Want to make schooling more affordable, make it about actual education instead of a bloated bureaucracy, filled with professors that teach useless crap, push politics over learning and fixat on sports stars rather than turning out actually educated people
I can do all of these things and still overcharge for my services. Easily.
Want to make schooling more affordable, make it about actual education instead of a bloated bureaucracy, filled with professors that teach useless crap, push politics over learning and fixat on sports stars rather than turning out actually educated people
The cost of university is not related to teaching liberal arts or having sports teams. Athletic departments generate revenue for universities, they don't consume it. Liberal arts programs are self-sustained by a fraction of the tuition charged.
The real money pit in universities today is the money sink involved in being a "tier one research institution." Aka letting scientists play with toys. Which also props up the egos of that bureaucracy.
Want to make schooling more affordable, make it about actual education instead of a bloated bureaucracy, filled with professors that teach useless crap, push politics over learning and fixat on sports stars rather than turning out actually educated peopleThe cost of university is not related to teaching liberal arts or having sports teams. Athletic departments generate revenue for universities, they don't consume it. Liberal arts programs are self-sustained by a fraction of the tuition charged.
The real money pit in universities today is the money sink involved in being a "tier one research institution." Aka letting scientists play with toys. Which also props up the egos of that bureaucracy.
I'm going to have to take issue with most of this, old chap.
I had to post it in another thread, but liberal arts encompasses mathematics and sciences as well as history and literature. Basically it just means "non-vocational education".While it's true that MANY universities in fact turn a profit on their sports programs for example. Or this story which claims "Nearly every university loses money on sports. Even after private donations and ticket sales, they fill the gap by tapping students paying tuition or state taxpayers."
Putting on a good show of teenagers smashing into one another at high velocities isn't really the sort of business an institute of higher education should be in.
Furthermore, I only half-agree with your last statement. Being a top-tier research school is incredibly expensive...but more because of the need to maintain and develop facilities. The grant money that comes (from both public and private sources) actually PROPS UP other programs, including undergraduate programs (and sports), it's getting to the point where you attract the research dollars that is the expensive and competitive issue.
Each specific job requires its own degree, making changing jobs extremely difficult.Picking the right major is impossible since what’s booming now could bust by graduation.
I'd contend these two points. I work for a major corporation and really any degree will get your foot in the door. Hell even ceramics will get you past an interview as long as you can swing it. Which ultimately comes down to how you sell yourself and less about the degree itself. There are exceptions to the rule but really the degree is a skill set not an entitlement to a career.
True. In my experience, a guy with a degree in chemistry is going to get the financials job before a guy without a degree, even if the guy without has been working in finance for 12 years and has more practical experience and knowledge than the guy with the degree.
(True story.)
They want to see the piece of paper. They rarely care what's on it, unless it is very, very specific. Like being a surgeon, or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing that always baffled me about the tort-reform proponents, i.e. the right wing.
The same people telling us "well, we don't need regulation because we have a legal system in which individuals can sue for damages" are also telling us "we have to stop individuals from suing for damages because it disincentivizes innovation and inflates operating costs."
If you are neither able to rely on the government to regulate businesses (or individuals) behavior in a way that prevents them from damaging your livelihood, nor able to expect the courts to force those that harmed you from compensating you, what are you meant to do other than die like a peasant?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Want to make schooling more affordable, make it about actual education instead of a bloated bureaucracy, filled with professors that teach useless crap, push politics over learning and fixat on sports stars rather than turning out actually educated peopleThe cost of university is not related to teaching liberal arts or having sports teams. Athletic departments generate revenue for universities, they don't consume it. Liberal arts programs are self-sustained by a fraction of the tuition charged.
The real money pit in universities today is the money sink involved in being a "tier one research institution." Aka letting scientists play with toys. Which also props up the egos of that bureaucracy.
I will caveat this, being somebody who worked in financials at a major university for many years.
