Notices
Results 1 to 71 of 71

Thread: Caravanner, 61, prosecuted for having Swiss Army knife

  1. #1 Caravanner, 61, prosecuted for having Swiss Army knife 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Insane knife law in Britain.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...html?ITO=1490#


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    This is plain madness. If I were to choose one of his possessions to attack people with, I'd pick his walking stick, it makes a far better weapon than a tiny penknife without a locking blade.


    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    If your goal is to stop everyone from being armed and dangerous, why stop at knives? Why not take the next logical step and make a law prohibiting skilled martial artists from leaving their homes too? (Or maybe they can leave, just so long as they have a police escort to protect the public from their dangerous martial arts skills.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Seems that it would be madness if it were true, but UK law allows folding blade knives with a blade length of 3" or less. Other types of knife are only illegal if carried in a public place, which the glove compartment of a car is not. The problem here seems to be a lousy lawyer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    boycott the uk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Army knifes 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2
    I am newer on this. Thanks for this nice information and i like to know more about pocket knifes and Swiss army knifes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    There is a massive knife crime problem in the UK. I myself have been mugged at knife point at a bank machine, and know a few people that have been stabbed.
    The law is required to stop people carrying knives, most people are aware of it and are not stupid enough to go around with a knife in their glove compartment. Fair enough it is a small knife.

    Most times cases like this come to court some discretion is shown and its thrown out. Really depends on the Judge that you get. I got in trouble for having a box cutter dangling from my belt when returning from an old job, which was much more dangerous and visible than this penknife but discretion prevailed.

    The mail have a record of fishing for unusual cases to suit their campaign of "elf n safety " madness and anti-european law/human rights agenda. Sometimes court cases are a bit over the top, but they happen now and again. it does not set a precedent though.

    For added info, you also have to be over 18 to buy any knife in the UK.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    the uk government can go to hell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    There is a massive knife crime problem in the UK. I myself have been mugged at knife point at a bank machine, and know a few people that have been stabbed.
    The law is required to stop people carrying knives, most people are aware of it and are not stupid enough to go around with a knife in their glove compartment. Fair enough it is a small knife.

    .
    I just don't get why people think a crime can be stopped merely by limiting the means available. Next it will be screw-driver muggings, or clubbings, or tazings. At least with guns, the perpetrator has to worry about the police matching ballistics on the bullet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    At least with guns, the perpetrator has to worry about the police matching ballistics on the bullet.
    I met an expert who matched a machete to the traces it left on a victim's skull.

    The wrists, liver and a clavicle were also damaged, but I am not sure those wounds were usable for identification. On the skull, the striations were just beautiful.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    the uk government can go to hell
    I agree. Long live devolution.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    the uk government can go to hell
    Basing my judgement solely on this comment the UK government must be doing a number of things correctly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    the uk government can go to hell
    Basing my judgement solely on this comment the UK government must be doing a number of things correctly.
    You mean - just because it's capable of doing something at all (i.e. going to hell) it is a lot better than most other governments?
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    boycott the uk
    I would be very grateful if you did!
    You could always deal with Poland instead.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The homicide rate in the UK is 1 per 100,000 per year. This is only 1% of the UK homicide rate 1000 years earlier, so that represents a big improvement. By comparison, the rate in the USA is 5 per 100,000 per year.

    This would suggest that the UK government anti-murder policy is working.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    I have never heard of an anti-murder policy.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    At least with guns, the perpetrator has to worry about the police matching ballistics on the bullet.
    I met an expert who matched a machete to the traces it left on a victim's skull.

    The wrists, liver and a clavicle were also damaged, but I am not sure those wounds were usable for identification. On the skull, the striations were just beautiful.
    It's true that knives, machetes, etc... are just as traceable as guns, but they are also easier to hide/destroy/discard, and much harder to trace ownership on. Weapons like that are cheap enough that a murderer can easily afford to buy a new one every time they kill. With even the moderate gun control we have in the USA, you either have to leave a paper trail by buying a gun legally, or you have to enter into some very seedy criminal associations in order to buy it illegally. (Which still makes the transaction traceable in its own way.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    New Member JasonIblier85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1
    "Caravanner, 61, prosecuted for having Swiss Army knife in his glove box... to cut up fruit on picnics"

    what?? are this serious?? stupid law men.

    I will agreed if Mr. knowles arrested for drink driving.


    ___________________
    At that level, every goal is like a knife in the ribs.
    swiss army knife
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    I too, think this law is crap. Banning guns doesn't do anything to the homicide rate, or at least it does very little. People planning to kill someone usually don't care if they are arrested for carrying a knife. It doesn't deter them at all, and only creates a nuisance for peope like caravanner.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by 15uliane
    I too, think this law is crap. Banning guns doesn't do anything to the homicide rate, or at least it does very little. People planning to kill someone usually don't care if they are arrested for carrying a knife. It doesn't deter them at all, and only creates a nuisance for peope like caravanner.
    Not quite correct. If firearms are more available, the homicide rate goes up.
    http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_ml...405_index.html

    Quote from abstract :

    " firearm availability increases the firearm homicide rate, especially in disadvantaged areas,"

    and also :
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...9&searchtype=a

    And I quote :
    "Time series (n=10) and cross-sectional studies (n=9) of U.S. cities, states, and regions and for the United States as a whole, generally find a statistically significant gun prevalence–homicide association. None of the studies prove causation, but the available evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that increased gun prevalence increases the homicide rate."[/i]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Quote Originally Posted by 15uliane
    I too, think this law is crap. Banning guns doesn't do anything to the homicide rate, or at least it does very little. People planning to kill someone usually don't care if they are arrested for carrying a knife. It doesn't deter them at all, and only creates a nuisance for peope like caravanner.
    Not quite correct. If firearms are more available, the homicide rate goes up.
    http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_ml...405_index.html

    Quote from abstract :

    " firearm availability increases the firearm homicide rate, especially in disadvantaged areas,"
    That first extract doesn't support your position but the part you left out was " but it does not increase the aggregated homicide rate.

    In other words overall homicide DO NOT increase, but when they do occur they happen by firearm.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lynx

    The USA, with its horribly lax gun laws and widespread ownership of hand guns, has an overall homicide rate of 5.2 per 100,000 people per year. Britain, by comparison, with strong gun laws and almost no hand guns in circulation has a homicide rate of 1.

