companies exist to make money and you will find that The larger and older a company gets the less it cares about anything but the bottom line.

This is why emphasis should be on suporting small buissiness and taxing the hell out of large bussinesses , Or enforsing that larger companies have to pay every employee within a % of the most paid employee so everyone shairs in the wealth not just the top shair holders.

Like the internet for a economy to be safe it needs to be highly redundant have everything dependent on 2 banks and 5 coperations and one big fuck up takes the whole system down.

By 'one big fuckup' you mean Barney and Fannie and Freddie, right?

>> ^westy:

companies exist to make money and you will find that The larger and older a company gets the less it cares about anything but the bottom line.
This is why emphasis should be on suporting small buissiness and taxing the hell out of large bussinesses , Or enforsing that larger companies have to pay every employee within a % of the most paid employee so everyone shairs in the wealth not just the top shair holders.
Like the internet for a economy to be safe it needs to be highly redundant have everything dependent on 2 banks and 5 coperations and one big fuck up takes the whole system down.


you know that's an interesting take on it, I always thought that caps on salaries is the obvious way to go, but I like your idea of just paying all workers a % of the highest paid worker (i.e. the CEO). It's a way of keeping the ability to pay your CEO well when they perform, but a recognition that the regular employees all contributed to the success.

Haven't bought this lower taxes = jobs at all. I don't know how anyone can hear them say it and not tell them to go fuck right off with that nonsense.

Now if they say "lower taxes IF we create X number of jobs not counting bringing back laid off employees, etc" then we'd have a conversation. But it's grabbing lower taxes while at best bringing back laid off employees as the workload increases, which the workload is going to increase despite whatever the tax rate may be...people can only cut out certain things for so long until absolutely need them when it comes to manufactured goods whether it be paint, siding, car parts, clothes, water heater, etc. Stuff breaks, wears out, needs maintenance, etc.

What the discussion should be put to is raising taxes, but allowing companies to expand their operations (including hiring more people) and keep the current tax rate. So there is incentive to put money into expansion instead of into their cash reserves and sitting on it. And there should be similar thinking to that when it comes to corporations going forward. Laws limiting their ability to enter into bankruptcy while paying out bonuses to the people who led them into the hole, because it is a total conflict of interest to have people drawing excessive non-salaried money out of a company that should be conserving. They should be directing them, by law, into actions which benefit the US society first and foremost and global society secondary so they have a "healthy to the economy" but profitable operation and not the current parasitic relationship going on where the corporation takes everything and pisses on everyone else. It's creating an animosity that really doesn't need to exist between the citizenry and the corporations.

Probably a more accurate narrative would be that lower taxes helps preserve jobs?