Corporations already do share wealth.

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Corporations already do share wealth.

Written By : TrogloPundit

What a wonderful, wonderful headline:

Rich corporations “must share wealth” to avoid unrest

You wonder, just for a moment, what they mean by “avoid unrest.” Is that some kind of threat? Violence? Vitriol?

So soon after Tuscon?

I kid, of course. Also: free speech. Even for Greek socialists.

Just remember, boys and girls: you want “rich corporations” to “share wealth?” They already are sharing wealth. And no, I’m not talking about charitable work, although corporations certainly do their share of that. No, I’m talking about making other people wealthier through job creation. Through growth in stock value. Through creating markets for business-to-business sales.

What if these rich corporations didn’t exist? Then neither would the jobs they create, directly or indirectly.

What if rich corporations swore off profits? Then investors – including pension funds – would stop buying their stocks.

What happens to something nobody wants to own?

Hey, greed exists. It exists in the corporate world, probably, to a much greater degree than in the population at large. Success breeds the desire for even more success. Nobody ever wants to stop where they are. Taking the next step is always the goal, whether we’re talking about school, or sports, or career, or relationships, or making money.

Corporations don’t exist to provide people with jobs or wealth. But in order to do what corporations do exist for – provide wealth for that corporation’s owners – they have to make others wealthier. They have to employ people. Purchase supplies. Pay taxes.

All those things are a means to an end. The means: providing jobs and wealth for others. The end: creating wealth for the owners.

It’s not a perfect system, it’s just better than any of the other ones. There will always be people who have much, much, much more than others. There will always be people who have nothing, or next to nothing. That’s not a good thing: it just is.

But at least this means to this end requires no force. We don’t have to force people to better their own situations – they’ll do that all on their own. And I doing that, they’ll indirectly better others as well.

The thing to do, then, is to let people.

(Posted by The TrogloPundit)

http://www.facebook.com/people/Shawn-Boyett/100001238012899 Shawn Boyett

This is an article I’ve been waiting for a long time. More and more people need to talk about this. Capitalism is not a perfect system. Never has been, and never will be since it leads to a centralization of wealth. But great business empires rise and fall, just as political systems do in real life. Greed creates jobs, but it also has the ability to destroy vast business empires as well and redistribute their wealth and jobs to the general populace who pick up the slack for the failed businesses.

However, in a limited world with limited resources, where people in society will do whatever they can regardless of the consequences to achieve wealth and a better life for themselves, capitalism is the best economic system to work under. The alternative, Socialism, gives far too much control to the government and opens the door for them to control our lives. Plus our own government is far too corrupt to be anywhere close to competent anyway.

The best thing that our government can do for us right now is to remove all the red tape and let the Americans get back to work. Make it cheaper to start small businesses, and we’ll be out of this recession in a couple of years. Obamacare is a extreme disaster towards this cause, since it puts an unnecessary expense on businesses that were already struggling to survive to begin with. It is no surprise that places like Wal-Mart and other big companies are already striving to get ‘waivers’ from the government so that they don’t have to pay it, IE: Bribes that smaller businesses cannot afford.

Anonymous

I’ve always viewed the best role of government in a capitalist state as a regulatory agent and little more.

A government that works to promote competition, transparency (if they say it’s beef it ought to be beef), and forces everyone to honor contracts is one that will probably best serve the population.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Well here’s the problem. For the left, unless the system they dislike (viscerally, emotionally) is completely 100% flawless without any problems, then its totally worthless and should be abandoned. Meanwhile the system they prefer (without rational basis) is incredibly flawed and destructive but they like it and believe it means well, so it must be embraced.

Anonymous

There’s also the fact that in most cases the left simply refuses to see the flaws in their preferred system. Or if they do, they blame it on the corrupting influence of the system they dislike.

Back during the Cold War, any mention of the crippling poverty and ruthless oppression in the Soviet Union was either vehemently denied by the left or somehow blamed on the evil influence of capitalism.

And of course, how many leftists have we seen shove their fingers in their ears and hum loudly whenever we show them proof of the brutal rationing and routine denial of care that goes on in countries with socialized healthcare systems?

D-Vega

Why don’t large international corporations pay their fair share of US taxes?

Anonymous

You want them to pay taxes on assets the US government has no jurisdiction over? How Imperialist of you.

Anonymous

Either that or we establish an unelected international agency capable of collecting taxes across borders. This would require they be able to enforce their edicts against countries that want no part of it, so a strong military.

It would mean a global tyranny from which no one could escape.