    No other first world country comes close to the USA for homicides, and no other first world country has hand gun availability. No coincidence!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Lynx

    The USA, with its horribly lax gun laws and widespread ownership of hand guns, has an overall homicide rate of 5.2 per 100,000 people per year. Britain, by comparison, with strong gun laws and almost no hand guns in circulation has a homicide rate of 1.

    No other first world country comes close to the USA for homicides, and no other first world country has hand gun availability. No coincidence!
    That might be. I was just pointing out you misinterpreted your first reference.

    Also I notice you shifted from firearms to hand guns? I tend to agree by the way and am not an advocate of handguns. Hand guns couldn't be a remedy for a Constitutional crisis, don't offer useful armament from a foreign invader, aren't much good for hunting, and are far too accident prone even in experienced hands; they completely fail to meet our Constutional father's intent.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lynx

    I approve your views on hand guns. Statistics show that 75% of homicides in the USA are carried out with firearms, and of that group, 75% are done with hand guns. That is : 56% of all American homicides are done with hand guns.

    The Second Amendment makes it clear that the freedom to bear arms is dedicated to being able to form a militia for national defense. Since this need no longer exists, it is clear that the Second Amendment is obsolete.

    I have no problem with hunters owning sporting rifles. However, I think it should not be easy for them to obtain ownership. Like driving a car, they should be required to pass a stringent test.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Lynx

    I approve your views on hand guns. Statistics show that 75% of homicides in the USA are carried out with firearms, and of that group, 75% are done with hand guns. That is : 56% of all American homicides are done with hand guns.
    Not surprised at that. I'm suggesting based on that a general restrictions on all firearms to reduce the high homicide rate, is too broad.

    The Second Amendment makes it clear that the freedom to bear arms is dedicated to being able to form a militia for national defense. Since this need no longer exists, it is clear that the Second Amendment is obsolete.
    I disagree. An armed population can repel and deter both internal or external threats and neither of us know the future.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lynx said :

    "I'm suggesting based on that a general restrictions on all firearms to reduce the high homicide rate, is too broad."

    Actually, I did not say that, either. I think personally, that all first world nations should have strict requirements to be met before gun licences for such things as hunting rifles are owned. After all, you have to do that to be able to drive a car.

    I also think that any weapon designed purely for killing humans should not be permitted in private ownership. That includes hand guns. It does not include sporting rifles and shotguns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    What I am trying to say, my main point in my previous post is that if someone has the ability and/or will and/or twisted reason for commiting a homocide, then a ban on knives won't stop them.

    There were 10500 homocides with guns in 2004.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States
    There were 42836 fatal car accidents in the US in 2004.
    http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/f...tatistics.html

    Go figure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    I popped into Tesco supermarket this morning to buy a pair of nail scissors, the total length of the scissors comes to three and a half inches. I went through the self service till, and when I presented the scissors to the bar code reader a red light above the till started flashing. This flashing light prompted a Tesco lady to come to the self service till to enquire if I was over eighteen. Obviously the same thing would happen for kitchen knives. I have not yet decided if this is the nanny state running amok, or the supermarkets are taking a responsible attitude.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Found this discussion about the same topic at UKPoliceOnline.

    http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/inde...ss-army-knife/
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    I think personally, that all first world nations should have strict requirements to be met before gun licences for such things as hunting rifles are owned. After all, you have to do that to be able to drive a car.
    Apples and oranges. Cars aren't constitutionally protected and aren't useful to deter "enemies foreign and domestic." As a Constitutionally protect right it should be taught on school anyhow, much like reading and writing.

    I also think that any weapon designed purely for killing humans should not be permitted in private ownership. That includes hand guns. It does not include sporting rifles and shotguns.
    Weapons that can't kill people aren't good for defense and wouldn't be too effective during an insurrection or repelling an invading force.

    That's an odd comment about sporting rifles. One of the more common is the AR15, with in some variants are more capable than the weapon I took to war with me. It would be less useful for hunting because its round is too small to reliably and mercifully kill deer, elk etc.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Lynx

    The USA, with its horribly lax gun laws and widespread ownership of hand guns, has an overall homicide rate of 5.2 per 100,000 people per year. Britain, by comparison, with strong gun laws and almost no hand guns in circulation has a homicide rate of 1.

    No other first world country comes close to the USA for homicides, and no other first world country has hand gun availability. No coincidence!
    Yeah, but Switzerland has a similar homicide rate to the UK.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Switzerland

    They're #3 for gun ownership, after the USA and Yemen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._gun_ownership

    The argument can be made that Switzerland doesn't have as much poverty and that's a more dominant factor than gun ownership, but at that point we're looking at too many variables in play to reliably predict anything. Maybe the UK's social programs are responsible for their low murder rate.

    It might be more interesting to look at just one country like the USA, and break it down into regions and neighborhoods. I think we'd find that wealthier areas have lower crime rates (as expected), but I'd be really surprised if gun ownership was any lower. Ask yourself: why are these criminal gangs not attacking the wealthy regions, if they're so desperate? Why are the crimes happening inside the slums if there's little money to steal there in the first place?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lynx

    I am not American, meaning that your consitution is not something that influences my thinking. So firearms as a constitutional right to bear arms to me is a meaningless phrase, and in fact, a very silly idea.

    However, the argument that you need them to defend against an outside invader or an autocratic government is an obsolete argument. Defense of the nation now falls to the professionals who have the skills and the advanced weaponry. No longer can a bunch of untrained militia with sporting rifles make any significant difference. They become, in fact, just target practise for a better trained and equipped enemy.

    In the same way, to go up against an autocratic government (assuming the military support said government) with hunting rifles is just a fancy way of committing suicide. When the IRA opposed the British, they did not use hand guns and sporting rifles. They smuggled in illlegal weapons of much greater power. And even then they had to use sneaky tactics - not open warfare.

    So both arguments (the defense of the nation and opposing autocracy) are invalid when it comes to the need to own hand guns etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic

    However, the argument that you need them to defend against an outside invader or an autocratic government is an obsolete argument. Defense of the nation now falls to the professionals who have the skills and the advanced weaponry. No longer can a bunch of untrained militia with sporting rifles make any significant difference. They become, in fact, just target practice for a better trained and equipped enemy..
    With all due respect you are a poor student of history. Numerous times a poorly equipped and trained force has overthrown a much better trained and equipped force.