Yes, Athletic departments DO generate revenue. But they also burn through it quickly and they also come with high overhead and maintenance, and believe me, they do not hesitate to supplement their budget from the general fund. Even a slightly out-of-control Athletics division can drain a university's coffers quickly, playing politics and diverting money from other departments because bringing in fame and revenue "entitles them to a bigger slice of the pie."
An honest "tier one research institution" probably has money coming in from Federal sources, which is an entirely different fish to fry and comes with its own problems. Not as much of the general fund goes to these departments as one might think, in most cases. A good chunk of the money comes from corporations and firms that are interested-in, and want a chunk of the rights to the research. Those departments are always scrambling to justify the purchase of their "toys." That's actually a big part of what I did. Justifications.
The real money sink is twofold:
1. Administration and the Overhead that Comes with it. It requires an army of competent people to do all the administrative work of vetting, pricing, buying, calendaring, phone calls, service, janitorial (often Union), etc., etc., and a good sized school can be the size of a small city. That's a city of managers, directors, assistant directors, assistant managers, grunts, mid-levels, high-levels, low-levels, etc., who have to be paid. And even though you might not know they are there (they often work behind-the-scenes or off campus if the school is big enough), they are there.
2. The Big Wigs. The guys at the top are often overpaid. By a lot. Believe me. They are smart guys, no doubt, but like any CEO, rarely worth what they are being paid.
Let me get this straight. You claim that I am lying because, ummm, I am a libertarian, something that comes with a lot of baggage with you guys, never mind that I despise most of what I hear from the right-wing nutters in the US, and I say that you most probably have to choose between affordable/socialized health care on one hand, and legal opportunities for redress on the other? Seriously, a major cause of medical costs is the cost of malpractice insurance, whether you like it or not. That money has to be taken from somewhere, and if it is, it's going to be too expensive to give people socialized health care.
You asked what recourse people in Sweden have if someone wrongs them. Let me be absolutely and perfectly clear on this: None whatsoever. Swedes do not have the money for suing people, in fact, most of us sport a NEGATIVE total wealth, unlike, say, Americans. Especially when it's a public function you are fighting, you have slim chances indeed of winning. Even if you win, you get something like a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. If someone murders your wife in Sweden, your damages will be at most something like 10.000 dollars - but only if the murderer can pay. Usually, I find that Americans have a very difficult time understanding this.
On the other hand, if malpractice leads to health problems, you have a pretty good chance of getting medical help for it, again, paid via taxes.
There are various ways of dealing with these issues. Choosing one thing means you lose something else. Just please spare me the insults and claims that I am a fanatic, or lying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, a major cause of medical costs is the cost of malpractice insurance, whether you like it or not. That money has to be taken from somewhere, and if it is, it's going to be too expensive to give people socialized health care.
FWIW I don't think you're lying; I think you're arguing in good faith I just think you're wrong and/or misinformed.
After a quick google searchthis studycame up that seems to indicate that, in the US at least, medical liability costs (which include malpractice insurance, legal fees, etc.) accounts for some 2.4% of the overall cost of medical care in the country.
Just like other types of insurance, you pay for the actuarial value of a third party assuming your risk. Thus, while a heart surgeon whose minor screwup costs a human life may pay malpractice insurance of 30-50k a year (well less than their average salary of $522k/yr) the average costs are actually between 7 and 15k a year.
Even this seems like a lot (still <10% of their salary), but remember that we're comparing that cost to the salary of the doctor, not the overall cost of medical care which includes all kinds of infrastructure, administration, overhead, and a sizable profit margin.
TL;DR- In actuality, medical liability costs are trivial and don't appreciably affect medical costs in the US.
The problem with government is that is very easy to take and waste money that other people earn.Yes, yes. Taxation is theft, sweat of your brow, so on and so forth.
Here's the thing...the problems associated with having NO GOVERNMENT are much, much worse.
I think many of the problems could go away if they would just tax everyone the same. A flat income tax and/or sales tax and get away from invisible taxes the consumer does not see. I also thing government subsidies of the private sector should go away too. Government subsidies is just government favoritism as are taxes that apply to one industry or product and not another.
It would be a little odd to see libertarians jumping on the bandwagon if I actually believed libertarianism was actually a coherent system. After all, if the government can't regulate business and you can't turn to the courts when they screw up ...Actually, libertarianism is a very coherent system. It's all about avoidance of consequences.
As a libertarian surgeon, I am free to practice medicine without any training, as no one has the authority to say i actually need to know anatomy. I can set my prices how I like because no one has the authority to set aside an unconscionable contract. I can choose my patients how I like because no one has the authority to hold me to any sort of professional ethical standard.
In the event that I screw up, malpractice is not a tort, so the courts have no authority to order me to make redress or to discipline me in any way.
However, when the families of the people that I have killed on the operating table realize that there is no way under Libertopian law of dealing with me, the goverment is obliged to step in to prevent them from "using force" against me. So I can do as I please, knowing that I am absolutely immune to any consequences.
The fact that this also makes me a clinical sociopath is not relevant. It's simply a common characteristic of libertarians.
If the person or family agree to the surgery knowing the surgeons lack of credentials and knowledge. I would not blame the surgeon. As long as the people agreeing to the surgery had all the facts to make the decision. It would be their choice, albeit a stupid one.
If the person or family agree to the surgery knowing the surgeons lack of credentials and knowledge. I would not blame the surgeon. As long as the people agreeing to the surgery had all the facts to make the decision. It would be their choice, albeit a stupid one.
It would be a little odd to see libertarians jumping on the bandwagon if I actually believed libertarianism was actually a coherent system. After all, if the government can't regulate business and you can't turn to the courts when they screw up ...Actually, libertarianism is a very coherent system. It's all about avoidance of consequences.
As a libertarian surgeon, I am free to practice medicine without any training, as no one has the authority to say i actually need to know anatomy. I can set my prices how I like because no one has the authority to set aside an unconscionable contract. I can choose my patients how I like because no one has the authority to hold me to any sort of professional ethical standard.
In the event that I screw up, malpractice is not a tort, so the courts have no authority to order me to make redress or to discipline me in any way.
However, when the families of the people that I have killed on the operating table realize that there is no way under Libertopian law of dealing with me, the goverment is obliged to step in to prevent them from "using force" against me. So I can do as I please, knowing that I am absolutely immune to any consequences.
The fact that this also makes me a clinical sociopath is not relevant. It's simply a common characteristic of libertarians.
Does this apply when your brought in on a crash cart in cardiac arrest? Or been pulled from a car wreck and flown in to the hospital? Can you really always do your due diligence on checking the doctor's credentials and record?
That's a very good point. But people can make decisions on how and who will take care of them in case of an emergency when they can't make decisions. This is an extreme example. But if it was made clear to all society that they had to have such arrangements made, it might be a better alternative than what is going on in England and Canada right now. Might, I am very skeptical of this. Giving up freedom in the name of safety seems to be a slippery slope that has been causing lots of problems in the civilized world.
That's a very good point. But people can make decisions on how and who will take care of them in case of an emergency when they can't make decisions.
No, they can't. Like many of your postings, this is absolutely counterfactual to the point of being ludicrous. As a medical professional, in any civilized country in the world, I have the absolute right -- and indeed, in many jurisdictions, duty -- to perform any sort of medical treatment I see fit in an emergency, and furthermore, I'm not liable for my actions. In the real world, e.g. not Libertopia, this is balanced by the fact that need to be licensed and trained for this to apply, that I have to be performing this act within my training, and within accepted medical practice.
But specifically is your consent not required, but I don't even have to check to see whether or not you've made appropriate arrangements, because I don't have time for legal arglebargle in a medical emergency.
Giving up freedom in the name of safety seems to be a slippery slope that has been causing lots of problems in the civilized world.
