For all of the American military haters...

Being British, i dont hate Americans, i just wish we had the massive industrial base, finances and the political will that the US has, so we could have a very strong, well balanced military.
We have the quality here...but not the quantity.
Hopefully, once we have recoverd from the reckless spending of our previous Labour govermant, which spent mind boggling amounts on all depts except defence, and that our financial centres played around with our wealth as though it was monopoly money, then we can get back to spending a decent percentage of our GDP on defence............hopefully sometime in the latter part of this decade.

 

Frankly, I think that the UK has a very well trained and strong defense force. It's special forces are arguably some of the best in the world.

 

Actually, there is a very good case to be made for reigning in profits to reasonable limits. Various formulae may be applied to manufacturing, services industries, high-risk ventures such as exploration, and agreed profit margins made. No one is suggesting that the corporate sector does not make a profit, but by limiting profits, executive salaries and bonuses, and shareholders' returns, the cost of goods could be dramatically reduced. Especially essential goods such as foodstuffs, power and transport. As long as some people want private Learjets and yachts, there will always be starving people on this earth. And the economy depends upon the movement of money, not how much any individual accumulates.

 

Who determines what "Reasonable Profit" is? And even more so, what gives somebody the right to determine that?

Let's make it simple. Say you run a small Gold mine. And say the price of gold is $300 an ounce. And it costs you $280 an ounce to extract and process the gold for sale. $20 an ounce is a rather small profit.

Now the price of gold jumps to $1,000 an ounce. The increased profit is already going to be reduced by higher taxes. When dealing with a comodity, that is part of the gamble. Are you going to insist that they have 80% of their profit taken, just because you feel it is excessive?

And imagine if gold drops to $250 an ounce. Will the Government make up the difference between the cost and the profit? Because if they are going to take a huge amount as being "excessive profit", then they had better make it all up later on when the company starts to take a loss.

And that line about As long as some people want private Learjets and yachts, there will always be starving people on this earth totally fails the smell test. There were people starving over 2,000 years ago when none of those things ever existed. There were even people starving to death in the "Workers Paradise" of the Soviet Union, and today in North Korea.

Even a Prophet over 2,000 years ago aknowledged that there would always be people who were hungry. Why do people have problems aknowledging that fact today?

 

Society determines, by means of law, and agreed custom, much of what applies in any nation. There is no reason why profit margins should be an exception.

You have not understood the concept involved. If the profit margin is a percentage established after the cost of extraction or manufacture, then the price of a gramme of gold is established by a percentage added to the cost of manufacture. So the company makes a profit under all circumstances.

It appears your nom de plume is well chosen. A Prophet is a mythological being allegedly capable of foretelling the future. No such being exists, or has ever existed. The earth's resources are currently capable of feeding, clothing and providing shelter for all 6 billion human beings extant. It is the uneven allocation of those resources which is responsible for children going to bed hungry. If you are happy with that, well - that is your prerogative, but don't expect me to subscribe to those values.

 

What about globalization? How will countries with such a "profit" tax compete in competitive markets with tiny margins against countries that don't have them? Companies rely on Retained Earnings and investors who are incentivized by dividends to provide the neccessary capital for investments. Also, what's the point of being innovative if the government is just going to snatch up any large gains? Venture Capitalists invest in at least 9 failed companies/products for every 1 that makes money and every 10000 that turns into a Facebook. They throw out so much money into failures to catch that diamond in the rough. Take away all that potential gain and you'll take away all incentive to take risk and innovate.

 

This is a matter of concept. For any such system to operate satisfactorily there needs to be universal acceptance. But we have to start somewhere, and reigning in excessive profits and excessive remunerations are necessary to a fairer distribution of the earth's resources. Systems to ensure venture capital, exploration, etc. can be evolved to compensate people for risk. The current ethos of uncontrolled greed (otherwise known as Capitalism) ensures the continuance of poverty, conflict, and virtual slave labour.

 

But you evaded almost everything I said. Who determines what a "Reasonable Profit" is? Some government agency? And to what level does it apply? Individuals? Businesses? Or any corporation?

This is where this entire area falls apart. Tell me, what is "reasonable profit" for an author? His investment is really the time and electricity used by his computer in writing a book. So what should his profit be? 200% of his investment? A set amount? And who determines that?

And what of an entertainer? What is a reasonable profit for an actor or singer? Will the amount they can make be regulated as well? Because a lot of actors make insane amounts of money every year. And will the same go for sports stars?

And what of the gold example? Say the price goes to what it is now, with the cost staying at $100 an ounce. Will the Government seize everything over say $150 in your plan? Then what incentive is there for people to invest? Are you aware that this will destroy any chance of companies to gain investors? Because without a chance of a profit, what is the point of investing?

And a lot of profits are set aside, either for future upgrades in land and equipment, or to plan for future slowdowns or price reductions. What will happen then? Will you have the Government bail them out when that happens, since they took such huge amounts of money earlier?

This is not a plan, this is simply Soclialst Class Warfare coprolite. Insult me all you like, at least I do not live in fantasy land, with a liver full of envy for people more successfull then I am.

 

Translation, World Socialism and One World Government.

1984, it's closer then you think.

 

I'm not sure you understand the business cycle of most corporations. Corporation's profits are divided between Retained Earnings and Dividends paid to stockholders. When companies are planning future capital investments they tend to cut back on dividends and save their profits over a number of years. Companies "profits" can shift radically from year to year for various reasons including subsidiary losses, capital investments, and maturity of debt. A company offsets these losses because when things are good they retain much of their profits in anticipation of such events. The remainder of "profits" for a corporation are paid out to stockholders in the form of dividends (though some corporations don't). These dividends add value to a stock and increase investors willingness to provide capital in exchange for equity. If we taxed corporations of the majority of their profits, as your suggesting, you would only discourage corporations from investing in their companies, stockholders from investing in companies, as well as put thousands of businesses at serious risk during economic downtimes.

You'll see many people scream outrage because a given Fortune 500 corporation won't pay anything in Corporate taxes (though they still pay payroll, property, state, and various other taxes) in a single given year. This is often because in past years they operated at a loss and are able to shift that loss forward for tax credits in the future. The government realizes that sucking up the profits of a corporation that's just had several bad years behind it prevents it from making future investments which ultimately lowers tax revenue.

You seem to think that corporate profits all end up in the hands of a few greedy executives. While many executives are very highly paid, the majority of "profits" are paid out to shareholders (which include millions of people around the world both poor, middle class, and wealthy) or are invested into the future operations/expansion of the company (more jobs, spending, future tax revenue). I think you'd be better of targeting the top income tax bracket people instead of clumsily going after an entire corporations profits.

Also, how on earth could you back up a VCs bets? With government funds? Haha, I think history has more than shown government's inabiltiy to do that.

 

LOL, is the liver where one stows envy? But frankly, as I am still at school, anybody who is working and earning money is more successful than I am - so relax, I am not envious of anyone. If your standards encompass children going to bed hungry so the corporate sector can make fatter profits - that is your prerogative. I am entitled to hold different values, and it is not insulting anyone to say so.

I set out what is both possible and desirable within my value system. It is a matter of concept from which execution may follow, and if it interferes with anyone's dream of becoming a billionaire on the backs of the less fortunate - that is their problem.

 

With the amount of welfare in this nation, there is no excuse for any children to go to bed hungry.

If you think this is such a big deal, then start up a non profit to solve the problem. I know that I work hard, and the last thing I would want is for somebody to take more of my money just because they think somebody else needs it more then I do.

 

Like I said, you have your value system, and I have mine. But you need to be aware that I am discussing this conceptually, and internationally. There are children starving to death as we speak, so don't tell me there is sufficient 'welfare' everywhere. And the fact that someone else is in dire need, is sufficient reason for any or all of us to be taxed at a higher rate.

 

Where are children starving to death? Because if it is happening in this or most countries, then law enforcement should be sent out immediately to arrest their parents and place them in foster care. In this and most of the modernized world, there is absolutely no excuse for that.

And in the rest of the world, that is normally the fault of poorly run governments, plain and simple. You say you are young, so you may not know what happened in Ethiopia in the 1980's.

In short, it was a big con game. The world felt sorry for the starving children, and responded by sending hundreds of millions of dollars to help end it. And none of it got to those starving, because they were being starved by their own government. They happily took these food shipments as soon as they arrived in-country, and the starving children still starved.

And with all the "feed the children" organizations, that is the problem if children are still hungry. Yea, I feel sorry for some kid living in a cardboard box in a slum in Myopia. But Myopia is a total cesspool of a nation, with massive overpopulation, massive unemployment, and is a gross importer of food.

Myopia needs to solve it's own problem, nobody can solve their problems for them. Mother Theresa spent her life trying to solve problems in a nation like that, and it is still a mess. It will always be a mess. You can take the entire GDP of the United States and dump it into a nation like Myopia, and in the end you will still have a huge mess.

 

NOBODY hates the individuals within the U.S. military. As an institution, we sometimes hate the way it is overused and misused, and we sometimes hate its waste and abuse.

 

How come you didn't respond to my post?

 

I'm a "basher". I also packed a M-16, for three years for the U.S. Army.