    In most recent history North Vietnam's defeat of the US.

    Afghanistan's defeat of the USRR and effectively stalling the US. military for more than ten years.

    Armed citizenry with support of the population, are extremely hard to defeat with a modern military. Nearly half the US is armed and there are 20+ million veterans who at some point received military training and several million of those with combat experience(I am one). The US military would be no match for the citizens of the US--that's exactly as it should be.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lynx

    None of those defenders relied upon sporting rifles and hand guns. They may have been relatively poorly armed, but not that poorly.

    In fact, recent history has taught us that, to successfully defend a nation, even using guerilla tactics, you must be supplied very well. eg. North Vietnam supplied by China, and Afghanistan by the USA.

    We are currently seeing Libyan rebels in deep trouble against the better armed and trained forces of Ghaddafi, despite aerial support. The coalition will, no doubt, realise that, for them to win, they will need to be given both weapons and training.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Well, since they passed stricter gun laws in Canada in 95 the firearm related homicide rate dropped drastically, the overall homicide rate did as well but the decline with other weapons was less pronounced. So, more regulations on guns does seem to have an effect on homicide rates.

    In Canada the law requires that you pass a course and be licensed to own a firearm, and all guns have to be registered with the government. (Although, the Tories are hell bent on eliminating the gun registry to appease rural voters despite unanimous support for the program amongst law enforcement, but Tories are idiots.)

    (Edit: Guns are a major contraband problem in Canada though, illegal guns are often smuggled into Canada from the US)

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...ths050628.html
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Lynx

    None of those defenders relied upon sporting rifles and hand guns. They may have been relatively poorly armed, but not that poorly.

    In fact, recent history has taught us that, to successfully defend a nation, even using guerilla tactics, you must be supplied very well. eg. North Vietnam supplied by China, and Afghanistan by the USA.
    You are vastly overestimating the effects of the assistance. And nothing provided isn't pretty easy to get a hold of with money or improved in a garage--both of which the US citizens have in spades. And again you forget many of the US combat vets have lost Soldiers close to us to rifles, extremely primitive rockets and improvised bombs--we know what's possible and deadly using junk equipment on a deeply personal level.

    We are currently seeing Libyan rebels in deep trouble against the better armed and trained forces of Ghaddafi, despite aerial support. The coalition will, no doubt, realise that, for them to win, they will need to be given both weapons and training.
    Mostly training. The Rebels have very little training or military structure. I've trained 3rd world soldiers and they can be made many times more effective in only a month or two. Whether the "rebels" have their valley forge time is yet to be determined.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Well, since they passed stricter gun laws in Canada in 95 the firearm related homicide rate dropped drastically, the overall homicide rate did as well but the decline with other weapons was less pronounced. So, more regulations on guns does seem to have an effect on homicide rates.
    Another thing which Canada has in its favor are social safety nets and universal healthcare. Without those, poverty is a bigger issue, and hence so too are violent crimes. Just a confounding variable to consider. The good job our Molsen drinking friends do with caring for those in poverty IMO plays a big role in reducing things like homicide.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Lynx

    None of those defenders relied upon sporting rifles and hand guns. They may have been relatively poorly armed, but not that poorly.
    I think Lynx mentioned earlier that he feels the same way about hand guns. Assault rifles are much better. It seems the anti-gun movement has already decapitated us.


    In fact, recent history has taught us that, to successfully defend a nation, even using guerilla tactics, you must be supplied very well. eg. North Vietnam supplied by China, and Afghanistan by the USA.

    We are currently seeing Libyan rebels in deep trouble against the better armed and trained forces of Ghaddafi, despite aerial support. The coalition will, no doubt, realise that, for them to win, they will need to be given both weapons and training.

    An effective autocracy runs like the inside of a prison. They key to making it work is to find a way to exercise the maximum control using the fewest controllers. It only takes minimal resistance to disrupt that.

    However, genocides are different from occupations. In a genocide you're incurring a massive one time cost, but afterward you get all the control you want for free. (The corpses will lay there in their graves minding their own business for as long as you tell them to - unsupervised even.) If our government decided to commit outright genocide against us, bomb its own cities, and start herding people off into concentration camps, we'd be powerless to stop them.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    What I mean is, in an occupation, you can break your opponent financially. The US is on the verge of bankruptcy because we got ourselves into two wars of occupation we couldn't afford, at a time when we knew we couldn't afford them. Short of continuing to fund a massive army of troops from now until the end of time, we'll never hold those regions very well.

    Heck. You could probably fight a successful insurgency with nothing but knives and bows and arrows. (Hence the reason why it's so important to crack down on those knife-bearing caravanners. )
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    What I mean is, in an occupation, you can break your opponent financially. The US is on the verge of bankruptcy because we got ourselves into two wars of occupation we couldn't afford, at a time when we knew we couldn't afford them.
    Just to pick a nit here... We have a high deficit right now, that's correct, but we are no where even close to being "on the verge of bankruptcy." That's little more than the hyperbolic inaccurate nonsense you've been hearing, but hardly a valid representation of our current state of economic affairs.

    Carry on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Just to pick a nit here... We have a high deficit right now, that's correct, but we are no where even close to being "on the verge of bankruptcy." That's little more than the hyperbolic inaccurate nonsense you've been hearing, but hardly a valid representation of our current state of economic affairs.
    Technically inow, we are pretty close to the definition of bankruptcy "Inability to discharge all your debts as they come due", but your correct the US has the resources to pay off all it's debt, in short order. What percentage of all land is actually owned by Government, think 32%. We simply have a dysfunctional Government, at the moment.

