Most people I know debate whether taxing a corporation more is good or bad, or whether giving corporations tax breaks is good or bad. Corporations pay very high tax rates. The fact is that taxing corporations at all is bad for everyone.
What is a corporation, after all? A corporation is an entity funded by investors and lenders, run by managers in charge of creating a profit for the investors and repaying the lenders by creating a product or providing a service for a group of consumers. In a legal sense, a corporation is a distinct entity, but in a practical sense it is a group of people. It is also an employer of people in most cases.
What effect does taxing a corporation have on the economy? First, it reduces the capacity of that corporation to employ people because of the reduction of funds. It also reduces the ability of that corporation to research new products or improve existing ones. Worst of all, it forces the corporation to raise prices to compensate for the reduced revenue. What happens when fewer people are employed, less product development occurs, and prices rise? It hurts the poor, and creates more poverty. Those with less income are less able to afford basic goods and services, and with fewer people employed there are more people who have less income.
So, in short, a tax on corporations is the most regressive tax around. A regressive tax is one that taxes the poor more than the wealthy. Another example with be any form of sales tax not refunded or reduced for the poor. Corporate taxes have the same effect because they create inflation through the ideas mentioned above, which is just one more reason they should be unilaterally repealled and the FairTax should be adopted. By taking the inflation out of the market, taxes can be paid in a smarter way while more jobs become available, more research is done, and prices go down for everyone. The FairTax represents a win-win that both political parties should be falling over themselves to pass.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Welfare, Social Security - Thoughts on Government Programs
Private enterprise could help single mothers by lowering their prices after their taxes are eliminated. They could hire more single mothers, too. If we changed welfare from a handout program to one that paid for training opportunities, then it would be a much better program. Social Security should be something the younger generation should be allowed to opt out of. It has been one of the worst programs in history because it has taken money away from people, never invested it in anything to counteract inflation, and then handed it back after it was worth half what was taken. If we all had the same six percent back to invest how we choose (even if it was only in CD’s), we’d all be better off.
The statistics do show that private/non-profit aid to the needy reduced after welfare was implemented. They also show that crime increased dramatically after welfare was implemented. If welfare recipients were working – especially working hard – to receive their benefits, then it would encourage them to get off welfare. Imagine forming recipient groups that aided each other by some number working outside the home, some caring for children while their parents worked, and it all being coordinated in some fashion to help them all work to get off the dole. Would that not be an improvement?
Fiscal analysis is not necessarily cold-blooded. If you ask me to decide if I would rather someone else’s children have health care or mine do, the financial analyst in me says mine every time. So does the heart in me, but the numbers make sense on that, too. In any financial system where people do not take care of their own costs, the system breaks down because people are less encouraged to do more. The more money you take out of a working man’s pocket to give to someone else, the less encouragement he has to work.
For the record, I have no company health insurance. Over 20% of my paycheck goes to it each year, and I am the sole breadwinner. I do not want government health insurance because I know it would degrade the quality of care I get, which is already somewhat lacking at times. We need to implement the FairTax, pure and simple, and watch how encouraged businesses are to return to these shores – which would lower the costs of products simply by lowering the need of transportation. There are a lot of inefficiencies in the system thanks to the illogical corporate tax. I’m sure I’ve written quite enough here. My post tomorrow is all about how corporate taxes are the most regressive in America. I’d love to hear anyone’s thoughts.
-- Robert
The statistics do show that private/non-profit aid to the needy reduced after welfare was implemented. They also show that crime increased dramatically after welfare was implemented. If welfare recipients were working – especially working hard – to receive their benefits, then it would encourage them to get off welfare. Imagine forming recipient groups that aided each other by some number working outside the home, some caring for children while their parents worked, and it all being coordinated in some fashion to help them all work to get off the dole. Would that not be an improvement?
Fiscal analysis is not necessarily cold-blooded. If you ask me to decide if I would rather someone else’s children have health care or mine do, the financial analyst in me says mine every time. So does the heart in me, but the numbers make sense on that, too. In any financial system where people do not take care of their own costs, the system breaks down because people are less encouraged to do more. The more money you take out of a working man’s pocket to give to someone else, the less encouragement he has to work.
For the record, I have no company health insurance. Over 20% of my paycheck goes to it each year, and I am the sole breadwinner. I do not want government health insurance because I know it would degrade the quality of care I get, which is already somewhat lacking at times. We need to implement the FairTax, pure and simple, and watch how encouraged businesses are to return to these shores – which would lower the costs of products simply by lowering the need of transportation. There are a lot of inefficiencies in the system thanks to the illogical corporate tax. I’m sure I’ve written quite enough here. My post tomorrow is all about how corporate taxes are the most regressive in America. I’d love to hear anyone’s thoughts.
