Originally Posted by cbwm

Those who have money and want more are greedy? How much do you have to have to transition to "working to improve my family's wellbeing" to "greedy? What qualifies as a decent lifestyle? If I can afford health care for my family should I be taxed more? How about if my kids have their own cars? How about if I have life insurance? What If I have savings besides my home? What about if I've invested for my kids college at an early age... does that group me into the group that needs more taxes because I have a decent lifestyle?

To answer your question, just about any tax cut that effects everyone would be good. The Bush tax cuts on capital gains were such a tax cut, even though the Democrats and that idiot McCain tried and say they were tax cuts for the rich.

The truth is that it is often the big corporations that benefit from tax cuts, although of course this depends on the tax that is being changed. Big corporations should be taxed more if anything - the government should stand up for the average guy on the street, not a multinational corporation that has only one objective - more profits.

Too many governments are in the pockets of big business these days. An example of this is mobile (cell) phone companies ripping off consumers here in Britain. After investigations, numerous (most) of the big mobile phone retailers were found to be selling contracts or phones that were too expensive to people and also offering "cashback" on certain deals so that they appeared to be cheaper. Some knowingly sold contracts and phones to people they knew couldn't ever pay the full contract off and were reliant on the cashback schemes to afford the phones. Of course, a lot of these cashback schemes fell through or were terminated on technicalities leaving a lot of people out of pocket. When they were reported to the regulators, incredibly these took the side of the phone companies rather than the side of the consumer. Even the government took the side of the companies rather than the side of the consumer. Many of these companies are very well known brands - Vodafone, T-Mobile and I believe O2. All of them are raking in massive amounts of money, hence the government doesn't want to do anything to offend them as they are dependent on the tax they gain from these companies.

The purpose of a government should be to take the side of the consumer rather than the side of big business. Similarly, it should stand up for those that really need it in society - the poor for example. If their own government doesn't even stand up for them, who will?

I think the poor should get tax cuts. I think the rich should get tax increases. Where you draw the line is subject to a lot of debate, but this should be the principle. However, I feel you'd like to drop taxes on big business to "fuel" the economies, of course forgetting that the purpose of a government should be to protect the vulnerable people in society that can't protect themselves very well.

Ah Whym, you are truly a card carrying socialist.

Originally Posted by whym

The purpose of a government should be to take the side of the consumer rather than the side of big business.

And here all this time I thought the job of the government was to protect its population as a whole, and not take the side of one group of it's citizens over another.

Its an interesting topic you raise, since your post mostly addressed big business and not the "Rich". Big business, or corporations are not individuals. They employ individuals, they reward investors(other individuals) if they do well, but a corporation, as a non-entity, really never ever gets to enjoy it's wealth. The people who benefit when a company does well are it's investors and it's employees. Given that fact, it seems that cutting taxes on corporations is one of the best means of fueling an sagging economy.

If you want to address the rich "Investors" in corporations which are human beings and not other non-human entities such as mutual funds, pension funds, and 401ks, I have no problem with keeping taxes on the rich "People". Warren Buffet himself has advocated the maintenance of the death tax to help keep balance on the "Mega Wealth" effect that has hit a very small percentage of the U.S. population of recent. Just be sure you set the bar at a healthy level (250k/yr minimum) or you will be taxing the middle class.

Regarding predatory behavior of corporations, I agree there needs to be some regulation, but not necessarily for the reasons you state. U.S. mortgage lenders were busy in America doing pretty much what your telco providers were doing in the U.K.. Easy money fueled a real estate market into a bubble. Speculators (which became many every day home owners) tapped into the easy money without fully weighing the consequences of not being able to pay. More speculation fueled more price increases which fueled more predatory lending.

When the house of cards finally collapsed, the speculators lost their properties, but to my why of thinking, who cares? They gambled, they lost. Don't borrow more money than you can pay back. Don't take an ARM that will adjust in a year to an amount you cant pay based on the idea that the property will appreciate and you will make a killing in a highly liquid market. If you do that, prepare to pay the consequences.

The problem with the unregulated market in this case was not the financial loss of the homeowners. The problem was the financial loss of the corporations. Companies like Bear Stearns who essentially folded up shop, making many individuals life savings instantly evaporate. Then you have the Domino effect on the stock market, as financial company after financial company caught up in the bubble gone bust declares massive write downs. Stocks plummet, market recedes, and unemployment climbs. Now this aggressive group of speculators known as your every day American home owner have played their part, along side the predatory lenders, in causing serious damage to the entire U.S. financial system. It is for this reason we need regulation.

If some idiot buys a cell phone they cant afford because they had to have it, they have nobody to blame but themselves. I think Darwin best explained how people like that fit into the system. If they had been mislead about what the price was, that could fall into fraud, which both the U.S. and the U.. already have many laws on the books to address.