    kojax; We went into WWII on two fronts, basically in worse shape than we were in 2001 and if on topic, I'd question your proposed outcomes...even if IMO those results will be worse in a few years than when we went in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Technically inow, we are pretty close to the definition of bankruptcy "Inability to discharge all your debts as they come due"
    I don't believe this is any longer valid either given that a shutdown was avoided and an agreement reached. Last week? Maybe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    inow: The shut down issue had nothing to do with covering our cost of debt. What could cause the problem is pending, the "raising the debt ceiling". If that failed, against my desire it won't, then where the Administration (Obama) places priorities for whatever revenues are received (apx 200B$/Month), uses what's in reserve (near 600B$, from TARP) or what the Fed prints, could carry on with most all obligations for a months, if not years. As was settling the 2011 Budget, forming and/or agreeing to a 2012 Budget, raising that ceiling, are being used as political ploys by both parties and not necessarily a REAL problem, YET...To help clarify, what's expected in revenues, now to October 1st 2011, has been appropriated by Congress, then after Oct. 1st, all mandatory spending (about 3./4th's of revenues) is already the job of the Executive Branch, to administer. If those priorities continue to be growth of Government, Social Justice and reparations, then buyers of Bonds to pay off previous debts will cease or cause higher and higher interest rates, leading to default.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I'll just return to my previous point since all of the rest of this is extraneous and a bit of a red herring. The US is no where even close to bankruptcy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Just to pick a nit here... We have a high deficit right now, that's correct, but we are no where even close to being "on the verge of bankruptcy." That's little more than the hyperbolic inaccurate nonsense you've been hearing, but hardly a valid representation of our current state of economic affairs.
    Technically inow, we are pretty close to the definition of bankruptcy "Inability to discharge all your debts as they come due", but your correct the US has the resources to pay off all it's debt, in short order. What percentage of all land is actually owned by Government, think 32%. We simply have a dysfunctional Government, at the moment.
    We also refuse to tax our people. Seriously taxes are at historical lows and arguably well below the point where it's contributing to the economy especially for individuals. I think about the best system would be no taxes on corporations so they are encourages to continue to set up and stay in the US and considerably higher progressive taxes on individuals.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Well, since they passed stricter gun laws in Canada in 95 the firearm related homicide rate dropped drastically, the overall homicide rate did as well but the decline with other weapons was less pronounced. So, more regulations on guns does seem to have an effect on homicide rates.
    Another thing which Canada has in its favor are social safety nets and universal healthcare. Without those, poverty is a bigger issue, and hence so too are violent crimes. Just a confounding variable to consider. The good job our Molsen drinking friends do with caring for those in poverty IMO plays a big role in reducing things like homicide.
    Ya, but our social safety net and healthcare got worse over that period. What accounted for the drop in homicide rate? Immigration rates were consistently the highest in the developed world, poverty and unemployment were about the same, our social security and healthcare underwent funding cuts. The only thing that did change was stricter gun laws.

    If I really wanted to point to a reason why Canada has lower homicide rates overall, it would be urban planning. Public housing is deliberately spread out to prevent the formation of housing blocks, and so poverty is diffused which helps alleviate the systemical problems of institutionalized poverty. It's no coincidence that Canada's highest rates of crime are in our areas of concentrated poverty, rural Native communities. The other exception being Vancouver's Lower East Side, because it's the only place in the country that doesn't see -0 winters, so the homeless and the destitute tend to gather there.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    We also refuse to tax our people. Seriously taxes are at historical lows and arguably well below the point where it's contributing to the economy especially for individuals. I think about the best system would be no taxes on corporations so they are encourages to continue to set up and stay in the US and considerably higher progressive taxes on individuals.
    LF; You have no idea how correct you are; If you dropped the 35% Corporate Tax, two day's later we would have full employment foreign industry would be lined up to buy land and build. Money held overseas from those operations would flow back into the US, at rates never before seen. Corporations and publicly held Companies, especially those already paying dividends would increase in value and prices on all products/services would decrease.

    What would be the cost, about 191B$ or 1/4th the cost of the 2009 Stimulus Program...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2007.png
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I think a little context might be useful here.





    And... Here's the kicker:





    Do you like facts instead of rhetoric? Go here, spend time learning: http://www.offthechartsblog.org/top-ten-tax-charts/







    __________________________________________________ _


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    If you dropped the 35% Corporate Tax, two day's later we would have full employment foreign industry would be lined up to buy land and build. Money held overseas from those operations would flow back into the US, at rates never before seen. Corporations and publicly held Companies, especially those already paying dividends would increase in value and prices on all products/services would decrease.
    What about the fact that labor costs are significantly lower in many areas overseas, where you can pay 5 workers for the price of one in the US?

    What if the customer for your product is overseas? How does the increase in shipping and insurance costs for transit factor into your suggestion?

    I guess the answer is "it depends on the specific company." Doesn't this also apply to your point?

    __________________________________________________ ____

    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Another thing which Canada has in its favor are social safety nets and universal healthcare.
    I appreciate you sharing the additional insight. Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    inow; Corporate revenues are at "historical lows", not the rates, the US has the second highest at 35%. Even here they can rise to 39% Nationally (think first 100K$ profits) and for instance in California they pay an additional 9% to the State. To put this in some "perspective" a small business in California filing under the Corporate System, will pay about 48K$ of a 100K$ profit.

    What about the fact that labor costs are significantly lower in many areas overseas, where you can pay 5 workers for the price of one in the US?
    Where have the consumers been, say for the last 100 years, in the US. Since even the reduced revenues for Government has indirectly come from those consumers (price of product/service), then any differential cost to produce something elsewhere, would be reduced.

    What if the customer for your product is overseas? How does the increase in shipping and insurance costs for transit factor into your suggestion?
    There are indeed other factors involved, but up there with Corporate Taxes, are the natural, raised or grown resources to produce a product and in the US, many are more than plentiful. Keep in mind it cost about the same to raise a chicken, grow a cotton plant or mine coal, anyplace. You might be surprised to know what all is shipped overseas, only to return as a finished product.

    I guess the answer is "it depends on the specific company." Doesn't this also apply to your point?
    Of course it does, but most US Business are in the US for financial reason, for instance being listed on US Equity Exchanges, which can make a big difference in the "market values". Some remain here for that reason alone. Many electronic Corporations produce little or nothing in the US, but maintain their Headquarters in the States, here then my point in agreeing the "LF POST". If we dropped the CT rates altogether, the money held overseas to avoid that 35% Tax, said to be in the Trillions, would come back (make no difference to profit or taxes) and create the incentive for foreign business to expand (many here already) or build in the US, where the consumer is....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I will just say that I understand these issues better than you give me credit for, and I could correct you on a number of fronts. You are looking at this in a remedial and far too simplistic way.

    Regardless, thanks for clarifying for readers that the rate is high while my chart showed revenues being low. Good point, and I think part of that is the loopholes and special exceptions which are available.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora..._United_States
    Federal tax rates on corporate taxable income vary from 15% to 35%. State and local taxes and rules vary by jurisdiction, though many are based on Federal concepts and definitions. Taxable income may differ from book income both as to timing of income and tax deductions and as to what is taxable.

    http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/...leading-22463/
    IF YOU SAY SOMETHING long enough and loud enough, there's every chance people will come to believe it's true, especially if your opponents tire of rebuttals.

    This time-honored political strategy has been working overtime of late, as Republican presidential hopefuls romance the richer Florida retirees with appeals for cuts in corporate taxes.

    You may have heard: U.S. corporations face one of the highest income tax rates in the world, though the mention of "rate" is often enough excised, so that what comes through is the assertion that corporations pay too much in taxes. This is simply untrue if your basis for comparison is the developed world. The truth is that while the 35% corporate income tax rate is high indeed, the creativity and global reach of U.S. corporations make them among the most lightly levied.

    Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.

    Why the disparity given the high federal rate, which rises to 39% counting state taxes? Part of the answer is that big U.S. companies have become expert at hiding profits in tax havens overseas. And many of the smaller ones simply pass through their income to owners who then report it on their personal returns.

    <...>

    The income not squired away overseas or channeled to the personal returns still enjoys protection in the form of various tax breaks that depress the effective rate to 27%, according to the Treasury Department

    And, when viewed against other countries corporate tax rate, 27% isn't too bad:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rat...the_world#List



    With that said... I would like us to focus on changing our tax code to encourage more manufacturing and investment in green energy locally, including a carbon tax, but that's a while different argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I guess the answer is "it depends on the specific company." Doesn't this also apply to your point?
    Of course it does, but most US Business are in the US for financial reason, for instance being listed on US Equity Exchanges, which can make a big difference in the "market values". Some remain here for that reason alone. Many electronic Corporations produce little or nothing in the US, but maintain their Headquarters in the States, here then my point in agreeing the "LF POST". If we dropped the CT rates altogether, the money held overseas to avoid that 35% Tax, said to be in the Trillions, would come back (make no difference to profit or taxes) and create the incentive for foreign business to expand (many here already) or build in the US, where the consumer is....
    Then all we would get is their HQ's. At least with a corporate tax, we get a benefit from that. The thing corporations will always want from us before they come here will be eliminating labor and pollution laws, and that's not going to happen (would really suck if it did). We should just start closing off our borders. Just trade with Europe, and Canada and Australia. Forget the rest.

    All everyone wants from us is to sell to our phat market. But most of them aren't offering us their markets in return (some of them do offer them, but they're not phat markets like ours.) Why do we hate ourselves so much that we're willing to accept that kind of trade? We should only open our borders to people who are likely to buy as much as they sell.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The thing corporations will always want from us before they come here will be eliminating labor and pollution laws, and that's not going to happen (would really suck if it did).
    This is an inaccurate generalization, and a bit of a caricature to be honest. I concede there are corporations out there who look at lowest cost bottom line even at the expense of the environment or society, but many corporations rely on their environmentalism to succeed. Further, beyond just how customers perceive them, quite a fair number of senior executives make decisions now which specifically improve the environment.

    In fact, I work for one which improved the bottom line by creating a product which lowers the carbon footprint of our customers. In short, all it takes is one example to prove your point fallacious, and I've just provided it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Then all we would get is their HQ's. At least with a corporate tax, we get a benefit from that. The thing corporations will always want from us before they come here will be eliminating labor and pollution laws, and that's not going to happen (would really suck if it did). We should just start closing off our borders. Just trade with Europe, and Canada and Australia. Forget the rest.
    kojax; Ironically, in trying to get something from a CT only results in taxing the US consumer. I don't believe Nike produces any products in the US or are any of Apple's hot products produced here, but in these cases most their products are sold in the US. On the other hand, GM, Ford and virtually all heavy manufacturing concerns (some headquartered here) sell into the World markets, profits coming from those sales, not the US. Ford and GM, are doing extremely well in China/Asia markets and could not exist today, based on their North American operations. With this in mind what's referred to as "emerging markets" make up a large portion of international sales and no free market society could compete, on selective trading partners. Isolationism in US ideology, died after WWII.

    All everyone wants from us is to sell to our phat market. But most of them aren't offering us their markets in return (some of them do offer them, but they're not phat markets like ours.) Why do we hate ourselves so much that we're willing to accept that kind of trade? We should only open our borders to people who are likely to buy as much as they sell.
    Well leading that "most of everyone" are the US Unions, who know we cannot compete on labor cost, they produced over the years or the actual cost to start up a business in the US. The outcome for a European Purchase of the NYSE, is unknown today, but if that did happen (questionable, because Congress would need to approve and NASDAQ's offer is still there), NOTHING I'm aware of would be keeping any business from going outside the Country. Add the Unions suit to forbid hiring NC workers to assemble Boeing Planes, without a drop in CT and you have a recipe for mass exiting of Corporate America

    inow, I had this stored for another post, which is meaningless today, but better explains my feeling toward CT's.

    On this thread, I commented to an opinion solely based on US Corporate Taxes and simplistic or not, I do feel reducing them, a serious opinion to maybe 15-25% or even progressive from the first dollar of profit up to 30% maximum, would do wonders. Your argument should be based on the alternative to the CT and that's filing as an individual, which if the CT were eliminated, every little business would incorporate. Said another way to eliminate the CT, would involve hundreds of other taxing changes, not necessarily all good things, "Unintended Consequences"...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I don't believe Nike produces any products in the US or are any of Apple's hot products produced here, but in these cases most their products are sold in the US.
    Can you clarify what you mean by "most?"


    http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Nike_%28NKE%29
    Nike's sales have grown 52% since 2005 reaching $18.6 billion in 2009 The rapid increase in sales can be attributed primarily to the rise in consumption emerging markets like Russia and China. For example, sales in emerging markets like Russia and Turkey in the EMEA region increased 25%, while revenues from China climbed over 50% during 2009[16] Regionally, Asia Pacific sales increased 26% during 2009 followed by Central and South America at 21%, the EMEA at 19%, and the United States at a 4% revenue growth rate.[17]

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/2589...point-analysis
    # The Americas accounted for $9.218 billion worth of Apple's FY 2011 First Quarter sales. This marks an increase of 51 percent from the same quarter, prior year.
    # Europe made up $7.256 billion in sales for the most recent quarter for a 44 percent increase.
    # Japan contributed $1.433 billion in sales for an 83 percent increase.
    # Asia-Pacific generated $4.987 billion in sales for a 175 percent increase.


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    On the other hand, GM, Ford and virtually all heavy manufacturing concerns (some headquartered here) sell into the World markets, profits coming from those sales, not the US.
    Given the references I've shared above, your core premise is flawed. Further, last year (2010) was only the first year where GM sales were higher outside the US.


    http://www.economyincrisis.org/conte...-sales-figures
    For the very first time in the company’s 102 year history, General Motors sold more cars in a market outside of the U.S.

    The iconic American automaker recorded its best sales figures in China in 2010, the company reported.

    The company sold 2.35 million vehicles in China in 2010, 136,000 more than it sold in the U.S. during that year.

    <...>

    Overall, GM sold 8.39 million vehicles worldwide, an increase of 12.2 percent from 2009 deliveries, the company reported.

    Analysts, however, expect the U.S. to once again regain the top spot - possibly as soon as this year.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    With this in mind what's referred to as "emerging markets" make up a large portion of international sales and no free market society could compete, on selective trading partners. Isolationism in US ideology, died after WWII.
    I sincerely wish you were correct in your assessment here, however, all one needs to do is review the neo-conservative rhetoric which is filled with jingoistic and isolationist themes.



    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    inow, I had this stored for another post, which is meaningless today, but better explains my feeling toward CT's.

    On this thread, I commented to an opinion solely based on US Corporate Taxes and simplistic or not, I do feel reducing them, a serious opinion to maybe 15-25% or even progressive from the first dollar of profit up to 30% maximum, would do wonders. Your argument should be based on the alternative to the CT and that's filing as an individual, which if the CT were eliminated, every little business would incorporate. Said another way to eliminate the CT, would involve hundreds of other taxing changes, not necessarily all good things, "Unintended Consequences"...
    Fair enough. Thank you for laying this out. My stance is that we should use our tax code to encourage specific sectors, such as green energy. Simply eliminating corporate taxes would help seduce more businesses to open here, I agree, but we should also be focusing on manufacturing which would help to repair and strengthen our own infrastructure. That's just my opinion right now. Things can shift.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Then all we would get is their HQ's. At least with a corporate tax, we get a benefit from that. The thing corporations will always want from us before they come here will be eliminating labor and pollution laws, and that's not going to happen (would really suck if it did). We should just start closing off our borders. Just trade with Europe, and Canada and Australia. Forget the rest.
    kojax; Ironically, in trying to get something from a CT only results in taxing the US consumer. I don't believe Nike produces any products in the US or are any of Apple's hot products produced here, but in these cases most their products are sold in the US. On the other hand, GM, Ford and virtually all heavy manufacturing concerns (some headquartered here) sell into the World markets, profits coming from those sales, not the US. Ford and GM, are doing extremely well in China/Asia markets and could not exist today, based on their North American operations. With this in mind what's referred to as "emerging markets" make up a large portion of international sales and no free market society could compete, on selective trading partners. Isolationism in US ideology, died after WWII.
    That's exactly what's wrong with our thinking. Suppose there were another basketball league in Asia that wanted to open competitions with the NBA in the USA, but in their league steriods are allowed. Would it have a positive impact on the competitive environment for the NBA to agree to merge with them and play against them? Or would it be better to require that they adopt our steroids rules first?

    Competition is what makes a capitalist system so efficient, and it works in an exactly identical way to how competition improves the quality of basketball players in a basketball league. They each strive to be excellent so they can win. You are proposing a course of action that would degrade that competitive spirit, rather than augment it.


    All everyone wants from us is to sell to our phat market. But most of them aren't offering us their markets in return (some of them do offer them, but they're not phat markets like ours.) Why do we hate ourselves so much that we're willing to accept that kind of trade? We should only open our borders to people who are likely to buy as much as they sell.
    Well leading that "most of everyone" are the US Unions, who know we cannot compete on labor cost, they produced over the years or the actual cost to start up a business in the US. The outcome for a European Purchase of the NYSE, is unknown today, but if that did happen (questionable, because Congress would need to approve and NASDAQ's offer is still there), NOTHING I'm aware of would be keeping any business from going outside the Country. Add the Unions suit to forbid hiring NC workers to assemble Boeing Planes, without a drop in CT and you have a recipe for mass exiting of Corporate America
    I should be clear in what I say then. Since Europe is part of the industrialized world, and pays its workers about the same as we pay ours, and follows most of the same environmental rules, there is nothing wrong with maintaining trade relations with Europe.

    They don't answer to the description of the "steroids using" basketball league in the example I mentioned above.




    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    In fact, I work for one which improved the bottom line by creating a product which lowers the carbon footprint of our customers. In short, all it takes is one example to prove your point fallacious, and I've just provided it.
    No it doesn't, not at all. All economic theories and predictions are statistical in nature. No single counter point disproves anything. Indeed, almost all predictions made by any economic model will have counterpoints. They're still considered true predictions.

    Sometimes a store that drops the price of soda pop by 10 cents sells fewer sodas. That doesn't discount the fact that most stores that drop the price of soda pop sell more product at the new lower price. You wouldn't throw out the entirety of market theory just because of that one store. However, it's true that consumer conscience can play a role in what they choose to buy, at least so long as they are informed. Unfortunately, most consumers are not informed when they buy everyday products and therefore don't weigh it into their decision making process. (Because you can't weigh something into your decision making process if you don't even know it.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    In international trade, there is no such thing as 'fair' competition.

    For example : my country, New Zealand, has a very strong agricultural sector, but has to survive without any subsidies whatever from government. If we were competing with the United States, with agriculture heavily subsidised, the competition would not be 'fair'!

    Mind you, we would still win. Our system has resulted in agricultural production that is massively more efficient that agriculture in the US.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    In fact, I work for one which improved the bottom line by creating a product which lowers the carbon footprint of our customers. In short, all it takes is one example to prove your point fallacious, and I've just provided it.
    No it doesn't, not at all. All economic theories and predictions are statistical in nature. No single counter point disproves anything. Indeed, almost all predictions made by any economic model will have counterpoints. They're still considered true predictions.
    Try reading again, and this time more closely. That comment was not applied to economic theories or models, but was a direct response to you who was speaking in the absolute about corporations. As made obvious by the quote, that comment was in response to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The thing corporations will always want from us before they come here will be eliminating labor and pollution laws, and that's not going to happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    In international trade, there is no such thing as 'fair' competition.

    For example : my country, New Zealand, has a very strong agricultural sector, but has to survive without any subsidies whatever from government. If we were competing with the United States, with agriculture heavily subsidised, the competition would not be 'fair'!

    Mind you, we would still win. Our system has resulted in agricultural production that is massively more efficient that agriculture in the US.
    That edge is not going to last forever. If it ever becomes a threat to their trade, then sooner or later the USA will simply copy you. Besides, situations where it is actually possible to beat your opponent by a huge windfall are very rare in business. Usually the difference in efficiency between trying really hard, and trying at a normal level is just a few cents here and there.


    In this case, I think you're fortunate that American companies are getting lazy and fat, and spending entirely too much money on their corporate leadership. (And politically, it would be dumb of them to become more efficient, because the government might decide they don't need their subsidies anymore - ironically enough) So... now I see your point. If tariffs/subsidies are too high, companies become fat and lazy because their inefficiency is the whole justification for the high protections.

    However, going back to my sports metaphor: using a tariff/subsidy would be the metaphorical equivalent of allowing the steroids users to play against American teams, but giving the American teams a "handicap", like say 20 free points starting out. That kind of ad-hoc adjustment is bound to fail. It's better the two teams never played against each other in the first place.



    Quote Originally Posted by inow

    Try reading again, and this time more closely. That comment was not applied to economic theories or models, but was a direct response to you who was speaking in the absolute about corporations. As made obvious by the quote, that comment was in response to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The thing corporations will always want from us before they come here will be eliminating labor and pollution laws, and that's not going to happen.
    I understand the term "always" to refer to time, not the number of cases, but I guess it's an ambiguous term to use. I would never entertain the illusion that every single last company in the whole world would unanimously decide together to refuse to do business in the USA unless we eliminate our labor and pollution laws. Clearly experience doesn't validate that.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I would never entertain the illusion that every single last company in the whole world would unanimously decide together to refuse to do business in the USA unless we eliminate our labor and pollution laws. Clearly experience doesn't validate that.
    Exactly my point. Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    So, your theory is that it doesn't matter if there are few or many corporations interested in doing business in the USA, so long as there is at least one?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, your theory is that it doesn't matter if there are few or many corporations interested in doing business in the USA, so long as there is at least one?
    No. I have said nothing which even remotely resembles that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I'm not sure how much good eliminating corporate taxes would do.

    According to Forbes, most of the largest companies pay almost no taxes already. GE actually paid none in 2010, despite having over 10B in profits.

    http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-...ate-taxes.html

    Like inow said, the effective tax rate is actually quite low already.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Yeah, but eliminating corporate taxes would allow the companies to sack all those highly paid corporate accountants and lawyers whose only skills are to reduce taxes.

    All those billions of dollars extra for productive investment!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, your theory is that it doesn't matter if there are few or many corporations interested in doing business in the USA, so long as there is at least one?
    No. I have said nothing which even remotely resembles that.
    Then why should it matter that there are exceptions to the rule? In economics, if the exceptions are few in number you ignore them. If they're few in number, then they're probably not having a substantial impact on GDP.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Lower taxes draw companies into a region, although they pay the employees more so that the employees, in turn, can pay the taxes in their stead. However, citizens are more likely to convince/complain/weep to the government to reduce their own taxes than they would corporate taxes. And such companies don't need to pay as many lobbyists to pay/influence/bribe the authorities to lower their taxes.

    If the makers of goods sold in America had to meet worker/environment/safety regulations in their production (no matter where it occurs), we'd lose few jobs. Fair is fair.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, your theory is that it doesn't matter if there are few or many corporations interested in doing business in the USA, so long as there is at least one?
    No. I have said nothing which even remotely resembles that.
    Then why should it matter that there are exceptions to the rule?
    You've lost me. Who said anything about exceptions to the rule?

    I'm talking about how your comment was inaccurate (the one about all corporations wanting little more than no environmental regulations and the ability to pollute). I'm talking about how I feel we should focus our policy toward specific types of corporations to help us wean off oil, create sustainable jobs, and increase manufacturing, but not just manufacturing of teddy bears and shit, but high speed railroads, solar plants, health facilities, high speed internet in rural communities, etc. I think the tax code could drastically improve employment in these sectors, especially if it was coupled with an intelligently designed carbon tax.

    I also noted how this issue is difficult since so many customers for these corporations are outside of the US. Demand is higher, and so too is the cost pressure. Further, you pay more for shipping. The cost of labor is higher here, the cost of medical is higher here, the cost is quite simply higher in the US for a lot of work corporations do, and that's before we even begin to address the issue of taxes.

    I could go on and on and on. This is a deeply complex issue, and I just get tired of people who think that a single number on the tax policy is all that it's going to take to shift the job footprint back the US.

    Yes... Lower taxes on corporations will attract some companies, but as noted already by posters above (myself included), many corporations barely pay any taxes already.

    My problem is with how simplistically you and some others like you are trying to paint the issue. There's a shitload more to this than just the corporate tax rate, especially since the rate is barely relevant anyway given existing loopholes, and is reasonably inline with other countries already.





    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Yeah, but eliminating corporate taxes would allow the companies to sack all those highly paid corporate accountants and lawyers whose only skills are to reduce taxes.

    All those billions of dollars extra for productive investment!
    Nice. Don't forget the lobbyists.






    http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2011...rporate-taxes/
    The Business Roundtable, a group comprising 200 of the largest companies in the United States, is out with a “study” that claims to show that the United States levies excessively high tax rates on companies. It actually shows nothing of the kind.

    <...>

    The news here is — or would be if it were true — that American companies face high effective rates. It is true that the 35 percent statutory rate is high by international standards, but there are so many exemptions and loopholes and incentives that relatively little money is actually collected.

    <...>

    In the 1960s, corporate taxes amounted to about 22 percent of overall tax receipts, and averaged 3.9 percent of gross domestic product. In the most recent decade, the figures are about 12 percent of total taxes and 2.2 percent of G.D.P.

    In other words, the corporate tax burden in roughly half what it was.

    Or here is another set of available data. The Commerce Department calculates total corporate profits as part of its G.D.P report. Looking at 10-year averages to smooth out cyclical swings, pretax corporate profits are now higher than at any time in more than three decades. But corporate tax payments as a percentage of pretax income are lower than at any time since World War II.

    A real study that looked at how much the companies in the Roundtable actually pay to Uncle Sam would be a wonderful thing, and one the Roundtable could easily provide. Each member of the organization knows what it pays. Why don’t they ask PWC, which the Roundtable hired to put together this report, to compile composite tax figures for those 200 companies?

    If it turns out that, as a group, they actually pay taxes anywhere close to the statutory rate, they will have a powerful argument to present to Congress.

    But of course that is not what the data would show.

    These are the largest and most successful companies in the country — the Roundtable says that its members collectively have $6 trillion in revenues and 13 million employees. Is there not one member of the Roundtable that finds it objectionable to present something so blatantly misleading as this study?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20046867.shtml
    Economist Martin Sullivan told Congress these patent and profit transfers are accounting tricks that have allowed companies to chip away at the 35 percent and save tens of billions of dollars. He says that from 2007 to 2009 these maneuvers helped lower Pfizer's average tax rate to 17 percent; Merck to 12.5 percent, and GE to just 3.6 percent.

    "It's really remarkable, as I review the data, is the consistency with which you see this phenomenon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, your theory is that it doesn't matter if there are few or many corporations interested in doing business in the USA, so long as there is at least one?
    No. I have said nothing which even remotely resembles that.
    Then why should it matter that there are exceptions to the rule?
    You've lost me. Who said anything about exceptions to the rule?

    I'm talking about how your comment was inaccurate (the one about all corporations wanting little more than no environmental regulations and the ability to pollute). I'm talking about how I feel we should focus our policy toward specific types of corporations to help us wean off oil, create sustainable jobs, and increase manufacturing, but not just manufacturing of teddy bears and shit, but high speed railroads, solar plants, health facilities, high speed internet in rural communities, etc. I think the tax code could drastically improve employment in these sectors, especially if it was coupled with an intelligently designed carbon tax.

    I also noted how this issue is difficult since so many customers for these corporations are outside of the US. Demand is higher, and so too is the cost pressure. Further, you pay more for shipping. The cost of labor is higher here, the cost of medical is higher here, the cost is quite simply higher in the US for a lot of work corporations do, and that's before we even begin to address the issue of taxes.

    I like this response. It's much better and clearer. I think you're right that subsidies should be targeted better than they are. We're trying to prop up industries we don't need, and killing off industries we do need. Probably one group simply has better lobbyists than the other. That's the problem with letting lobby money decide everything.

    My point on the labor and environment legislation is that labor laws are why wages are so high. We have a minimum wage, without which wages would drop very fast. Medical coverage is mandated or quite a lot of employers wouldn't grant it.. Environmental laws are a little different. Not every industry is affected equally by them. It all depends on what you're producing. If you're creating lots of hazardous waste that will cost money to dispose of, you'll probably make more money putting your factories in China. But we still need those industries here. How do we get them?





    Yes... Lower taxes on corporations will attract some companies, but as noted already by posters above (myself included), many corporations barely pay any taxes already.

    My problem is with how simplistically you and some others like you are trying to paint the issue. There's a shitload more to this than just the corporate tax rate, especially since the rate is barely relevant anyway given existing loopholes, and is reasonably inline with other countries already.
    I definitely agree with you that the Corporate Tax rate is a non-issue.

    People worry too much about where the HQ is, instead of where the jobs are. Honestly, who cares if they set up their HQ in Tunisia because they don't want to pay taxes in the USA? It's where the factories are that counts. Would you rather have the HQ here, and the factories in Tunisia, or the HQ in Tunisia, and the factories here?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My point on the labor and environment legislation is that labor laws are why wages are so high.
    You don't think this has anything to do with cost of living?


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Medical coverage is mandated or quite a lot of employers wouldn't grant it..
    Yet another argument for universal healthcare. It would attract business.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I definitely agree with you that the Corporate Tax rate is a non-issue.
    Erm. I wasn't getting that from your comments, but okay. I appreciate the clarification.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My point on the labor and environment legislation is that labor laws are why wages are so high.
    You don't think this has anything to do with cost of living?
    No, actually. The cost of living would drop as well in a lot of areas of expenditure, though not all areas, unfortunately. People would simply end up having to work far in excess of 40 hours in a week.




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Medical coverage is mandated or quite a lot of employers wouldn't grant it..
    Yet another argument for universal healthcare. It would attract business.
    Agreed. It would. It definitely would.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I definitely agree with you that the Corporate Tax rate is a non-issue.
    Erm. I wasn't getting that from your comments, but okay. I appreciate the clarification.
    [/quote]

    My comments were to the effect that labor and environment laws were a much bigger issue than corporate tax. If you go back and read what I said I think you'll see that I didn't express serious concern over corporate tax rates.

    Actually I suggested we should keep the taxes high because otherwise we see no benefit at all from a company deciding to put its HQ in the USA. The decision to do so doesn't necessarily create any jobs for American workers.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Getting back on topic, it seems that all is not black and white concerning the prosecution of this individual. On the advice of his lawyer he pleaded guilty to the offence, and this meant that all the facts surrounding the case did not emerge in court. This is an extract of a report from a reputable newspaper here in the UK.




    Because he pleaded guilty some background details to the case were not given in open court, the Crown Prosecution Service says.

    Supt Meakin said in his statement: "At 11.45pm on February 23, police received a report that while Mr Knowles was in the Highweek Inn he had made an alleged threat that he was going to use a knife to harm someone.

    "The police were advised that Mr Knowles had left the address in a vehicle.

    "The vehicle was stopped a short while later by my police officers, where Mr Knowles was arrested for supplying a positive breath test. A further test at the police station proved he was under the legal drink drive limit."

    "The vehicle was searched for a weapon and a Buck Whittaker lock knife was found. The knife is illegal and has a serrated edge."


    http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/news/Po...l/article.html
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    I liked how the cop held the knife right up to the camera, the way fishermen do with little minnows they caught to make them look like big lunkers.

    That knife has a 3 inch blade, and yep, it's pretty much like a swiss army knife.

    http://www.knivesplus.com/buckknifebu-730bkx.html

    My take on this story is that the guy should have been arrested for making terroristic threats, not for having the swiss army knife.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •