"I want to take those profits".............

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Sure she has said how...

1) Don't raise oil industry taxes
2) End government oil industry subsidies
3) Establish a profit threshold

-spence

Interesting stuff Spence.

1)Don't raise oil industry taxes.
Now that they will be taking it off the top, why not do away with all their taxes?
That could cause a problem though if their profits fell.

2)End government oil industry subsidies.
Does that include defense subsidies?

3)Establish a profit threshold.
That's a great idea, and while we are at it do the same to all industries ,high tech, gees Microsoft profits averages out something like the mid 20% range, pharmaceuticals, , corporate lawyers, and why not individuals like sports figures, Hollywood stars and so on and so on.
That way the government would have even more money to continue to spend wisely, like they did with FEMA.

We could become just like Norway, where there is no incentive to develop or invent anything. Just lay back drink and ski.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

3)Establish a profit threshold.
That's a great idea, and while we are at it do the same to all industries ,high tech, gees Microsoft profits averages out something like the mid 20% range, pharmaceuticals, , corporate lawyers, and why not individuals like sports figures, Hollywood stars and so on and so on.

You could make a good argument that Microsoft's profit margin is the result of monopolistic business practices and many would agree.

As for Pharma, if they weren't subsidized by the US Taxpayer via a MASSIVE indusrty lobby who's done everything to eliminate competition through price fixing perhaps we'd pay the same for drugs as other nations. You don't "need" a 24% margin to spur innovation...unless it's innovation in MARKETING.

Which is exactly the rub.

People love to stroke the "free market" woodie 'cauze it makes them feel like they're writing an op-ed for the National Review, when in reality our markets are nothing like "free".

A true free market would probably return all the wealth to a select few very rapidly and leave the rest of us living in polluted bliss pretty quickly. Some think we're headed there regardless.

That's exactly why this "democratic" society has a progressive tax system (a.k.a wealth re-distribution) and Government regulators to control our "free market" system of commerce.

Granted with all of that it's still the best game in town and our legal system, the best in the world, keeps it all together.

But please, don't cry foul when someone wants to engineer our society, because people have been doing it for the last 200 years.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

But please, don't cry foul when someone wants to engineer our society, because people have been doing it for the last 200 years.

-spence

Depends on what you mean by engineering our society and who is engineering it. As long as it continues with free enterprise and our current constittuion i'm all for it.

That's why we vote to decide what we need, or don't need, and who's going to do the engineering.

My vote, as yours, will depend on what i think needs fixing and who is qualified to fix it.

Politicians depend on our poor memories of their pasts and the same old same old slogans like, "it takes a village" or "no child left behind",
who knows what they will name the next ones, as a guise to make us think they are inovative and have a plan that works.


Just mho, but right now i don't see anybody on the horizon that i think has what it takes to turn our country around. We may have already gone too far to fix. Infrastucture, drugs or whatever.

It took Rome 1000 years to fall, but after 200 years we seem to be on the fast track. However, hope springs eternal.

But whata i know, i'm just a lil' old country boy.