaling. You started off by stating as a fact he paid no taxes, and now that you've been called out being full of crap, gone into some ridiculous explanation, again devoid of any actual evidence, that he's somehow accepting government subsidies in an effort to deflect the fact that you were caught lying. Despite the fact that your pathetic attempt at deflection by going into this idiotic tangent about capital gains, you do know that you don't actually pay capital gains taxes unless you actually invest money, right? How about that, someone who actually puts money to work instead of pissing it away and suckling from the teet of the gubment? ever heard of alienation of labor? you see its this fact that production creates substantially more in wealth than the initial investment, yet loses that wealth to initial capital. in other words, i created the plant, with my tools, and with my brain, and my weatlh, yet i dont get those profits. or i invest a 100$, but the millions and billions created by others belong to me. its called neo-feudalism :wallbash: Alienation of labor? Neo-feudalism? Are you seriously that stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts