OptimisticOwl
Legend
Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex
|
RE: Question
(01-04-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (01-04-2018 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (01-04-2018 09:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (01-04-2018 01:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (01-04-2018 12:37 AM)InterestedX Wrote: I am basically the exact opposite -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I have always seen the other side as fundamentally greedy.
Not just "the other side." Everybody. Greed is a fundamental human trait. What we need is a system that recognizes that and harnesses it for good, instead of a system that can work only in the absence of greed. That's why capitalism has done more to pull people out of poverty that any other system.
Why is it greedy to want to keep more of what you make, but not greedy to want to take more of what somebody else made?
And the fact that greed is a fundamental trait is why I'm in favor of policies that will help protect people who are less powerful (e.g. average workers) from those who hold more power. We have swung too far away from that.
You're right that we should have policy that helps to both harness greed and try and reduce the negative externalities of said greed. Policies that make sure that people who put in a hard days work are not left behind in the economy (stronger minimum wages), are not put into danger because they may be fired (OSHA type regs), do not have their wages stolen by bosses who force them to work without clocking in (anti-wage theft laws), are not overworked without proper compensation (stronger over-time laws), they have time off to raise their family (maternity and paternity leave), and so on.
People inherently do not want to part with their money, and since we can recognize that, we need to put laws in place that protect and support the employees who help make that money.
And if that leads to people moving themselves and their jobs to countries, then either good luck finding an industrialized first-world country with less strict laws, or have fun in the countries that do.
Remember this. Those people that are less powerful are also by definition greedy too. And they come in large numbers so they have lots of votes. And is very tempting for politicians to bribe them, especially since they get to spend somebody else's money to do so.
As far as the regulations, you are correct that most western countries have strict regulations as well. But there are some differences. If you have the equivalent of an OSHA violation in most of Europe, you case gets tried before an independent administrative tribunal, not before an ALJ who works for OSHA and has her raises and promotions determined by the executive director of OSHA. So the deck is not so heavily stacked in favor of regulators. And one thing that happens in Europe is that your issues get resolved quickly, whereas here an agency can drag things out for years. Yes or no, you get an answer, and that's what most businesses want.
Another thing is that until the last few days, that other western country had lower, and in some cases substantially lower, corporate taxes and probably had and still has at least some relief from double taxation of dividends, and in many cases a much narrower definition of taxable capital gains. Many have lower or no estate taxes. That other western country also had comparable wages, particularly when mandated benefits are included.
So how do we compete with them for investment? If our taxes are higher, and everything else is a push or nearly so, investment is always going there. Trying to force things by imposing penalties on US companies that go overseas merely puts those companies even further behind their competition and will force them either to leave completely and remove all nexus to the US or go out of business.
Forcing businesses to do things that make no economic sense will never work. They will either leave or go out of business.
I'm confused as to your point. If we are now in line with the rest of the industrialized world on corporate taxes, yet still far behind on worker protections, we shouldn't try to catch up on worker protections because of the estate tax and capital gains taxes?
And I fundamentally disagree with your last concept, if you're stating it as a binary function. If that were the case, all businesses would have stopped functioning upon the inception of the minimum wage bill, OSHA regulations, etc. Worker protections almost never make economic sense because they rarely are about increasing margins for the companies that employ said workers. However, we as a society had decided at one point, that maximizing business profits was not the be all, end all. However, if you're not looking at in from a binary perspective, I agree that there is a point at which you can pass where regulations, taxes, etc. can become so burdensome that it does not make sense to do business anymore. However, we are really far from that point.
Another question for you about environmental regulations. How do you think we as a society should handle the negative externalities of our industrial activities? To me, this is a perfect example of where regulations are needed to make sure that companies do not immediately push on these burdens to only those that are directly affected.
Now i am confused about your point. However, we are in danger of hijacking the thread, so I suggest we go to PMs.
|
|