Final-Fan said:
DonFerrari said:
Companies in Brazil try their hardest to survive in our tax loving, return hating country, and we still have big corporations, but far less than countries were being a businessman isn't looked as something evil.
I see, my bad. I stand corrected on the internal division, but on the unions concentration I stand that it's almost certain that unions go after richier regions to demand more money than they create value themselves.
I guess I have a little better understanding of USA geography (and perhaps culture) than you have from Brazil, so I'm not betraying I'm exposing. But geographically speaking California is in the south half of the country, or southwest of the country. I have no fault that besides using imperial measurement system you also can't use a compass.
|
That is pretty much what I meant by "betray". It's a less-popular usage so I guess I could have been more careful with a guy who didn't have English as his first language.
Your theory about unions doesn't match how they were first created. Also, wouldn't unions tend to go after the highest earning people in that case instead of the working class (or with equal enthusiasm)?
|
I now what you wanted to convey, I was using my card as non-speaker to joke around, relax.
Unions were first created some century ago with some ideals, today they hardly reflect that creation ideal... Yes, unions are about trying to grab other people money to them. You won't see unions opening their own factory and paying big paychecks, they will only try to go after other companies and suck it out. Cooperatives try and open their own companies, usually very short lived or in the end not paying to much more than regular companies.
But anyway this doesn't invalidate my answer that in north you have a bigger salary and union members than in south, it just revalidates it. The wages are higher not because there are more unions, but because there is more wealth.
FragilE^ said:
DonFerrari said:
Companies in Brazil try their hardest to survive in our tax loving, return hating country, and we still have big corporations, but far less than countries were being a businessman isn't looked as something evil.
|
I was exaggerating, a lot, we of course have a few big coproprations over here. However, many have left the country already and those who stay make sure to move as much as possible out of the country to escape taxes. Its terrible for the country :/
|
I know you were, there are some well know (well, Volvo was bought by Ford and SAAB isn't that spread), but you were right about what you said on tax happy governments suffocating companies.
WolfpackN64 said:
DonFerrari said:
And then we go to the, does it have more unions because it have more wealth or is wealth created by unions?? I wouldn't bet on the second. And you were talking north versus south, not west vs east... and as far as I remember California is more to the south than to the north.
Try raising the taxes for corporations and see what happens, just to remember, even a self employed is a corporation for governments when they want to tax.
Where have they been successful? As far as I know several countries in europe (France being a big case) have failed really hard when doing tax on the wealth because they are either capable of evading by sending money to other countries or just leaving the country... and just to remember that is basically what happened to USA industry, wages and taxes escalated and jobs gone to Asia.
Socialism is a dream, it destroyed several countries, so for this we have empiric results of how it work in reality. So between individual negotiations (which I have been successfull so far) and socialism and leaving my power to another to use I choose the first.
|
It worked in the US and all over Europe, untill the elite decided to cut the wealthy heavy tax breaks. The taxes on companies keep dropping, if this trend carries on, more states will go bankrupt, the taxes must go up. If needed, property of companies fleeing should be confiscated.
Socialism lifted millions out of poverty and is responsible for a good standard of living anywhere. If individual negotiation would have historically been the norm, you and I would probably be poor.
|
Are you sure it worked? So the wealth didn't moved their assets around and avoided the heavy taxation? I guess the reports I read were fraudulent them.
I do hope more states go bankrupt until they decide to go back to what they should be doing instead of trying to act in every aspect of people lifes. Confiscation, yes I know left wing loves to highjack other people properties.
Socialism killed 100M, that was their way of lifting people from poverty. Venezuela just know is on a very big famine crysis, people are still fleeing from Cuba, or you are talking about a different socialism?
I wouldn't matter being poor, all human are poor from design and must build their own wealth. My 4th generation ancestors were slaves. My great grandfathers were poor small farmers, grandparents from my father side had high school education and from mother side only elementary. So one worked in bank and the other were a worker in civil construction. My parents got to go to university. So I can clearly see individual effort from them building up of my family but can't see where any group negotiation (in a country that all that ever get was raise minimum wage and decrease number of formal jobs) helped them up.
