|
Post by wonk on Dec 29, 2016 7:03:53 GMT -5
I don't think you are being mobbed. It is just a number of people disagree with your point of view. This is what constructive debating is all about and it is something that has been missing on PD for a few years.
Are you afraid that others may make good points and you may have to modify your own opinions? OMG lol
|
|
|
Post by darthoso on Dec 29, 2016 11:08:13 GMT -5
Second: Dude... dude... doooood... I'd like you to meet your good friends and mine Exxon-Mobile (who now come with their own Secretary of State!), Dow Chemical, Phillip-Morris, Chiquita, HSBC (Hooray for money laundering), Wells Fargo, Enron, Bear Stearns, Pretty much the entire financial industry, Blackwater, 99.9% of private military contractors, GE, That utility company from that Julie Roberts movie... did their lawyers sign off on everything they did? Is not breaking the law really the standard you want to strive for as a society? I suppose mafia lawyers help mobsters stay on the straight and narrow? Business people are trained to maximize profits and in a publicly traded corporation their legal responsibility on behalf of the shareholders. Left to their own devices they'd straight up murder people to do so, kind of like how the Mafia uses violence to get their way. Corporate lawyers, who's job it is to represent the shareholders, are often the voice saying no. Are those lawyers asked to find loopholes and are sometimes straight up ignored by management, absolutely. That's why we have Justice Departments, regulatory regimes, corporate watchdogs, etc. Is that system perfect? God no. Corporate governance laws reward short term thinking at the expense of long term thinking and give management far too much control. If anything we need more corporate lawyers who are more legally empowered to do their job and represent shareholders by holding management accountable. I used to work for a federal contractor, they aren't the issue, the system (in this case the Federal Acquisition System) is the problem.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 29, 2016 15:49:05 GMT -5
If you want to remove all nuance from the equation then the richer you get the more tax breaks you get is a 100% true statement. No? No. This is unfortunately a common misconception. The top 1% pay a higher effective tax rate than the remaining 99%, except for the hedge fund types and others who are improperly getting their income taxed at the capital gains rate. This higher effective tax rate has been true for a long time. I'm a good example of why you're wrong. My marginal tax rate for federal and state is a ridiculous 60%. Far from getting more tax breaks, they are all phased our or impossible to get. The home loan interest deduction is capped. The deduction of medical expenses is for only amounts above a certain percentage of your AGI. Despite being a cripple, I cannot recall the last time that I was able to take any medical deductions at all. The list goes on and on, and then there's also the dreaded alternative minimum tax. I understand the need for a progressive tax system but it is extremely irritating to be told that you are not paying your fair share by people who are not paying any tax at all. On "Cali," that was just a random ribbing because I don't use that word and think of it as kind of low rent. Taxes is a pet peeve of mine, so don't take it personally. A few months ago I got a demerit here by DevoGirl because of a booze-fueled tax rant while I was in Vegas.....
|
|
|
Post by darthoso on Dec 29, 2016 19:26:08 GMT -5
Oh wow what a fucked up tax and medical system you have in the states .... Quite simple here, under 40k income you pay 20% tax on anything over 11k (tax free allowance) over 40k and you pay 40% on anything you earn over that amount. If you're "disabled" doesn't matter what you earn all medication/hospital is free. Of course crafty accountants look for loopholes, but our tax people close them when they appear. Tax avoidence is legal, tax evasion isn't ... That's the only complicated bit as both seen the same to the average bloke on the street. But there is some weird legal definition involved. Take us back please.
|
|
ynwa
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by ynwa on Dec 29, 2016 22:34:01 GMT -5
Are you afraid that others may make good points and you may have to modify your own opinions? OMG lol See, this is what I'm talking about. I don't mind debate. Debating is practically foreplay for me (hyperbole people), but it's hard to argue with 5 different people at once and not feel defensive. That being said, I can't not respond. First, you say that corporate lawyers stop corporations from breaking the law because nothing happens without them signing off and, when given examples that go against that assertion, it turns into, "Wellllll... it's not that simple and sometimes they get ignored and we need more of them so they're empowered and the regulatory system and..." Which is it then? When the people signing your checks tell you, "Is this multi-million dollar deal legal?" Are you really going to tell them, "Nope, can't do it"? Or are you going to find a way to make it happen, consequences be damned? And I know it's not because they're just money grubbing whores. I know it's not all black and white and that there's lots of grey in between. I don't even think that corporations are not inherently evil. They're machines operated by humans, they're amoral. But like one of you said, they have a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money as possible and -- at an increasingly alarming rate, especially in the last decade -- the executives have done this not by being good business people, but by buying influence with our government and using that influence to rewrite the law in their favor. For God's sake, the financial sector nearly destroyed the global economy and Eric Holder came out and said, yeah we should go after them but the consequences would be too great. The regulatory agencies that are supposed to check them are a revolving door. Regulators that play ball get a sweet gig with the same industry they were supposed to regulate only to be replaced by someone else in that industry. And they do all of this with the help of corporate lawyers. I cannot, in good conscience, help an entity that pollutes a river that catches fire, creates agent orange, refuses to clean up environmental disasters they caused, knowingly sells products that cause cancer while keeping the public in the dark, or screws over their workers. Not even to further my career.
|
|
|
Post by Corey on Dec 30, 2016 4:18:02 GMT -5
For God's sake, the financial sector nearly destroyed the global economy and Eric Holder came out and said, yeah we should go after them but the consequences would be too great. The regulatory agencies that are supposed to check them are a revolving door. Regulators that play ball get a sweet gig with the same industry they were supposed to regulate only to be replaced by someone else in that industry. And they do all of this with the help of corporate lawyers. That's an oversimplification. Financial crises for the past 100 years in America have always been caused by excesses of the Federal Reserve. You can blame a few bankers for acting recklessly with other people's money. Sure. But where do you think the mortgages they were selling came from? They came from Greenspan and his low interest rate policies after the dot com bubble...which coincidentally was also caused by ... the Federal Reserve! I completely understand the argument that more regulation is needed but I don't agree with it and there is another side to the story that is usually ignored.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 30, 2016 4:49:25 GMT -5
Greenspan fucked up and his idol Ayn Rand would/should be disgusted by his devotion to her.
But the Obama administration fucked up too. They let all the payouts go out to Goldman Sachs and others, claiming it was required due to contracts. Sounds like a first year law student memo to me. Obama isn't dumb but it's clear he hasn't had the benefit of being in the trenches. At least all the cash infusions ended up being profitable for the American people, if I recall correctly. But a lot of the folks who caused the crash ended up with a crapload of cash.
|
|
ynwa
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by ynwa on Dec 30, 2016 5:10:17 GMT -5
Just to be very clear. You think Wall St. is not responsible for the crash and we need less regulation?
|
|
|
Post by wonk on Dec 30, 2016 9:30:01 GMT -5
What GFC? It didn't effect me at all. My government just printed some more cash and sent it out to every taxpayer. Problem solved here!
|
|
|
Post by malibu on Dec 30, 2016 17:38:37 GMT -5
Welcome to PD!
|
|
|
Post by mikefatty on Dec 31, 2016 12:59:57 GMT -5
I'm no good at all on this topic. so I'll just say welcome. and it seems to be a pretty health discussion lots of points of view . that's what a debate is all about ya even if it was not intentional. seems healthy.
|
|