But at least those corporations would be put in their place.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Shawn-Boyett/100001238012899 Shawn Boyett

Gee Brain what are we gonna do tomorrow night?

Anonymous

Same thing we do every night pinky, exploit popular discontent to gradually expand the authority of the state all the while carefully inserting our supporters in to unelected positions of authority leading to a de-facto totalitarian state that seemingly has the support of the masses.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Shawn-Boyett/100001238012899 Shawn Boyett

But-But brain? What the hell does that…. *head explodes*

It’s pinky, yes pinky and the brain brain brain brain brain.

Anonymous

It boggles my mind sometimes how liberals can support the most blatantly totalitarian acts without even realizing it.

Take D-Vega. He thinks “large international corporations” should “pay their fair share of US taxes”. I assume he means making them pay taxes on company assets based in other countries as though they were based in the US. Basically, he wants the US government to collect taxes on foreign lands. He might as well call it a “tribute”.

For that matter, the very concept of making someone pay “their fair share” in taxes. Setting aside the fact that “fair share” is a completely nebulous term that can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean, it implies that the money a person earns isn’t really theirs at all. It’s just something our benevolent government allows them to temporarily possess.

Toastrider

On a side note, what if said large international corporation already pays taxes to a foreign nation for assets located on its soil? Most probably do.

So are you going to tax the corporation /twice/? If ToastCorp has a factory in the U.S. and a factory in Germany, and pays taxes on both according to appropriate national tax laws, why are you hitting them up again?
Toastrider

On a side note, what if said large international corporation already pays taxes to a foreign nation for assets located on its soil? Most probably do.

So are you going to tax the corporation /twice/? If ToastCorp has a factory in the U.S. and a factory in Germany, and pays taxes on both according to appropriate national tax laws, why are you hitting them up again?
freeman

It boggles my mind sometimes how liberals can support the most blatantly totalitarian acts without even realizing it.

What makes you think they don’t realize it? The left has never had a problem with totalitarian acts.
Anonymous

I guess I have a hard time understanding how someone can claim to be in favor of liberty and freedom but in the next breath openly advocate policies that reduce liberty and freedom.

Are they hoping we won’t notice? Do they not notice?
Anonymous

I guess I have a hard time understanding how someone can claim to be in favor of liberty and freedom but in the next breath openly advocate policies that reduce liberty and freedom.

Are they hoping we won’t notice? Do they not notice?
freeman

It boggles my mind sometimes how liberals can support the most blatantly totalitarian acts without even realizing it.

What makes you think they don’t realize it? The left has never had a problem with totalitarian acts.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

What’s their fair share?

D-Vega

More than 0%.

Anonymous

Of what? The government has no claim to their foreign assets and never did. Unless you think the United States has the right to march into other countries and demand tribute at the point of a gun.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

There is no company on the planet that pays zero taxes. None. Even if, by some wierd book keeping, they come over on the books as paying no federal income tax, they still pay payroll taxes, social security taxes, local and state taxes, and tarriffs and fees. I agree that giving a company zero taxes as an incentive to move into an area is annoying, but that’s part of how states compete to attract business in their area. It also shows how raising taxes on business drives them away.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OZBTYQK5MN5SKP6FA6KK4TJOQ4 MichaelAlan

Why don’t you pay your fair share? I’m sure your tax bracket is lower than the 33% that corporations pay.

TheMartha

“CORPORATIONS ALREADY DO SHARE WEALTH”

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL *wipes tears from eyes* LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Now *THAT’S* funny!

Anonymous

You don’t understand wealth. It’s not something laying around that rich people manage to sneak in and steal before others can get to it.

It’s created. And it isn’t created by hoarding. If I owned all the diamonds in the world would I be rich? No, unless I was willing to exchange some of them with others right? You can’t eat diamonds, you can’t burn them, their only value is in being shuffled around between various folks. And those are very basic, they don’t even require purchasing machines to make them or raw materials etc etc.

TheMartha

I obviously understand wealth far better than you and your simplistic deflection.

Anonymous

No, you don’t. You prove it every time you post.
Anonymous

Clearly not.

Do you consider amount of wealth in the world to be finite or dynamic?

Anonymous

Apparently, libs think there is only a finite amount that is hoarded by the wealthy and distributed by some elite group to the masses as they see fit.

Idjits.
Anonymous

Yeah, their understanding of economics seems functionally no different than that of a group of kindergartners a small pile of toys.

