To be perfectly honest, I don't have much of a problem most of this.
So long as there is a more effective legal remedy for a crime why not use that instead of a one size fits all solution that doesn't really fit most sizes?
I mean, what functions does prison actually fill? The big one (and primary one from my point of view) is that it removes individuals from the general population. That's an area where prison will always remain effective and required for certain criminals.
But how many criminals out of the general prison population actually require such removal from society? I'd argue we use this extreme power more for the secondary effects of jail time than the primary.
Deterrence is the next big one, but seems entirely ineffective to me. It assumes that crimes take place after some rational analysis of the outcomes. People tend not to think that they will end up in jail until they do. It might make some sense for preventing second offenders, if they don't want to go back, but under the current system ex-cons tend to have few options and are now part of a society largely made up of other criminals. Balancing the weak deterrent effect against that socialisation turns me strongly against using prison as a pure deterrent.
Then there is rehabilitation. For most crimes I can think of more effective methods. While violent offenders do need removing from society during any attempts at rehab, the vast majority of criminals could be better rehabilitated through either specialised facilities or non-custodial schemes.
And so we come to punishment and vengeance, a purely negative sum game where we throw money to hurt people who hurt us, making sure they can never recover their lives or contribute to society again. Which seems to be where the US system is stuck spinning it's wheels.
My personal opinion is that finding more alternative rehabilitation and monitoring schemes and giving judges greater freedom to use alternative sentences for a wide range of crimes makes a lot of sense. Custodial sentences should be an option, but an extreme one and used only where justified by the facts of the case.
By the same token however, Unions ought to compete in the free market for labor. I'm very skeptical of "closed shops" that prohibit the company from hiring non-union employees because frankly that smacks of monopoly to me. Likewise, I'm skeptical of some of the legal protections for unions.
Thing is, without that clause that prevents a company from hiring outside the union, the union pretty much becomes worthless. There is nothing to stop them from being undercut and pushed out of the job. I agree it stinks of a monopoly, but I don't think they could survive without it.
Thing is, without that clause that prevents a company from hiring outside the union, the union pretty much becomes worthless. There is nothing to stop them from being undercut and pushed out of the job. I agree it stinks of a monopoly, but I don't think they could survive without it.
Without a clause that allows a corporation to demand people only buy their products, the corporation pretty much becomes worthless. There is nothing to stop another company from undercutting them and pushing the first corporation out of the job. It stinks of monopoly, but I don't think they could survive without it.
Unions serve to give workers leverage in negotiations. Negotiations should move the price around within the amount allowed by the market, not allow one party to demand a price above what the market would otherwise bear.
If a union can't convince workers to join it, it probably needs to work on its sales pitch, or reconsider the benefits its providing to its members. If they're paying more in fees/dues than they are getting out of the bargaining position, is the union really helping them?
Likewise in instances of high unemployment, is it better for society as a whole for a union to be able to demand the corporation only hire union laborers at an above market range, or for a corporation to be able to hire more people at a lower wage?
The true top earners in America get a free pass, when they're the ones that can afford it the most. Even after everyone on both sides agree that small and medium businesses are the largest jobs providers in this country, we still force them to pay taxes.
I don't think the tax break for GM is right, but we're already bailing out every other major corporation in this country by subsidizing them in bypassing income taxes. We tax the people who can afford it the least, while letting those who can afford it the most to take a pass on the system.
But many of the companies the report found had paid no tax were likely small businesses that pay other taxes. Generally, many small firms, because they do not have shareholders, are able to shift corporate income to individual income.
"Small businesses that are going to be liable for a lot of income tax are likely to use other tax forms so they only pay individual income taxes," said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
Lots of large partnerships and LLCs would fall in this category. It's more pervasive than you think.
Fair enough. I understand the need to give small and medium size businesses tax credits and incentives to do certain things, green energy and promoting new sectors, but what do we gain when we're losing more from the Federal and State coffers to these credits and tax shelters than we're taking in from the business collectively? The people they employ, the products they produce and distribute, etc.
You could say that's a good thing, and that it follows the starve the beast mentality, but it creates an invisible weight on the budget deficit that is hard to quantify when we're providing money to businesses who are in turn providing nothing in return to the state in the simple form of income tax. This essentially works out to state propped up business sectors all around, something we demonize when countries like China do it, we're just doing it in a less direct manner.
I'm all for keeping business taxes low, it does promote companies to come into an area and set up shop, but if they're paying no taxes at all what's the point? It's all just rhetorical bullshit.
To illustrate the point even further, anyone who thinks this isn't out of whack clearly does not see the intrinsic problems that come with mass wealth disparities. The fact that it is only going to get worse as we continue to extend tax cuts to the top 2% and cut funding to programs designed to assist the underprivileged and destitute in order to make up a budget deficit is worrying.
I think you're missing a bit of what I'm saying. All major law and accounting firms pay no taxes because all of the firm income reports to the partners or members (since they're basically all partnerships or PLLCs). That means some huge companies with huge cash flows never report any income; only the partners do. So of course we have a bunch major companies showing no income; that doesn't mean there's no tax being paid on that income, it's just at a different place in the equation.
Reading Keith Olbermann is easier than listening to him. He's still sanctimonious as all hell, but when I have to listen, I turn it off. I can deal with that in writing.
