Not everybody is going to install .NET 4.5 on Vista/Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008/2008 R2, so they'll need to continue issuing security fixes for .NET 4.0 at the very least.
You are clinically unable to place blame on anything other than government, so he's doing the wise thing--not wasting his time with you. You should get that lot. It's like talking to a wall.
The same can be said for the free market. How many times did the government have to bail out the private sector in the past thirty years? The government's getting out of the way was the very reason the free market had to be bailed out. It's almost as if some of you live in some sort of alternate universe.
Let me ask you this. What do you think is the right about amount of government involvement? Let's try to visualize what this "world according to dahat" would look like. And then let's examine how this fantastical Utopian world would magically create built-in mechanisms to prevent companies from sending in jobs overseas, eliminate corporate fraud, prevent the formation of destructive oligopolies, end poverty, provide enough jobs that pay a living wage, and do so without raping the environment and polluting everything in sight. Go ahead.
Regardless, he completely missed the point, which is that corporate earnings imbalance is bad for the economy just as imbalance of personal wealth is bad for the economy.
A company stockpiling mountains of cash isn't compelled to do anything with its cash. While a company that's barely making a profit is spending virtually all of its revenues to survive and pumping money back into the economy.
I think we've been over this already. The wealthy do not put the equivalent share of money back into the economy. A person who earns $5 million has far lower economic benefit than 100 people who earn $50K each. What's so difficult to understand about this?It discourages me, I know that for sure. Even though my actual take home pay wouldn't change much if I went over that boundary, the knowledge that I'm giving more of my hard-earned money to the government in exchange for activities that I don't always agree with causes me to think really hard about looking for a higher-paying job or working for that extra bonus.
What should be more discouraging is that working harder won't necessarily guarantee you a higher paying salary. Taxes should be the least of your concerns.*snip*
Not the only factor, but I can guarantee that the high corporate tax rate is a major reason to why companies move their money and operations off-shore. Imagine how much extra money corporations could invest in the economy if that tax didn't exist.
We as consumers need to punish companies that do this. We're only hurting ourselves by continuing to foster this behavior.
Unless we can change company behavior, they would ship jobs overseas regardless of the corporate tax rate. Corporations are motivated to improve their numbers on a quarterly basis. At some point, companies run out of ideas for improving their numbers organically, so they either merge with a number company in order to lay-off redundant people and benefit from accretive earnings or they cut costs by outright laying off existing workers or by shipping jobs overseas.I think the big difference between you and me is that you trust the government to invest your money wisely, and I don't.
Actually, I don't trust anybody. The difference is that government isn't profit-motivated, while companies are. The government has one strike against them. Companies have two.
$200 billion in cash?
I don't believe that for one bit!
Where do they store it? Fort Knox? In gold?
They have the option to withdraw $200 billion from their banks. But they can't withdraw that kind of money, because the banks don't have that kind of cash.
It's the same with all of us. We have trillions of credit, but if we go and get the actual money, the bank will go bust.
It's all tied up in investments and other products, so to say that you want to give $200 billion to the poor, you first have to take the $200 billion out of the economy.
And by the way, that $200 billion is creating jobs for everybody,.
OMG. You really I thought I meant literal cash like in paper currency? LOL
Seriously, learn something about business before you talk about business.
When companies list "cash" on the balance sheet, it can't be in any kind of securities. It has to be in cash or "cash equivalents" like bank account balance, CDs, and savings bonds. It IS NOT being invested by the company AT ALL.
The banks themselves can invest some of that money for their own benefit. They are required by law to keep a portion of bank balances in cash. They can keep the cash themselves or send it to the Federal Reserve.
Another portion of the cash can be put into very liquid (and therefore low-risk) securities like T-bills. These are very short-term investments and are essentially as liquid as real cash. This amount doesn't even show up as separate balance sheet item in the bank's books. It's essentially treated as "cash" as well. A portion of the yield from these secondary reserves as well as the interest from the primary reserves paid by the Fed can be paid back to the company in the form of interest.
The rest can be used for loans, but we all know that banks are lending hardly anything these days.
So yes, these 3 companies have stockpiled $200 billion in cash. This is not phony money like market capital. It's cold hard cash that their customers have paid them and the companies are essentially sitting on that money collecting interest.
And that interest is pretty much coming straight from the government from the yield on T-Bills and government-issued bonds that the banks purchase from the secondary reserves. Corporations do everything they can to fleece the government by hiding away money in offshore accounts, and the money that they do report earns interest from the government. Talk about double dipping.
And to answer the question of the thread;
Yes, we are our own worst enemy.
Which you demonstrated perfectly in the first post of this thread. You want to use force to extract money from somebody and then spend it on somebody else who has not done anything to deserve it other then being poor.
This is the exactly the reason we are in a crisis.
You completely missed the point as expected. This is not about "using force to extract money" from somebody. It's about how we can prevent somebody from getting so much money in the first place. The game is rigged. We need to fix the rules. If we can't fix the rules, then we should tax the living * out of these companies.
And quit with the "use force" rhetoric. It's getting so tired even by your standards, and considering how much money corporations hide from the tax collector, it's obvious there's no force being used. Paying taxes is voluntary. Sure, you can get your * thrown in federal prison for tax evasion, but it's completely your choice to pay or not.
Given the hypothetical progressive marginal tax rates:
< 500,000: 25%
>= 500,001: 50%
Effective Tax Rate: 25%
Tax: $375,000 ($125K tax up to $500K + $250K tax for $500,001 to $1M)
Effective Tax Rate: 37.5%
So your argument is that nobody will want to try earning $1 million and take home an additional $250K over the guy with at $500K salary because of the 50% tax rate that kicks in at $500K. Do you really think that premise holds any water?
And while we're on the subject of "working hard", do you honestly think that you'd have to work twice as hard to go from a $500K salary to a $1M salary? Sure, it might take some hard work, and many other factors that are way beyond your control, but do you really think people would weigh the amount of additional effort it would take to achieve some hypothetical milestone take-home pay and just say "* it. I'd rather not put in the extra work." Seriously?
Canadian corporate tax rate 15%, US total corporate tax rate 39.26%.
Canadian unemployment 7.2%, US 8.3%
Yeah, the corporate tax rate is the only factor in unemployment rate. *rolls eyes*
It's also mostly lined up with the Libertarian Party, hence my suggestion above to vote third party. In my opinion, it's the best of both major parties: fiscal conservatism with social liberalism.
I look at graduated tax brackets as redistributing wealth. It discourages hard work by punishing those who make more money. My father was in a strange position for a few years as he was straddling two tax brackets. If he made more money, he would actually take home less. That's a broken system.
A flat tax rate still has the wealthy paying in more money. Take away all deductions and credits, set the rate at 10% and charge it to everyone. I guarantee that you'd bring in more revenue than with the current system.
I think we've been over the reason for the progressive tax system already. The cost for the basic necessities to live do not go proportionally down based on how much you make.
You also can't deny that having more money makes it easier to accumulate even more money.
This notion that higher taxes discourages hard work is laughable. People don't compete against the tax bracket. They compete against each other. With all things being equal, those who work harder are rewarded more than those who work less hard, regardless of tax rate (unless, of course, the top marginal tax rate is 100%, which would be absurd).