If little Johnny takes one toy that means no one else can have it. That means he’s a selfish jerk and it’s ok to bite or hit him to take it away. Likewise it doesn’t so much matter if you have an adequate supply of toys, if someone else has more you must hate them. And if they have a better toy then that makes all yours undesirable. You can now only be happy if you take what he has for yourself (after you acquire it you will quickly lose interest and seek out someone elses toy and os on).

I think everyone goes through this phase. Some of us grow out of it when we learn to walk and use the toilet, others make it the bedrock of their beliefs and go on to become the most eloquent president in history.
TheMartha

You like to deflect – then you don’t have to prove any points. Cute. “Finite” -everything on earth is finite. What are you attempting to avoid?
Anonymous

Earth, lol your thinking is infinitesimal. How big is the universe?
TheMartha

Infinity is a universe more than the sum of its parts. But earth and its finite status has nothing to do with crude wealth.
Anonymous

So I take it you can’t answer that question?
Anonymous

Wealth is only limited by the total amount of energy and mass available to convert…the stars aren’t even the limit. Theoretically, the energy of black holes can be harvested, so the super black holes at the centers of galaxies could be harvested. I realize your limited, logical capacity won’t be able to ken that fact, however it makes the possibility of wealth generation -for all intents and purposes- infinite.
Anonymous

Wealth is only limited by the total amount of energy and mass available to convert…the stars aren’t even the limit. Theoretically, the energy of black holes can be harvested, so the super black holes at the centers of galaxies could be harvested. I realize your limited, logical capacity won’t be able to ken that fact, however it makes the possibility of wealth generation -for all intents and purposes- infinite.

Anonymous

Or let me guess: wealth is something the government owns and creates and if they’re generous will temporarily loan out to individuals in exchange for loyalty and obedience?

Anonymous

Pay me or face injury and/or death.

Isn’t that how the mafia works?

Anonymous

Nice country you got there.

Shame if something happened to it.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

The new civility in action: direct threats to the rich by the left. Violence promised unless they do what they’re told.

Toastrider

Not a good idea though. Money can’t buy happiness, but it can buy top-flight lawyers and hollow-point ammunition.

I’m going to wander afield a bit here, but bear with me.

In the ‘Shadowrun’ game system, part of the history involves the legal ramifications of corporations possessing the right (through their employees and paid subordinates) to defend themselves. The legal decision in the game history came about during a food shortage, when trucks carrying biohazardous waste came under attack by a mob convinced they were carrying food. The truck drivers and guards, under direct physical assault, opened fire and killed several people.

Now, we’ve seen the rise of ‘castle doctrine’ and right to carry in numerous states (there’s a graphic floating around which shows how it’s spread). How much of a push would it take for such a right to be extended to corporate personnel under direct threat of violence?

Something to think about.

hobbit

here, think about an Armored Car instead.

You think the guy with the money bad is not going to shoot you if you try and take it?

What’s to think about? Don’t covet and take, seems simple enough…

Mooman

Dude. Large corporations don’t share wealth. Sharing wealth as you’ve defined it is cute… its also called something else.

That something? HOW TO RUN A COMPANY. We can all re-define words and then sit back and call it a weekend… but when goldman sachs is making money – hoards of money – by rorting govt contracts, or by investing in diamond mines in africa that are effectively serf-labor run, you can only redefine so much and feel good with yourself.

That corps have to employ people, and pay taxes, does in no small way make them paragons of virtue. Or even close to the line between virtue and greed. That they underpay a host of people, or shuffle the books to avoid taxes – and then complain the loudest when those govt services they “deserve” are lacking pushes them far too far to the greedy side for me.

Anonymous

“That something? HOW TO RUN A COMPANY. We can all re-define words and then sit back and call it a weekend…” Mooman

Sure, why not, Communists… er, um, Socialists… oops, Liberals… no wait, Progressives (yah, that’s the current term) do it all the time.

“That they underpay a host of people,”

You know the funny thing about the free market is that a company that pays much under market value for the services of their employees quickly finds themselves without employees and out of business.

“or shuffle the books to avoid taxes”

The only reason they are able to do so is because of the complicated tax system we have. A system only made more and more complicated by liberals attempting to make it “fairer”.
When Russia scrapped their old and complicated tax system about a decade ago and went to a flat ten to twenty percent system they found there was a MASSIVE reduction in the rates of people and corporations cheating on their taxes.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I agree that the crony “capitalism” that big companies like Goldman Sachs does isn’t capitalism at all and is wrong, but that’s not because they’re a corporation or because of the free market. That’s because of corrupt politicians and is much closer to fascism than anything else.

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Users Online

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN