ray

How stupid is someone who can't tell the difference between Fate and Ray? :)

Pretty stupid I guess. But in my defence,I was on a typing roll and Fate wrote something that was somewhat reasonable and an appeal to evidence.
That's a lot more like you than him.

rickyp wrote:ray

Most people wouldn't define having your company purchased by an Irish company to be a tax loophole

Really.Google the term and you'll find it described as a loop hole ine many places..
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/ ... -Sheet.pdf

http://www.statnews.com/2015/11/20/pfizer-tax-loophole/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/ ... 33446032f3

So what makes you say its NOT a tax loophole?

When two companies merge they have to choose 1 location for their corporate domicile; they cannot be incorporated in two jurisdictions. Why should they choose the U.S. when they can choose Ireland?

Perhaps you are a foreign agent with a country benefiting from a low corporate tax rate. If you feel strongly about the issue why don't you lobby your government to raise its tax rate to match the U.S. rate.

rickyp wrote:ray

How stupid is someone who can't tell the difference between Fate and Ray? :)

Pretty stupid I guess. But in my defence,I was on a typing roll and Fate wrote something that was somewhat reasonable and an appeal to evidence.
That's a lot more like you than him.

Cute

rickyp wrote:ray

How stupid is someone who can't tell the difference between Fate and Ray? :)

Pretty stupid I guess. But in my defence,I was on a typing roll and Fate wrote something that was somewhat reasonable and an appeal to evidence.
That's a lot more like you than him.

Says the guy who rarely answers a question with anything other than:

1. Socialized medicine is great.
2. Raising taxes is great.

Actually, I take that back. I'll leave it at "who rarely answers a question."

ray

When two companies merge they have to choose 1 location for their corporate domicile; they cannot be incorporated in two jurisdictions. Why should they choose the U.S. when they can choose Ireland?

Its a questions of where economic activity actually occurs. When the Irish office is little more than an address, or a flag of convenience ... in order to achieve lower taxation...
Its, what lots and lots of people call ... a convenient loophole.\

ray

Perhaps you are a foreign agent with a country benefiting from a low corporate tax rate. If you feel strongly about the issue why don't you lobby your government to raise its tax rate to match the U.S. rate

72% of Canada's exports go to the US. It serves out purposes to have a strong US consumer economy
A strong middle class in the US is the healthiest possible market...
Unfortunately, since corporations and the wealthy have been avoiding paying a fair share of taxes ... and the banks cratered the economy but were backstopped by middle class taxpayers ...
Things have gone sideways for the middle class. Closing corporate loopholes and ending cynical tax avoidance would go some to alleviating the burden on the middle class.

Fate

Actually, I take that back. I'll leave it at "who rarely answers a question

.
I answered your question. And I admit I'm surprised that it was you that framed the question. It was reasonable and offered an appeal to evidence.
So I provided you that. See below...


Fate

1. Do higher tax rates decrease poverty?

They can.
Depending on whats done with the taxes raised.
Poverty rates are much lower in social democratic countries with higher taxation than in the US.

Poverty rates were also lowered in the US significantly between 1959 and 1974 in a period of high taxation rates... (But increasing social programs that provided benefits to the young and the poor. )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_i ... tates..PNG

So do you have a response to the evidence provided or are you just going to crawl back into your cave muttering epithets?

Ricky:

ray

When two companies merge they have to choose 1 location for their corporate domicile; they cannot be incorporated in two jurisdictions. Why should they choose the U.S. when they can choose Ireland?

Its a questions of where economic activity actually occurs. When the Irish office is little more than an address, or a flag of convenience ... in order to achieve lower taxation...
Its, what lots and lots of people call ... a convenient loophole.\

That's not really correct. The U.S. is one of the few (only?) countries which taxes its corporations on their worldwide income, no mater where the economic activity occurs. So, a U.S. company with extensive operations elsewhere, which is pretty much the case for any large company these days, is taxed on all of its income, even if the income and the economic activity occurred elsewhere. However, the U.S. company is not taxed until it actually repatriates the funds back to the U.S. That's why companies are encouraged to keep their money overseas, and not pay dividends. It's really fachacta, as my father would say.

However, in other countries you are actually taxed on where your economic activity occurs.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Actually, I take that back. I'll leave it at "who rarely answers a question

.
I answered your question. And I admit I'm surprised that it was you that framed the question. It was reasonable and offered an appeal to evidence.
So I provided you that. See below...

Should I start a list for all the questions you have ducked, dodged, and/or ignored?

Fate

1. Do higher tax rates decrease poverty?

They can.

Depending on whats done with the taxes raised.

So, put the impoverished on a bigger dole? How much should people who won't work (not can't work) get? What sort of disincentive to work do you fancy?

Poverty rates are much lower in social democratic countries with higher taxation than in the US.

2. Raising taxes is great.
3. Socialism is great.

Poverty rates were also lowered in the US significantly between 1959 and 1974 in a period of high taxation rates... (But increasing social programs that provided benefits to the young and the poor. )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_i ... tates..PNG

Is there any conceivable way other things have contributed to the increase in poverty? Increase in out of wedlock births? Increase in drug use?

So do you have a response to the evidence provided or are you just going to crawl back into your cave muttering epithets?

You know what? I'll stop treating you like a jackass when you stop posting sentences like that last one--which was filled with jackassery.

If by "evidence" you simply mean your numbers which show poverty went up and tax rates went down, that is not "evidence." You would have to show that lowering taxes CAUSED poverty. You have not done that--not even close.

I believe a system can do better than taking money from some, skimming off the top in DC, and giving it to others for doing nothing other than breathing.*

*NB: I'm not talking about those who are physically or mentally incapable of caring for themselves. I have to stress this or some fool will accuse me of wanting the incapable to die.

Doctor Fate wrote:If by "evidence" you simply mean your numbers which show poverty went up and tax rates went down, that is not "evidence." You would have to show that lowering taxes CAUSED poverty. You have not done that--not even close.

He has shown correlation, which is a starts. And it suggests that there is even less likelihood of the reverse being true.

I believe a system can do better than taking money from some, skimming off the top in DC, and giving it to others for doing nothing other than breathing.*

*NB: I'm not talking about those who are physically or mentally incapable of caring for themselves. I have to stress this or some fool will accuse me of wanting the incapable to die.

Beliefs are all very well, but where is your evidence?

By the way, how many is this "few"? And what was the main thing that reduced it - the Bush tax cuts?

fate

So, put the impoverished on a bigger dole? How much should people who won't work (not can't work) get? What sort of disincentive to work do you fancy?

Since I referenced social democratic nations, I would think you might look at what their policies are...
They do include generally larger benefits for the much smaller proportion of poor people. But also include socialized medicine, free or almost free education, long parental leave for families with new borns .... and a taxation system that is both progressive, and quite high.
All of these things were reflected in the US in the 50s and 60s too Fate. (GI Bill, Medicare, medicaid, state university tuition, introduction of more generous welfare programs) So attributing them as part of the reason why poverty rates decreased in the US is reasonable. There may have been other contributing factors. But they certainly were contributing factors and refute your unsupported assertions that high tax and social programs don't alleviate poverty...

Fate

I believe a system can do better than taking money from some, skimming off the top in DC, and giving it to others for doing nothing other than breathing

.
I'm sure you believe this is whats going on...Because you feel it does. Even if there is nothing in the way of substantive evidence to support your feelings.
You made an appeal for evidence that high taxes can alleviate poverty. I've offered you a half a dozen countries where this is the case... I've shown you where in your countries history there is a correlation between tax rates, the introduction of social programs and the reduction in poverty rates
I could also show you low tax nations where the poverty rate is incredibly high. And where social programs don't exist. (If you go back in time in the US you'll encounter such a nation.)

You've ranted.

Fate

Is there any conceivable way other things have contributed to the increase in poverty? Increase in out of wedlock births? Increase in drug use?

If you want to prove that out of wedlock births and drug use cause poverty, go ahead. Prove it.
In social democratic countries with free health care the rate of unwanted births is much lower due to free access to birth control information and methods...
You'll have a hard time proving drug use causes poverty although there can be a correlation between drug use and the poor. Lack of hope, and despair often cause people to seek relief in drugs. Often the benefits of free education, and a livable income provided with dignity can help poor children rise above their circumstances...
That can be measured by social mobility. Also very high in social democratic nations and very low in the US.
If you want evidence of that here"
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/resear ... ll_ch3.pdf

Though I doubt you care about actual evidence.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:If by "evidence" you simply mean your numbers which show poverty went up and tax rates went down, that is not "evidence." You would have to show that lowering taxes CAUSED poverty. You have not done that--not even close.

He has shown correlation, which is a starts. And it suggests that there is even less likelihood of the reverse being true.

Don't encourage him. He might think that correlation is causation, which it is not.

I believe a system can do better than taking money from some, skimming off the top in DC, and giving it to others for doing nothing other than breathing.*

*NB: I'm not talking about those who are physically or mentally incapable of caring for themselves. I have to stress this or some fool will accuse me of wanting the incapable to die.

Beliefs are all very well, but where is your evidence?

What evidence do I need to prove that we can do better than paying DC to "solve" income inequality? I'll put it this way: there is no evidence to suggest that it can. And, pointing to other countries with completely different systems and priorities does not prove a thing.