-- Robert
Dialogue Between Robert and Todd (Part 5)
Todd: I wonder often about the issue of health care and how well citizens understand the issue. I do believe that a society has a moral charge to ensure that people have access to high-quality healthcare. People have a fundamental right to receive treatment when they are sick. But...there's a caveat. People don't have the right to have someone else pay for it. THey don't have the right to a government program that ensures they have treatment when they need it. They don't have the right to ignore preventative measures and get treatment when they could have prevented the illness. There's a lot of caveats.
Todd: Unfortunately our present government (therefore the people) seem much more interested in this pie-in-the-sky notion of "universal health care." Now, universal health care sounds great! Everyone has a good doctor and everyone gets treated and everyone is healthy. Who wouldn't vote for that!??!? But, we know the reality is that we don't have unlimited health care resources. We know that health care organizations have a tough time making money under universal systems.
Todd: We know that employers need relief from health care costs as much as (more than) individuals who are uninsured.
Todd: We know we need a system that invests more heavily in preventative care than band-aid treatment.
Robert: One thing that could help that is to encourage people to take those measures. Let people write off all physicals, for instance.
Robert: Helping insurance companies form more co-ops for individuals without access to health care through their work place could help.
Todd: We also know that putting caps on drug prices doesn't necessarily work because drug companies need bigger profits to ensure that their shareholders will continue to invest in the HUGE cost of developing drugs. I'm not sure that deregulation is necessary the answer to drug costs because the bulk of costs aren't necessarily borne in getting a drug approved, and I would argue that ensuring research-based drugs get to market in this country is a justifiable duty of government.
Robert: Health care is definitely a huge monster for the government (and everyone) to tackle.
Robert: But the worst thing they could do to solve it is to get into the business.
Robert: Working with industry, instead of squeezing it, is definitely something the government needs to get back to. Continuing to treat corporations terribly does not encourage people to come to the table.
Todd: It's tough, but something isn't working right within the market. Drug companies are spending more and more to put out products and health insurers are making less and less money. Businesses can't afford coverage, individuals can't either. Businesses are struggling to offer health insurance to employees or even their owners for the self-employed. And every year, we have higher quality medical technologies in the USA, and each year we have higher infant mortality rates, and our life expectancy is no greater than other developed nations. Something isn't working right here.
Todd: I wish I knew what the answer was, but I just don't. There are a lot of proposals out there that I've yet to read, and with most things the answer probably is within a combination of them.
Robert: As Glenn Beck said the other day: we can now do things to people (medically) in this country that we can't afford to do.
Todd: And as we're having this discussion I just saw Hillary Clinton say at a rally something about freezing interest rates to ensure people "Keep their homes." It's solutions like that that make me cringe when both sides of the aisle start pandering like that. Not only would freezing interest rates accomplish nothing, it does not speak to the fundamental issues of bad usery laws that allow predatory lending and allow uneducated people to get credit that they cannot afford.
Robert: One thing I heard on the radio a few weeks ago was about what we're eating. We're too into processed foods that we microwave, and our bodies don't get the nutrients they used to from pasture fed meats and organic vegetables, so we have to eat a lot more to get those nutrients. We gain weight, and our health declines.
Robert: The telling statistic the author describing this pointed out: look at our spending on health care versus food from around 1960 (I think) and compare it to today. The percentages are inverted.
Robert: And it will lock more people out of homes, as people are denied loans because of the locked rates even though they might have been able to afford such rates.
Todd: The move to organic food is an excellent one, and one that the market is driving in a very real way. The government is doing well in states and at the federal level to provide some relief to smaller farmers to ensure they at least have access to the marketplace. More public education on the value of eating better and investing in organic research for mass-food production is a good use of public funds, personally. It's a much wiser investment of public money than continued public health care dollars going into a giant grave (literally).
Robert: Definitely, by finding ways to improve health from the beginning, we save a fortune down the road. Just like educating people on any subject will save society long-term.
Robert: That's one reason I support turning welfare into a training program, and even providing some child care for single parents who enter the program.
Robert: Help people get jobs and get off instead of staying on the dole.
Todd: Which is one of the reasons I believe in the agency I'm working for. Invest in early development, and you save bundles down the road on the child who turns into a functioning adult who can learn and improve him/herself
Todd: A question that I've personally struggled with is this. What is government's role in promoting or providing access to postsecondary education?
Robert: Well, if the government would remove a lot of the taxes from the equation that make it so hard to live on a low wage, then people who are not interested in post-secondary education can still make a living to survive.
Robert: But while they do keep those taxes in place, they should do what they can to help individuals who cannot afford it to find ways to fund further education. We should not have a system that puts everyone in college, and certainly not one that pays everyone's college costs, but we could have one that makes college loans more available, and gives grants to truly exceptional students (though I'm not sure how to determine who those students are).