Giving up safety in the name of freedom, however, is not a slippery slope. It's a cliff. People die very quickly. I'm delighted to know that you are so willing to sacrifice other people's lives for your freedom.
|
I think many of the problems could go away if they would just tax everyone the same. A flat income tax and/or sales tax and get away from invisible taxes the consumer does not see. I also thing government subsidies of the private sector should go away too. Government subsidies is just government favoritism as are taxes that apply to one industry or product and not another.The problem with government is that is very easy to take and waste money that other people earn.Yes, yes. Taxation is theft, sweat of your brow, so on and so forth.
Here's the thing...the problems associated with having NO GOVERNMENT are much, much worse.
I 100% agree. Why not just impose a 15% federal tax on people and toss in a law limiting state tax to 5% maximum? Or whatever number is somewhat equal to what middle America is currently being taxed....it would make taxation so much easier to understand and deal with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I 100% agree. Why not just impose a 15% federal tax on people and toss in a law limiting state tax to 5% maximum? Or whatever number is somewhat equal to what middle America is currently being taxed....it would make taxation so much easier to understand and deal with.
Because discretionary income does not scale with nominal income. Taxing someone who makes $20,000 a year at a rate of 10% would cause serious hardship -- we're talking about skipped meals, lowered quality of medical care, unsafe housing, that sort of thing.
Taxing someone who makes $200,000 at the same rate generally causes no hardship, few problems, and frankly, not even very much inconvenience. Indeed, you could tax someone who makes $200,000 at 50% and they'd still be living very well indeed.
This can be effectively seen by looking at how regressive sales taxes are. Even though sales taxes are generally a flat rate on every dollar spent on goods, the poor save less money and spend less money on services, and therefore spend more money on goods. The result is that they pay a much higher sales tax burden.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I 100% agree. Why not just impose a 15% federal tax on people and toss in a law limiting state tax to 5% maximum? Or whatever number is somewhat equal to what middle America is currently being taxed....it would make taxation so much easier to understand and deal with.
Because discretionary income does not scale with nominal income. Taxing someone who makes $20,000 a year at a rate of 10% would cause serious hardship -- we're talking about skipped meals, lowered quality of medical care, unsafe housing, that sort of thing.
Taxing someone who makes $200,000 at the same rate generally causes no hardship, few problems, and frankly, not even very much inconvenience. Indeed, you could tax someone who makes $200,000 at 50% and they'd still be living very well indeed.
This can be effectively seen by looking at how regressive sales taxes are. Even though sales taxes are generally a flat rate on every dollar spent on goods, the poor save less money and spend less money on services, and therefore spend more money on goods. The result is that they pay a much higher sales tax burden.
cant agree enough. I wish a flat tax would work as well as proponents feel it would, I truly do. But it is pretty obvious that ten percent to me is not the same as ten percent to someone making twice as much as I am and is not the same as someone making half as much as I am.
That's a very good point. But people can make decisions on how and who will take care of them in case of an emergency when they can't make decisions.
No, they can't. Like many of your postings, this is absolutely counterfactual to the point of being ludicrous. As a medical professional, in any civilized country in the world, I have the absolute right -- and indeed, in many jurisdictions, duty -- to perform any sort of medical treatment I see fit in an emergency, and furthermore, I'm not liable for my actions. In the real world, e.g. not Libertopia, this is balanced by the fact that need to be licensed and trained for this to apply, that I have to be performing this act within my training, and within accepted medical practice.
But specifically is your consent not required, but I don't even have to check to see whether or not you've made appropriate arrangements, because I don't have time for legal arglebargle in a medical emergency.
Giving up freedom in the name of safety seems to be a slippery slope that has been causing lots of problems in the civilized world.Giving up safety in the name of freedom, however, is not a slippery slope. It's a cliff. People die very quickly. I'm delighted to know that you are so willing to sacrifice other people's lives for your freedom.
That's because we are all used to governments making decisions for us instead of families and individuals taking the time to prepare and make informed decisions for themselves. And Yes, I said this was an extreme case, one that I would not fight for, even though I would like to have less government control in society. People do have a right to make unsafe and unhealthy decisions. People have a right to determine who is qualified to work for them.
That's because we are all used to governments making decisions for us instead of families and individuals taking the time to prepare and make informed decisions for themselves. And Yes, I said this was an extreme case, one that I would not fight for, even though I would like to have less government control in society. People do have a right to make unsafe and unhealthy decisions. People have a right to determine who is qualified to work for them.That's a very good point. But people can make decisions on how and who will take care of them in case of an emergency when they can't make decisions.
No, they can't. Like many of your postings, this is absolutely counterfactual to the point of being ludicrous. As a medical professional, in any civilized country in the world, I have the absolute right -- and indeed, in many jurisdictions, duty -- to perform any sort of medical treatment I see fit in an emergency, and furthermore, I'm not liable for my actions. In the real world, e.g. not Libertopia, this is balanced by the fact that need to be licensed and trained for this to apply, that I have to be performing this act within my training, and within accepted medical practice.
But specifically is your consent not required, but I don't even have to check to see whether or not you've made appropriate arrangements, because I don't have time for legal arglebargle in a medical emergency.
Giving up freedom in the name of safety seems to be a slippery slope that has been causing lots of problems in the civilized world.Giving up safety in the name of freedom, however, is not a slippery slope. It's a cliff. People die very quickly. I'm delighted to know that you are so willing to sacrifice other people's lives for your freedom.
Or for you to make those choices for them. I'm sure they are very grateful for that. The ones that are still alive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think many of the problems could go away if they would just tax everyone the same. A flat income tax and/or sales tax and get away from invisible taxes the consumer does not see. I also thing government subsidies of the private sector should go away too. Government subsidies is just government favoritism as are taxes that apply to one industry or product and not another.The problem with government is that is very easy to take and waste money that other people earn.Yes, yes. Taxation is theft, sweat of your brow, so on and so forth.
Here's the thing...the problems associated with having NO GOVERNMENT are much, much worse.
Yeah! Tax everyone the same! 80% flat tax on capital gains, international wire transfers, and inheritance.
If someone causes you financial hardship by ruining a wall when they are working on your house, you can get their insurance company to pay for the costs involved, usually. Not always, usually. I was through a situation where I had been forced to let plumbers come into my apartment to put thermostats on my radiators, otherwise I would have to pay for this to be done myself. So, when I get home, I find dirty radiator water all over the floor in my bedroom. Turns out the company had taken off the cap for a radiator and raised the pressure again without putting it back. I call the company, and they send out a guy who fixes the immediate situation. Costs come out to 20.000 SKR, about 3.000$, for an industrial dryer, and fixing up the floor before I sold the apartment a while later. See, both my insurance company and the plumber's insurance company considered the responsibility to lie with the other company. Eventually, I had to simply pay for it myself. I certainly wasn't going to pay 10-20.000$ for costs of 3.000$. It doesn't always work, but USUALLY, if someone causes you costs, they get to pay for it if you can show it well enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You asked what recourse people in Sweden have if someone wrongs them. Let me be absolutely and perfectly clear on this: None whatsoever.
This is an outright lie. We both have Patientnämnden and IVO for this specific purpose. In addition, if a crime is suspected you can go to the police. We have legal right to compensation via patientskadelagen (the patient damage law).
Swedes do not have the money for suing people, in fact, most of us sport a NEGATIVE total wealth, unlike, say, Americans.
I'd like a source for that, seeing as how average wealth is higher in Sweden than in the US, in combination with us having less wealth inequality; I can't see how that would mean most of us have less wealth.
EDIT: As an example, there is a current case in Gothenburg, Sweden, where a psychiatrist refused to use the correct pronoun of a patient who was trans, and refused to recognize that person's gender, and the county is now being sued for ~3300 USD. They'll probably settle for a bit less, but it is no way "no recourse whatsoever".
Yeah! Tax everyone the same! 80% flat tax on capital gains, international wire transfers, and inheritance.
I agree, though I'd raise the tax rate by 20%.
|
|
I 100% agree. Why not just impose a 15% federal tax on people and toss in a law limiting state tax to 5% maximum? Or whatever number is somewhat equal to what middle America is currently being taxed....it would make taxation so much easier to understand and deal with.
Because discretionary income does not scale with nominal income. Taxing someone who makes $20,000 a year at a rate of 10% would cause serious hardship -- we're talking about skipped meals, lowered quality of medical care, unsafe housing, that sort of thing.
Taxing someone who makes $200,000 at the same rate generally causes no hardship, few problems, and frankly, not even very much inconvenience. Indeed, you could tax someone who makes $200,000 at 50% and they'd still be living very well indeed.
This can be effectively seen by looking at how regressive sales taxes are. Even though sales taxes are generally a flat rate on every dollar spent on goods, the poor save less money and spend less money on services, and therefore spend more money on goods. The result is that they pay a much higher sales tax burden.
People making 20,000 a year are still paying taxes currently which amount to a certain percentage that is likely more than 15% of their pay. Why are we comparing that comparable tax rate that they currently have to someone making 200k? If the poor need help then there should be safety nets in place to assist them, higher minimum wages to raise their living status, penalties to companies operating the US that use foreign outsourcing and taking jobs out of the country.
Just complaining that a flat tax doesn't hurt someone doing well is ridiculous. Of course a poor person being taxed hurts while taxing an upper middle class person doesn't. The trick isn't to try to make everyone feel the pain but to fairly tax everyone and use that revenue to help our country in ways that elevate all of us instead of just contributing to a bloated bureaucracy and failed welfare systems.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People making 20,000 a year are still paying taxes currently which amount to a certain percentage that is likely more than 15% of their pay. Why are we comparing that comparable tax rate that they currently have to someone making 200k? If the poor need help then there should be safety nets in place to assist them, higher minimum wages to raise their living status, penalties to companies operating the US that use foreign outsourcing and taking jobs out of the country.
Because discretionary income does not scale with nominal income. Taxing someone who makes $20,000 a year at a rate of 10% would cause serious hardship -- we're talking about skipped meals, lowered quality of medical care, unsafe housing, that sort of thing.Taxing someone who makes $200,000 at the same rate generally causes no hardship, few problems, and frankly, not even very much inconvenience. Indeed, you could tax someone who makes $200,000 at 50% and they'd still be living very well indeed.
This can be effectively seen by looking at how regressive sales taxes are. Even though sales taxes are generally a flat rate on every dollar spent on goods, the poor save less money and spend less money on services, and therefore spend more money on goods. The result is that they pay a much higher sales tax burden.
Those safety nets aren't free. If you're going to install a flat tax and then put a safety net in place to give money back to the poor, you've both broken the idea of a flat tax and created an expensive and useless bureaucracy to fix something that could easily not have been broken in the first place, by a more progressive tax structure.
Just complaining that a flat tax doesn't hurt someone doing well is ridiculous. Of course a poor person being taxed hurts while taxing an upper middle class person doesn't. The trick isn't to try to make everyone feel the pain but to fairly tax everyone.
Yes, but "fairly" doesn't mean "evenly," because an even (flat) tax is unfair. Ideally, the tax should be set up so that no one feels the pain, which means taking nothing from the poor (who can't afford it) and taking substantially from the people who can afford it without feeling pain.
I suspect, however, you'll find that you can't support the current level of current expenditures from the level of painless taxation, in part because the rich will scream about how much they're being hurt by any level of taxation at all. (Witness the "taxation is theft" idiots above.) This means that you'll need to cut expenditure, which in turn will inflict pain upon someone, because, contrary to right-wing belief, people generally like the services the government offers them.
So at that point, you have decide how to balance the real pain of skipped meals and denial of health care against the imaginary pain of being able to keep only 60 cents out of every dollar you make after your first million.
|
Why not get rid of all income tax and instead institute a salary cap? Let's use 500 million dollars as an arbitrary figure for an example. Anyone can make up to the 500 million dollar cap without being taxed a penny in income tax. But every dollar above that amount goes to the government.
No one needs to make more than that amount for any reason. And if that amount seems too high or low, we slide the threshold.
Money for infrastructure, paying off the debt and helping the poor out. Sounds good to me.
Discuss.
|
|
Why not get rid of all income tax and instead institute a salary cap? Let's use 500 million dollars as an arbitrary figure for an example. Anyone can make up to the 500 million dollar cap without being taxed a penny in income tax. But every dollar above that amount goes to the government.
No one needs to make more than that amount for any reason. And if that amount seems too high or low, we slide the threshold.
Money for infrastructure, paying off the debt and helping the poor out. Sounds good to me.
Discuss.
They then find loopholes to get compensated elsewhere without the gov getting crap. will end with lots of takers and no payers.
|
|
I expect you will suddenly see no one earning more than the salary cap, reducing tax revenue to zero.
Good point. So we close ALL loopholes and get rid of tax shelters, offshore accounts, etc.
We strip income down to the basics.
Supreme Court wants to treat corporations as people. So we get rid of Corporate exemptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them over
That's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
|
|
Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them overThat's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
So you drive jobs and goods out of america. how is that a good thing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you drive jobs and goods out of america. how is that a good thing?Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them overThat's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
Won't happen. Companies want to sell goods here.
Won't happen. Companies want to sell goods here.So you drive jobs and goods out of america. how is that a good thing?Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them overThat's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
Indeed. The world has changed.
|
|
Won't happen. Companies want to sell goods here.So you drive jobs and goods out of america. how is that a good thing?Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them overThat's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
For now, china and india will be the marketplace of the future as things are going.
I see we've gone full-on crazy in this thread.
For now, china and india will be the marketplace of the future as things are going.Won't happen. Companies want to sell goods here.So you drive jobs and goods out of america. how is that a good thing?Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them overThat's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
Meh, as long as the world trades in dollars then we will be the place with all the money. Even if the world currency standard changes, we will still have most of the money.
I see we've gone full-on crazy in this thread.
I was wondering when you would show up, my old foe.
For now, china and india will be the marketplace of the future as things are going.Won't happen. Companies want to sell goods here.So you drive jobs and goods out of america. how is that a good thing?Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them overThat's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
Clearly, they and all opposition must be wiped out.
|
|
Meh, as long as the world trades in dollars then we will be the place with all the money. Even if the world currency standard changes, we will still have most of the money.For now, china and india will be the marketplace of the future as things are going.Won't happen. Companies want to sell goods here.So you drive jobs and goods out of america. how is that a good thing?Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them overThat's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
Until the world realizes that our money is worthless, our value based on a promise and our banks functioning through lies
|
|
Clearly, they and all opposition must be wiped out.For now, china and india will be the marketplace of the future as things are going.Won't happen. Companies want to sell goods here.So you drive jobs and goods out of america. how is that a good thing?Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them overThat's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
Not at all, we need to seize the chance to become great again instead of collapsing in on ourselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not at all, we need to seize the chance to become great again instead of collapsing in on ourselves.Clearly, they and all opposition must be wiped out.For now, china and india will be the marketplace of the future as things are going.Won't happen. Companies want to sell goods here.So you drive jobs and goods out of america. how is that a good thing?Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them overThat's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
Please, please look at history when saying such things. I'm begging you. You know where that road leads, American educational system be damned, I don't think any of us can plead ignorance where this is concerned.
Until the world realizes that our money is worthless, our value based on a promise and our banks functioning through liesMeh, as long as the world trades in dollars then we will be the place with all the money. Even if the world currency standard changes, we will still have most of the money.For now, china and india will be the marketplace of the future as things are going.Won't happen. Companies want to sell goods here.So you drive jobs and goods out of america. how is that a good thing?Then they move to a country that they do not feel is out to screw them overThat's fine, but no officers or board members may be US citizens or the company must pay US tax. Also, foreign companies must pay taxes on any business transacted on US soil and on any goods or services sold or provided on US soil.
Dude! Wake up! That ship has sailed. Nothing happened bro.