For example, pointing to Sweden doesn't help. Sweden cannot defend itself and is not responsible for defending South Korea, Europe, Taiwan, and many other spots around the world. Sweden doesn't have our vast and varied geography, borders with Third-World nations (Mexico being our "gateway" to many of them), etc. Ultimately, there is no "comp" (in real estate terms) to the USA.

By the way, how many is this "few"? And what was the main thing that reduced it - the Bush tax cuts?

Sorry, but I sincerely don't know what you mean here.

rickyp wrote:fate

So, put the impoverished on a bigger dole? How much should people who won't work (not can't work) get? What sort of disincentive to work do you fancy?

Since I referenced social democratic nations, I would think you might look at what their policies are...
They do include generally larger benefits for the much smaller proportion of poor people. But also include socialized medicine, free or almost free education, long parental leave for families with new borns .... and a taxation system that is both progressive, and quite high.

So what? Show me a socialist democratic nation with our level of debt, our level of unfunded liabilities, our level of defense spending, and our level of foreign defense obligations. When you do that, we'll have a reasonable way of comparing. Until then, you might just as well compare our system to Mars.

All of these things were reflected in the US in the 50s and 60s too Fate. (GI Bill, Medicare, medicaid, state university tuition, introduction of more generous welfare programs) So attributing them as part of the reason why poverty rates decreased in the US is reasonable. There may have been other contributing factors. But they certainly were contributing factors and refute your unsupported assertions that high tax and social programs don't alleviate poverty...

They're not "unsupported." I've supported them. How about the "Great Society?" I've gone over this before. We've spent trillions to reduce poverty in the last five decades. How has that gone?

In 1965, the poverty rate was 17.3%. In 2015, it was 14.5%.

Do the math.

Of course, your solution is:

2. Raising taxes is great.
3. Socialism is great.

If you can just squeeze socialized medicine in, your triad will be complete!

Fate

I believe a system can do better than taking money from some, skimming off the top in DC, and giving it to others for doing nothing other than breathing

.
I'm sure you believe this is whats going on...Because you feel it does. Even if there is nothing in the way of substantive evidence to support your feelings.

Um, it's not my "feelings." You are the one calling for higher taxes.

Where will those taxes go? To Washington DC, then they will be reduced (to pay salaries of bureaucrats), and subsequently given to the poor.

That's your PLAN, not my "feelings." Raising taxes from the rich to give to the poor.

You made an appeal for evidence that high taxes can alleviate poverty. I've offered you a half a dozen countries where this is the case... I've shown you where in your countries history there is a correlation between tax rates, the introduction of social programs and the reduction in poverty rates
I could also show you low tax nations where the poverty rate is incredibly high. And where social programs don't exist. (If you go back in time in the US you'll encounter such a nation.)

Predictable. You fell into the trap Danivon laid for you.

Correlation is not causation. To suggest otherwise is a logical fallacy (see link in last post).

Further, none of those dozen countries you cite has responsibilities comparable to the USA. Not one. So, any such comparison is patently absurd.

You've ranted.

You've made nonsense out of whole cloth and pretended that it makes sense. You've engaged in logical fallacies and then expect me to disprove what is KNOWN to be false: correlation is NOT causation!!!!

Fate

Is there any conceivable way other things have contributed to the increase in poverty? Increase in out of wedlock births? Increase in drug use?

If you want to prove that out of wedlock births and drug use cause poverty, go ahead. Prove it.

I'd be happy to. Give me $50 and I'll prove it. Otherwise, why don't you try proving the logical fallacy that undergirds your entire argument?

In social democratic countries with free health care the rate of unwanted births is much lower due to free access to birth control information and methods.

..

Nice! You got socialized medicine in! Woo-hoo! Now, all your favorite, rinse and repeat arguments are in one post!

Even so, it skips over my point and is irrelevant, but . . . I appreciate you going full socialist on us.

You'll have a hard time proving drug use causes poverty although there can be a correlation between drug use and the poor.

So . . . wait . . . you're (now) saying correlation is not causation?

But . . . you just . . .

Um.

Wow. You are a walking contradiction.

Lack of hope, and despair often cause people to seek relief in drugs. Often the benefits of free education, and a livable income provided with dignity can help poor children rise above their circumstances...

Yes, and some people choose drugs because . . . they want to. Many addicts are on the dole.

I was recently outraged by someone I know who has been on the dole for 10 years. She got fired from a good job (for embezzlement) and has been on the dole ever since. There's nothing wrong with her--other than a heroin addiction. She has six kids and has custody of none of them.

I got bugged because she boasted of spending $100 on an e-cigarette set-up. I'm like, "How can she afford that?"

Every child in America receives a free education, K-12. Sending people to college, without regard to aptitude, is a political decision, not an economically-driven one.

That can be measured by social mobility. Also very high in social democratic nations and very low in the US.
If you want evidence of that here"
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/resear ... ll_ch3.pdf

Though I doubt you care about actual evidence.

I do care about evidence. I'll tell you what: show me a democratic socialist country with a similar level of debt, similar defense spending and obligations, similar unfunded liabilities, and I'll pay you $50. But, you can't just post a link and tell me "the evidence is here and it's up to you to find it."

That's the kind of tomfoolery you've engaged in with that link.

Meanwhile, while you drift off in a dope-induced haze, reflect on this article and smile: https://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon ... stamer.htm

fate

So what? Show me a socialist democratic nation with our level of debt, our level of unfunded liabilities, our level of defense spending, and our level of foreign defense obligations.

Debt levels are bad. And caused by taking in too little tax, or spending too much.
And yet social democratic countries manage to habe a lower debt than the US/ (Sweden Debt to GDP is 43%. US is 72%)
Now you're arguing for social democracy...
Why are you blaming foreign defense obligations for the inability to balance the books in the US? Either don't assume the obligations or be willing to pay for them rather than have the next three generations pay for them...
Conservative like you are always playing the victim card. We can't do what Sweden manages to do because they have it so much easier...
Whats different is Swedes are willing to pay the taxes for the benefits and expenses and American governments seem incapable of making those decisions . Especially republican governments.

Fate

In 1965, the poverty rate was 17.3%. In 2015, it was 14.5%

The lowest poverty rate was achieved in 1975... the rate started to go up as various programs began to be abandoned through the 80s.
I'll refer you back to my link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_i ... tates..PNG

Fate

You are the one calling for higher taxes

Not at all.
You asked for evidence that higher taxes could alleviate poverty.
I've offered you that evidence. In spades. Both with foreign comparisons and within the US historical context.
You now change the topic and want me to prove that lower taxes cause poverty...

Fate

Correlation is not causation

Correlation is evidential.
And that's what you originally were looking for...

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:If by "evidence" you simply mean your numbers which show poverty went up and tax rates went down, that is not "evidence." You would have to show that lowering taxes CAUSED poverty. You have not done that--not even close.

He has shown correlation, which is a starts. And it suggests that there is even less likelihood of the reverse being true.

Don't encourage him. He might think that correlation is causation, which it is not.

I know that. But a lack of correlation implies even less.

By the way, how many is this "few"? And what was the main thing that reduced it - the Bush tax cuts?

Sorry, but I sincerely don't know what you mean here.

Sorry, I was reading this:

I believe a system can do better than taking money from some, skimming off the top in DC, and giving it to others for doing nothing other than breathing.

and conflated "some" with "few". But I was asking about what had led to this situation and how many people you think are being taken from and how many are getting handouts for nothing.

rickyp wrote:fate

So what? Show me a socialist democratic nation with our level of debt, our level of unfunded liabilities, our level of defense spending, and our level of foreign defense obligations.

Debt levels are bad. And caused by taking in too little tax, or spending too much.
And yet social democratic countries manage to habe a lower debt than the US/ (Sweden Debt to GDP is 43%. US is 72%)
Now you're arguing for social democracy...

No.

In fact, I could argue the only reason you lazy socialists live such a good life is that the US has protected your hind ends for decades.

Why are you blaming foreign defense obligations for the inability to balance the books in the US? Either don't assume the obligations or be willing to pay for them rather than have the next three generations pay for them...

We have treaties. You're being stupid. Again.

Conservative like you are always playing the victim card. We can't do what Sweden manages to do because they have it so much easier...
Whats different is Swedes are willing to pay the taxes for the benefits and expenses and American governments seem incapable of making those decisions . Especially republican governments.

You are a straight-up idiot.

I gave SPECIFIC examples. You IGNORED them all!

Does Sweden have thousands of troops in Korea? Japan? Is it pledged to defend Taiwan? Does it have thousands of troops deployed throughout Europe?

What a fool.

Fate

You are the one calling for higher taxes

Not at all.
You asked for evidence that higher taxes could alleviate poverty.
I've offered you that evidence. In spades.

No, you have not.

Do you understand "logical fallacy?" Do you believe "correlation is causation?" If you do, your post makes sense. If you don't, you're reaching new depths of moron.

Both with foreign comparisons and within the US historical context.
You now change the topic and want me to prove that lower taxes cause poverty...

Nope. Feel free to prove that higher taxes alleviate poverty, but understand that correlation doesn't equal causation, no matter how much you want it to.

Fate

Correlation is not causation

Correlation is evidential.
And that's what you originally were looking for...

Um, no. Correlation "might" be evidence, but it might be coincidence.

Americans eat more ice cream than Japanese people do.
Americans suffer more cancer than the Japanese.
Therefore, ice cream causes cancer.

That's "rickyp logic" for you.