Todd: Do you think that providing college tuition assistance would hinder research universities from making more money, in other words manipulating the marketplace to keep their costs low? Research universities need that revenue to do the research. Endowments alone don't pay for it.
Robert: Hard to say.
Robert: But imagine what corporations could do to work with colleges if they had more funds to invest with them thanks to the elimination of corporate taxes.
Todd: That's very true.
And that was where our one night chat ended. Now I hope the readers of this blog understand why I appreciate Todd contributing. He brings a lot to the table that helps me think and expand my knowledge. I hope anyone still reading at this point has enjoyed these posts. Hopefully we will get to post a chat like this again soon.
Todd: Unfortunately our present government (therefore the people) seem much more interested in this pie-in-the-sky notion of "universal health care." Now, universal health care sounds great! Everyone has a good doctor and everyone gets treated and everyone is healthy. Who wouldn't vote for that!??!? But, we know the reality is that we don't have unlimited health care resources. We know that health care organizations have a tough time making money under universal systems.
Todd: We know that employers need relief from health care costs as much as (more than) individuals who are uninsured.
Todd: We know we need a system that invests more heavily in preventative care than band-aid treatment.
Robert: One thing that could help that is to encourage people to take those measures. Let people write off all physicals, for instance.
Robert: Helping insurance companies form more co-ops for individuals without access to health care through their work place could help.
Todd: We also know that putting caps on drug prices doesn't necessarily work because drug companies need bigger profits to ensure that their shareholders will continue to invest in the HUGE cost of developing drugs. I'm not sure that deregulation is necessary the answer to drug costs because the bulk of costs aren't necessarily borne in getting a drug approved, and I would argue that ensuring research-based drugs get to market in this country is a justifiable duty of government.
Robert: Health care is definitely a huge monster for the government (and everyone) to tackle.
Robert: But the worst thing they could do to solve it is to get into the business.
Robert: Working with industry, instead of squeezing it, is definitely something the government needs to get back to. Continuing to treat corporations terribly does not encourage people to come to the table.
Todd: It's tough, but something isn't working right within the market. Drug companies are spending more and more to put out products and health insurers are making less and less money. Businesses can't afford coverage, individuals can't either. Businesses are struggling to offer health insurance to employees or even their owners for the self-employed. And every year, we have higher quality medical technologies in the USA, and each year we have higher infant mortality rates, and our life expectancy is no greater than other developed nations. Something isn't working right here.
Todd: I wish I knew what the answer was, but I just don't. There are a lot of proposals out there that I've yet to read, and with most things the answer probably is within a combination of them.
Robert: As Glenn Beck said the other day: we can now do things to people (medically) in this country that we can't afford to do.
Todd: And as we're having this discussion I just saw Hillary Clinton say at a rally something about freezing interest rates to ensure people "Keep their homes." It's solutions like that that make me cringe when both sides of the aisle start pandering like that. Not only would freezing interest rates accomplish nothing, it does not speak to the fundamental issues of bad usery laws that allow predatory lending and allow uneducated people to get credit that they cannot afford.
Robert: One thing I heard on the radio a few weeks ago was about what we're eating. We're too into processed foods that we microwave, and our bodies don't get the nutrients they used to from pasture fed meats and organic vegetables, so we have to eat a lot more to get those nutrients. We gain weight, and our health declines.
Robert: The telling statistic the author describing this pointed out: look at our spending on health care versus food from around 1960 (I think) and compare it to today. The percentages are inverted.
Robert: And it will lock more people out of homes, as people are denied loans because of the locked rates even though they might have been able to afford such rates.
Todd: The move to organic food is an excellent one, and one that the market is driving in a very real way. The government is doing well in states and at the federal level to provide some relief to smaller farmers to ensure they at least have access to the marketplace. More public education on the value of eating better and investing in organic research for mass-food production is a good use of public funds, personally. It's a much wiser investment of public money than continued public health care dollars going into a giant grave (literally).
Robert: Definitely, by finding ways to improve health from the beginning, we save a fortune down the road. Just like educating people on any subject will save society long-term.
Robert: That's one reason I support turning welfare into a training program, and even providing some child care for single parents who enter the program.
Robert: Help people get jobs and get off instead of staying on the dole.
Todd: Which is one of the reasons I believe in the agency I'm working for. Invest in early development, and you save bundles down the road on the child who turns into a functioning adult who can learn and improve him/herself
Todd: A question that I've personally struggled with is this. What is government's role in promoting or providing access to postsecondary education?
Robert: Well, if the government would remove a lot of the taxes from the equation that make it so hard to live on a low wage, then people who are not interested in post-secondary education can still make a living to survive.
Robert: But while they do keep those taxes in place, they should do what they can to help individuals who cannot afford it to find ways to fund further education. We should not have a system that puts everyone in college, and certainly not one that pays everyone's college costs, but we could have one that makes college loans more available, and gives grants to truly exceptional students (though I'm not sure how to determine who those students are).
Todd: Do you think that providing college tuition assistance would hinder research universities from making more money, in other words manipulating the marketplace to keep their costs low? Research universities need that revenue to do the research. Endowments alone don't pay for it.
Robert: Hard to say.
Robert: But imagine what corporations could do to work with colleges if they had more funds to invest with them thanks to the elimination of corporate taxes.
Todd: That's very true.
And that was where our one night chat ended. Now I hope the readers of this blog understand why I appreciate Todd contributing. He brings a lot to the table that helps me think and expand my knowledge. I hope anyone still reading at this point has enjoyed these posts. Hopefully we will get to post a chat like this again soon.
Friday, February 8, 2008
A Dialogue Between Robert and Todd (Part 4)
Robert: Who would be harmed by the FairTax?
Robert: Other than people who thrive on the current system?
Todd: Well its different degrees of harm, but there's the probability that those who now pay no income tax pay more. Whether that's right or wrong is beyond me to decide, I'm simply pointing out that they would be adversely affected. That's my whole point that there's no means of collecting from the public that won't adversely affect someone.
Robert: With a prebate to everyone up to the poverty level, it's unlikely people who are not paying now would start to pay.
Todd: That's an excellent point
Robert: The fact is, the Fair Tax is well named. It might actually give a "welfare" effect to the poor, if they are wise about spending money for new goods only on food and buying all they can used.
Robert: They'd actually get some help paying for those with the prebate.
Todd: I think that the prospectg of a Fair Tax is appealling. I think the threat of the "underground economy" is a reasonable concern, and one I'd like to learn more about. I think proponents make sense when the reference existing tax laws. I'd like to read more about the pros and cons of the Fair tax when compared to a VAT.
Robert: What's VAT?
Robert: There would not need to be an underground economy. The FairTax is only imposed on new goods and services.
Todd: Value Added Tax
Robert: And if all income taxes (and federal taxes in general) are removed, then people will have far more funds available to pay the tax that way.
Robert: So what does the VAT do?
Todd: No I understand that, but I believe the critic's point is that you may have a widespread desire to avoid the tax by purchasing the goods as a business rather than from the retailer. The proponents of a VAT argue that this could be avoided by taxing the good throughout the cycle of transactions up to and including the retail transaction. That's just one concern I'd like to learn more about.
Robert: So in other words, tax at each step of the building process to avoid cheating?
Robert: Well, one thing to note about enforcement of the FairTax: with 80% of all tax returns removed (only business would file, no individuals), the government would have more ability to handle oversight and cut out cheaters.
Todd: I think that's a fair argument, plus businesses are already required to have a sellers license to purchase tax exempt goods and the laws are already on the books.
Robert: Exactly, so the VAT complicates things more than necessary, it would seem.
Robert: By moving the tax to only the final transaction, you simplify the market processes and help businesses grow by cutting red tape.
Todd: It's disheartening that only Mike Gravel, Ron Paul (sort of) and Huckabee are the ones talking seriously about tax reform, although to be fair McCain, Romney and Giuliani said they would sign the fair tax act if passed.
Todd: Tax reform is a bipartisan issue because the current system, in my view punishes the working American as much as it does the super-wealthy.
Robert: It punishes the worker more.
Todd: And tax relief doesn't have to be an issue that you cast aside whenever you are talking about promoting a healthy economy or protecting American jobs. Frankly I don't see how they don't go hand-in-hand.
Robert: It pushes out corporations that the working man can work for. It makes the necessary wage so high that people hire illegals to avoid taxes or just move overseas to avoid them legally.
Todd: Tax reform is a middle class issue, frankly, and it makes sense that it should be as important as the Environment or Health Care. This is a complicated system that all pieces fit together.
Robert: That's probably my main irritation with the current "solution" being pushed by the President. It's a one-time tax rebate, giving people back their own money. If that is an answer, why not give back more of the people's money and stop taking it away?
Robert: Absolutely.Robert: And that is also one thing I hate about our current tax system. It gives people the false impression that the government "gives" them something around April every year (if they're among the fortunate folk getting a refund) and they go spend it in many cases.
Todd: This all leads back to the issue of public will. You need public will to accomplish things in government, and to have public will to solve problems, you need an educated public that sees practical realities. I'm not so sure America has EVER been that way.
Robert: Indeed, that is why the framers were so afraid of giving the "common man" the right to vote.Robert: They felt such people could not be trusted to understand what was best.
(to be continued tomorrow)
Robert: Other than people who thrive on the current system?
Todd: Well its different degrees of harm, but there's the probability that those who now pay no income tax pay more. Whether that's right or wrong is beyond me to decide, I'm simply pointing out that they would be adversely affected. That's my whole point that there's no means of collecting from the public that won't adversely affect someone.
