US government near to debt limit

[Busyman]

I'd venture to say that 90% of businesses that made over $1 billion in the USA in 2005 won't pay any Federal taxes. And as for 2004 all defense companies that made over $1 billion paid zero in Federal taxes.

How is that punitive toward business?

OK I'm quoting myself from page 4. My slant on this topic is the US government no longer has the best interests of the American masses foremost. The US gov. is just about the elite.

The elite help drive industry the most.

Even look at something miniscule as a new typa technology. The rich are the early adopters that buy it.

Thr rich help provide jobs as well. Now I don't believe in the recent tax cuts for them 'cause many would just as well pocket it but some use that as extra incentive for new ventures. Some of those provides jobs.

edit: I wish I had saw j2's post first.

[j2k4]

J2

I think the UK (and EU) position is one of Mixed Economy rather than all out Socialism. The general view is that no one expects the Government to run the Supermarkets or the local ice cream shop. However, we do expect the Government to play a role in the broader infra-structure of the country. We have less extremes of wealth and poverty than say the US (or, bizarrely, Russia) and we do appreciate that some choices preclude others. However, on balance the society we have suits our culture.

I would not want my country run by World.Com or Enron. The private sector is a pretty mixed bag when it comes to best practice

True enough, and what you have works for you.

Private capitalism is inherently more efficient, though, because it abhors bureaucracy, for the most part.

I realize this advantage has been shown as spectacularly corruptible in a few instances (such as those you've noted) recently, but they are not the norm, no matter the picture painted by the media.

There is no single system to answer all the potential ills of free societies; that certain sensible co-mingling is ideologically verboten is unfortunate, wouldn't you say?

[j2k4]

OK I'm quoting myself from page 4. My slant on this topic is the US government no longer has the best interests of the American masses foremost. The US gov. is just about the elite.

The elite help drive industry the most.

Even look at something miniscule as a new typa technology. The rich are the early adopters that buy it.

Thr rich help provide jobs as well. Now I don't believe in the recent tax cuts for them 'cause many would just as well pocket it but some use that as extra incentive for new ventures. Some of those provides jobs.

Quit fucking with my credibility.

[Biggles]

J2

I think the UK (and EU) position is one of Mixed Economy rather than all out Socialism. The general view is that no one expects the Government to run the Supermarkets or the local ice cream shop. However, we do expect the Government to play a role in the broader infra-structure of the country. We have less extremes of wealth and poverty than say the US (or, bizarrely, Russia) and we do appreciate that some choices preclude others. However, on balance the society we have suits our culture.

I would not want my country run by World.Com or Enron. The private sector is a pretty mixed bag when it comes to best practice

True enough, and what you have works for you.

Private capitalism is inherently more efficient, though, because it abhors bureaucracy, for the most part.

I realize this advantage has been shown as spectacularly corruptible in a few instances (such as those you've noted) recently, but they are not the norm, no matter the picture painted by the media.

There is no single system to answer all the potential ills of free societies; that certain sensible co-mingling is ideologically verboten is unfortunate, wouldn't you say?

I have always tended towards pragmatism rather than ideology...but am pragmatic enough to realise that it is not a position all can stomach

[Skillian]

Much as I hate to force this back on topic, I felt Rat was (as so many do) taking inordinate pride in the amount of taxes he pays.

I hope to be forgiven for believing the only taxes I owe are for the common defense, blah, blah, blah.

The government (here, anyway) views any semi-substantial consumption of any goods whatsoever as an opportunity to enhance revenue, you see.

Believe me, they do that here too

You apparently believe it is thoroughly correct for them to do so.

The government, faced with an alternative choice of fuels, would assume (for no reason other than a "felt" need) such should be subject to tax over-and-above regular sales-tax.

Why?

I think it is idiotic to buy the argument we owe the government what it says we do, no questions asked.

In the U.K., you believe in Socialism, which is nothing more than government capitalism as opposed to private capitalism, and government proves time and time again is hasn't the gifts that the private sector does for that particular game.

Fuel tax is different to other taxes tho - it could almost be considered like the extra duty on cigarettes and alcohol, in that it is a substance that we'd generally like people to use less of (or at least, that's the excuse).

Taxing it highly forces it to be expensive, and in the same vein taxing an "emissions-free" fuel much less makes it a more attractive purchase.

If these fuels were in competition today, and the petrol was cheaper to manufacture, the government could effectively force the cleaner fuel to become dominant. This is effectively breaking market forces, but I think it one of those times when it's right for a government to do so.

Since no such fuel exists the situation is obviously hypothetical, but the same applies to greener fuels and hybrid cars today, which is the point i was making earlier.

edit: Wow, there were a lot of posts since i started writing that.

[Busyman]

nvm I did see this before. musta been late.

[j2k4]

Much as I hate to force this back on topic, I felt Rat was (as so many do) taking inordinate pride in the amount of taxes he pays.

I hope to be forgiven for believing the only taxes I owe are for the common defense, blah, blah, blah.

The government (here, anyway) views any semi-substantial consumption of any goods whatsoever as an opportunity to enhance revenue, you see.

Believe me, they do that here too

You apparently believe it is thoroughly correct for them to do so.

The government, faced with an alternative choice of fuels, would assume (for no reason other than a "felt" need) such should be subject to tax over-and-above regular sales-tax.

Why?

I think it is idiotic to buy the argument we owe the government what it says we do, no questions asked.

In the U.K., you believe in Socialism, which is nothing more than government capitalism as opposed to private capitalism, and government proves time and time again is hasn't the gifts that the private sector does for that particular game.

Fuel tax is different to other taxes tho - it could almost be considered like the extra duty on cigarettes and alcohol, in that it is a substance that we'd generally like people to use less of (or at least, that's the excuse).

Taxing it highly forces it to be expensive, and in the same vein taxing an "emissions-free" fuel much less makes it a more attractive purchase.

If these fuels were in competition today, and the petrol was cheaper to manufacture, the government could effectively force the cleaner fuel to become dominant. This is effectively breaking market forces, but I think it one of those times when it's right for a government to do so.

Since no such fuel exists the situation is obviously hypothetical, but the same applies to greener fuels and hybrid cars today, which is the point i was making earlier.

edit: Wow, there were a lot of posts since i started writing that.

My point is (and has been) that a change-over of any consequence would result in a revenue loss which the government would not countenance.

They are, as I've noted, all about revenue enhancement, not revenue neutrality or (God forbid) loss.

The prospect of this depresses R & D.

[zapjb]

The way most of the peoples opinions are here, you'd think they're making $250,000 a year or more. And think everybody else should if they just applied themselves.

[j2k4]

The way most of the peoples opinions are here, you'd think they're making $250,000 a year or more. And think everybody else should if they just applied themselves.

Don't quite follow you, there...

[Busyman]

The way most of the peoples opinions are here, you'd think they're making $250,000 a year or more. And think everybody else should if they just applied themselves.

Fame and/or fortune is a great incentive for one to apply himself. It helps drive innovation.