Robert: With a prebate to everyone up to the poverty level, it's unlikely people who are not paying now would start to pay.
Todd: That's an excellent point
Robert: The fact is, the Fair Tax is well named. It might actually give a "welfare" effect to the poor, if they are wise about spending money for new goods only on food and buying all they can used.
Robert: They'd actually get some help paying for those with the prebate.
Todd: I think that the prospectg of a Fair Tax is appealling. I think the threat of the "underground economy" is a reasonable concern, and one I'd like to learn more about. I think proponents make sense when the reference existing tax laws. I'd like to read more about the pros and cons of the Fair tax when compared to a VAT.
Robert: What's VAT?
Robert: There would not need to be an underground economy. The FairTax is only imposed on new goods and services.
Todd: Value Added Tax
Robert: And if all income taxes (and federal taxes in general) are removed, then people will have far more funds available to pay the tax that way.
Robert: So what does the VAT do?
Todd: No I understand that, but I believe the critic's point is that you may have a widespread desire to avoid the tax by purchasing the goods as a business rather than from the retailer. The proponents of a VAT argue that this could be avoided by taxing the good throughout the cycle of transactions up to and including the retail transaction. That's just one concern I'd like to learn more about.
Robert: So in other words, tax at each step of the building process to avoid cheating?
Robert: Well, one thing to note about enforcement of the FairTax: with 80% of all tax returns removed (only business would file, no individuals), the government would have more ability to handle oversight and cut out cheaters.
Todd: I think that's a fair argument, plus businesses are already required to have a sellers license to purchase tax exempt goods and the laws are already on the books.
Robert: Exactly, so the VAT complicates things more than necessary, it would seem.
Robert: By moving the tax to only the final transaction, you simplify the market processes and help businesses grow by cutting red tape.
Todd: It's disheartening that only Mike Gravel, Ron Paul (sort of) and Huckabee are the ones talking seriously about tax reform, although to be fair McCain, Romney and Giuliani said they would sign the fair tax act if passed.
Todd: Tax reform is a bipartisan issue because the current system, in my view punishes the working American as much as it does the super-wealthy.
Robert: It punishes the worker more.
Todd: And tax relief doesn't have to be an issue that you cast aside whenever you are talking about promoting a healthy economy or protecting American jobs. Frankly I don't see how they don't go hand-in-hand.
Robert: It pushes out corporations that the working man can work for. It makes the necessary wage so high that people hire illegals to avoid taxes or just move overseas to avoid them legally.
Todd: Tax reform is a middle class issue, frankly, and it makes sense that it should be as important as the Environment or Health Care. This is a complicated system that all pieces fit together.
Robert: That's probably my main irritation with the current "solution" being pushed by the President. It's a one-time tax rebate, giving people back their own money. If that is an answer, why not give back more of the people's money and stop taking it away?
Robert: Absolutely.Robert: And that is also one thing I hate about our current tax system. It gives people the false impression that the government "gives" them something around April every year (if they're among the fortunate folk getting a refund) and they go spend it in many cases.
Todd: This all leads back to the issue of public will. You need public will to accomplish things in government, and to have public will to solve problems, you need an educated public that sees practical realities. I'm not so sure America has EVER been that way.
Robert: Indeed, that is why the framers were so afraid of giving the "common man" the right to vote.Robert: They felt such people could not be trusted to understand what was best.
(to be continued tomorrow)
Thursday, February 7, 2008
A Dialogue Between Robert and Todd (Part 3)
Robert: Stepping away from Kyoto and emissions, just anything: should the government make choices for us that we do not want?
Todd: No, by definition it shouldn't. I’m not suggesting an elitist or non-constitutional approach. I used the words "public will" deliberately. We, as the citizens, need to be more educated and more rational about how we combat harmful emissions. When we have the support of the business community and their influential dollars, this makes it easier. It's up to us, not some phantom government that is going to decide for us.
Robert: There are things that make some sense - like protecting people from being murdered for trying to vote, even though those people are in the minority. But if the vast majority of people don't want something, should the government be doing it?
Robert: One good place to start helping corporations invest more in the research you suggest: eliminate the corporate tax, which has no reason to exist in the first place.
Robert: It hinders our economy, causes inflation, hampers the job market, increases illegal immigration.... it is responsible for much of what's wrong with our country.
Robert: Put the money back in the hands of the corporations so they can do the research, they can hire the staff, they can grow the economy... I know it's not going to happen in this very liberal environment, but that's what would help the most.
Todd: I think tax relief for corporations always has that sort of bad taste to many working Americans. I don't know how you get by that, but in principle I agree with you. You have to provide a financial, profit-driven incentive to get corporations to do anything. Corporations aren't a person that has altruistic intentions; corporations need to show shareholders benefit to anything they do. And the easiest way to do that is not to hand them a check, but relieve their burden to the Government.
Todd: The less a corporation has to "render unto Caesar" the more willing they are to talk to Caesar.
Robert: Not just tax relief: tax elimination. Tell me one reason that corporations should pay taxes?
Robert: All you do by that is take money out of the hands of employers.
Robert: Corporation owners already pay taxes on dividends and gains, why should corporations pay taxes, too?
Todd: Corporations shouldn't pay taxes. The corporation isn't anything the government protects. And corporations don't pay taxes anyway. There's nobody to pay it. You and I, the customer and the employee and the shareholder pay it. So yeah, that's what I'm saying. Lessen the burden that the employee and the customer and the shareholder pay to the government, and you have relieved the American of some of his burden overall.
Robert: Then we agree on that.
Todd: That allows decision-makers in corporations to invest their money in things that help them make more money, and when that's coupled with public will (who are the customer and shareholder) you have the ability to improve a host of social and environmental ills because you are letting the market do what it does best.
Todd: In other words, you're working within industry and not trying to manipulate an industry. Robert: Exactly.
Robert: And again, exactly.
Robert: That is what people need to understand.
Robert: The government is harming the economy and harming the market's ability to respond to some of what its customers want because it is robbing the corporations of money.
Todd: Well that's kind of what taxation is all about unfortunately. The question, is there a balance? I can't imagine a taxation system that doesn't harm someone. Even the Fair Tax would do that. The issue is one of costs and benefits. If I harm the middle class worker just a little bit here, are the returns going to be that we can reduce significantly the chances of his daughter getting sick from mercury poisoning and hindering her development that makes her less productive and makes her earn less and pay less taxes and so on and so on.....
(to be continued)
Todd: No, by definition it shouldn't. I’m not suggesting an elitist or non-constitutional approach. I used the words "public will" deliberately. We, as the citizens, need to be more educated and more rational about how we combat harmful emissions. When we have the support of the business community and their influential dollars, this makes it easier. It's up to us, not some phantom government that is going to decide for us.
Robert: There are things that make some sense - like protecting people from being murdered for trying to vote, even though those people are in the minority. But if the vast majority of people don't want something, should the government be doing it?
Robert: One good place to start helping corporations invest more in the research you suggest: eliminate the corporate tax, which has no reason to exist in the first place.
Robert: It hinders our economy, causes inflation, hampers the job market, increases illegal immigration.... it is responsible for much of what's wrong with our country.
Robert: Put the money back in the hands of the corporations so they can do the research, they can hire the staff, they can grow the economy... I know it's not going to happen in this very liberal environment, but that's what would help the most.
Todd: I think tax relief for corporations always has that sort of bad taste to many working Americans. I don't know how you get by that, but in principle I agree with you. You have to provide a financial, profit-driven incentive to get corporations to do anything. Corporations aren't a person that has altruistic intentions; corporations need to show shareholders benefit to anything they do. And the easiest way to do that is not to hand them a check, but relieve their burden to the Government.
Todd: The less a corporation has to "render unto Caesar" the more willing they are to talk to Caesar.
Robert: Not just tax relief: tax elimination. Tell me one reason that corporations should pay taxes?
Robert: All you do by that is take money out of the hands of employers.
Robert: Corporation owners already pay taxes on dividends and gains, why should corporations pay taxes, too?
Todd: Corporations shouldn't pay taxes. The corporation isn't anything the government protects. And corporations don't pay taxes anyway. There's nobody to pay it. You and I, the customer and the employee and the shareholder pay it. So yeah, that's what I'm saying. Lessen the burden that the employee and the customer and the shareholder pay to the government, and you have relieved the American of some of his burden overall.
Robert: Then we agree on that.
Todd: That allows decision-makers in corporations to invest their money in things that help them make more money, and when that's coupled with public will (who are the customer and shareholder) you have the ability to improve a host of social and environmental ills because you are letting the market do what it does best.
Todd: In other words, you're working within industry and not trying to manipulate an industry. Robert: Exactly.
Robert: And again, exactly.
Robert: That is what people need to understand.
Robert: The government is harming the economy and harming the market's ability to respond to some of what its customers want because it is robbing the corporations of money.
Todd: Well that's kind of what taxation is all about unfortunately. The question, is there a balance? I can't imagine a taxation system that doesn't harm someone. Even the Fair Tax would do that. The issue is one of costs and benefits. If I harm the middle class worker just a little bit here, are the returns going to be that we can reduce significantly the chances of his daughter getting sick from mercury poisoning and hindering her development that makes her less productive and makes her earn less and pay less taxes and so on and so on.....
(to be continued)
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Ethics and Mores in Social Media
I am writing (or attempting to write) for the weekly Hump Day Hmm on ethics and mores in social media. Rarely do I write a more boring or bland opening statement, but I am suffering from a dilemma of being interested in writing about the subject and not having the time to truly devote to the topic. Such as it is, here are my thoughts.
First, there are certainly far more tools to communicate with today than probably ever before, and yet human beings seem to be communicating less and less effectively all the time. The social media available have contributed greatly to the degradation of our language skills, both writing and speaking. When I hear someone say "LOL" or anything of that kind from chat-speak in normal conversation, I have to avoid slapping them or screaming. I have been actively using online forms of communication since the early Nineties, and I have refused to ever completely break from using complete sentences because I know that my ability to share my thoughts in a clear and cohesive manner would be destroyed. I see my fears realized vicariously every time I see teenagers texting in truncated letters and numbers that have some vague meaning to the people using the jargon but clearly are not English (or any other standard language, though I can't speak to how those things work in any other written languages). I am greatly disturbed by how much those things have started creeping into our general culture. It has become completely commonplace to talk in acronyms - today I listened to a speaker continually refer to the IOC's and the TMS without ever explaining what an IOC is (someone else explained what TMS stands for). I am sure my experience was similar to that described here so eloquently by Julie Pippert. Many people in the room obviously knew what was being discussed, but I know for a fact that other people in that room did not know what was being discussed. Two people asked me if I "got anything at all out of that" and we discussed the confusion of being new to such a meeting.
Back to the main idea, though: what are the ethics and mores in social media. My main concern is to maintain my own standards in language and proper respect of others as I use social media. I also do my best to make sure that my time spent utilizing any media is something of value to me and (hopefully) to others. One reason I avoided starting a blog for so long was the fear that it would consume my time and take me away from my wife and kids. I also did not want it to conflict with my working life. I feel I have managed to avoid becoming obsessed with blogging, but I know it can quickly become a struggle because other bloggers are so fascinating. Other people are fascinating. I can be very empathetic with people, and as I become involved in knowing more about a person, it becomes far too easy to care about them. I know that sentence sounds callous, but I am a person who can care far too much about other people if I don't keep myself in check. I have lived through periods where I was more concerned with other people's wants and desires than my own, and I suffered for it. So, again, I have to avoid worrying so much about what Joe Bobby Tucker in Middleofnowhere, USA, is suffering through at this moment because I have my own life to live.
We, as a society, need to harness the tools we have and utilize them in ways that improve education, improve communication, and improve relationships. As long as we continue to move further into hermit-like existences in our own communities and homes for the sake of keeping up with blogs/chats/twitter/texting/Mushes/whatever else, then our tools are leading to our downfall as individuals and as a society. If we do turn the tide and make these into true tools, perhaps we will find the way to solve some of the great problems facing the world today - poverty, hunger, pollution, education, debt, health care, the list goes on.
First, there are certainly far more tools to communicate with today than probably ever before, and yet human beings seem to be communicating less and less effectively all the time. The social media available have contributed greatly to the degradation of our language skills, both writing and speaking. When I hear someone say "LOL" or anything of that kind from chat-speak in normal conversation, I have to avoid slapping them or screaming. I have been actively using online forms of communication since the early Nineties, and I have refused to ever completely break from using complete sentences because I know that my ability to share my thoughts in a clear and cohesive manner would be destroyed. I see my fears realized vicariously every time I see teenagers texting in truncated letters and numbers that have some vague meaning to the people using the jargon but clearly are not English (or any other standard language, though I can't speak to how those things work in any other written languages). I am greatly disturbed by how much those things have started creeping into our general culture. It has become completely commonplace to talk in acronyms - today I listened to a speaker continually refer to the IOC's and the TMS without ever explaining what an IOC is (someone else explained what TMS stands for). I am sure my experience was similar to that described here so eloquently by Julie Pippert. Many people in the room obviously knew what was being discussed, but I know for a fact that other people in that room did not know what was being discussed. Two people asked me if I "got anything at all out of that" and we discussed the confusion of being new to such a meeting.
Back to the main idea, though: what are the ethics and mores in social media. My main concern is to maintain my own standards in language and proper respect of others as I use social media. I also do my best to make sure that my time spent utilizing any media is something of value to me and (hopefully) to others. One reason I avoided starting a blog for so long was the fear that it would consume my time and take me away from my wife and kids. I also did not want it to conflict with my working life. I feel I have managed to avoid becoming obsessed with blogging, but I know it can quickly become a struggle because other bloggers are so fascinating. Other people are fascinating. I can be very empathetic with people, and as I become involved in knowing more about a person, it becomes far too easy to care about them. I know that sentence sounds callous, but I am a person who can care far too much about other people if I don't keep myself in check. I have lived through periods where I was more concerned with other people's wants and desires than my own, and I suffered for it. So, again, I have to avoid worrying so much about what Joe Bobby Tucker in Middleofnowhere, USA, is suffering through at this moment because I have my own life to live.
We, as a society, need to harness the tools we have and utilize them in ways that improve education, improve communication, and improve relationships. As long as we continue to move further into hermit-like existences in our own communities and homes for the sake of keeping up with blogs/chats/twitter/texting/Mushes/whatever else, then our tools are leading to our downfall as individuals and as a society. If we do turn the tide and make these into true tools, perhaps we will find the way to solve some of the great problems facing the world today - poverty, hunger, pollution, education, debt, health care, the list goes on.
A Dialogue Between Robert and Todd (Part 2)
Robert: What if we study how to combat emissions in our air?
Todd: I'd like to believe that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. It is proven that we can reduce emissions by doing certain things that help Americans save money. When we invest in public transport, carpooling promotion and cheaper fuel alternatives we can help raise standard of living while reducing emissions.
Robert: So far there are no cheaper fuel alternatives.
Robert: Ethanol is far from an answer.
Robert: Without government subsidies, right now nothing save perhaps nuclear power has shown promise as a viable alternative.
Todd: We (as a government, I suppose I'm saying) will invest billions in combating the spread of HIV/AIDS and various Cancers. We do this because everyone can more or less agree that using public money to try and save lives around the world is a good thing to do. This public funding makes sense for drug companies and health care conglomerates because it helps them make money.
Todd: I would argue that providing that same type of public health, if not on the same scale, is just as reasonable when we talk about reducing mercury emissions from coal mining operations, for example. We know that Coal Miners are going to be able to make more money, employ more, expand more and produce more energy more profitably if we can make it more worth their while to make the considerable investments in cleaner technologies.
Todd: Now we know mercury in the air ends up in the soil and water. We know it poisons fish, and it poisons humans eventually and disproportionately poisons children. When the coal companies make more, and our air, soil and water get cleaner, we now have an opportunity for all sides to step back and say, "Y'know, we think that's a pretty good thing."
Robert: So what we need to do is help corporations get benefits from using those technologies, instead of penalties from failing to.
Todd: Right now, the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts regulate without proportionate investment. That's one-sided and shortsighted. We should keep in mind a conservative (Nixon) saw the potential in reducing emissions, but unfortunately the public will to push public money toward cheaper technology is simply not there.
Robert: And here's the question that has to be answered: is it the place of government to take our money and spend it on things we, as a public, do not want?Todd: The voting public seems to collectively think that the only assistance should be to the individual, and markets won't work that way. Public investment SHOULD help the corporations that pollute, but vilifying polluters is a much easier way to get votes. Kyoto has some good market-based principles in it, but the encouraging of public investment falls short of what it needs to be in a nation like the USA.
(to be continued tomorrow)
Todd: I'd like to believe that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. It is proven that we can reduce emissions by doing certain things that help Americans save money. When we invest in public transport, carpooling promotion and cheaper fuel alternatives we can help raise standard of living while reducing emissions.
Robert: So far there are no cheaper fuel alternatives.
Robert: Ethanol is far from an answer.
Robert: Without government subsidies, right now nothing save perhaps nuclear power has shown promise as a viable alternative.
Todd: We (as a government, I suppose I'm saying) will invest billions in combating the spread of HIV/AIDS and various Cancers. We do this because everyone can more or less agree that using public money to try and save lives around the world is a good thing to do. This public funding makes sense for drug companies and health care conglomerates because it helps them make money.
Todd: I would argue that providing that same type of public health, if not on the same scale, is just as reasonable when we talk about reducing mercury emissions from coal mining operations, for example. We know that Coal Miners are going to be able to make more money, employ more, expand more and produce more energy more profitably if we can make it more worth their while to make the considerable investments in cleaner technologies.
Todd: Now we know mercury in the air ends up in the soil and water. We know it poisons fish, and it poisons humans eventually and disproportionately poisons children. When the coal companies make more, and our air, soil and water get cleaner, we now have an opportunity for all sides to step back and say, "Y'know, we think that's a pretty good thing."
Robert: So what we need to do is help corporations get benefits from using those technologies, instead of penalties from failing to.
Todd: Right now, the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts regulate without proportionate investment. That's one-sided and shortsighted. We should keep in mind a conservative (Nixon) saw the potential in reducing emissions, but unfortunately the public will to push public money toward cheaper technology is simply not there.
Robert: And here's the question that has to be answered: is it the place of government to take our money and spend it on things we, as a public, do not want?Todd: The voting public seems to collectively think that the only assistance should be to the individual, and markets won't work that way. Public investment SHOULD help the corporations that pollute, but vilifying polluters is a much easier way to get votes. Kyoto has some good market-based principles in it, but the encouraging of public investment falls short of what it needs to be in a nation like the USA.
(to be continued tomorrow)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)