Deregulation of the industries!

[mzungu]

For those who insist on a weak and small Government that cannot regulate business practices; YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED: A Gift for the Hackers | Watch Free Documentary Online

 

[mindlight]

For those who insist on a weak and small Government that cannot regulate business practices; YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED: A Gift for the Hackers | Watch Free Documentary Online

The security vulnerabilities of mobiles and PCs which allow hackers to steal financial info are a problem that businesses like HP wrestle with. It is not in their interests to sell faulty products.

Governments actually spend a lot of money on internet security and catching hackers. many of the best hackers have government training and equipment. Yes there are new realities to deal with here. Those who insist on small government do not usually mean any lessening of defence or law and order budgets.

 

[I Eat Pie]

The American spirit is the "get our of our face and let us do it" kinda spirit. Less government is good.

 

[mzungu]

The American spirit is the "get our of our face and let us do it" kinda spirit. Less government is good.

Less Government means weaker Government open to pressure from corporate and banking interests. In my country German corporations like SIEMENS bribed our politicians and siphoned bloated contracts worth 50% of our GDP. Now we are a bankrupt country and owe twice our GDP to the IMF and other foreign banks. Had we a strong Government like we did in the past and corporations were barred from such practices, we would not be in this predicament.

A strong Government that protects the [people from greedy practices such as those of the financial industries is a good thing. Had the US Government enforced regulations on the financial industry then we (the world ) would not be in such a financial crisis. Please take the time to watch the video that proves how deregulation is detrimental to the public.

The men who crashed the world - YouTube

 

[I Eat Pie]

Lower taxes are better though ;c

 

[mzungu]

Lower taxes are better though ;c

Yes I agree. Taxation must be fair. In my country our Neo Liberal Government has increased taxation to the point where people simply cannot pay. The Rich are being exempt from this onslaught. The Left wing parties and one right wing party are insisting that taxes should be lowered as this tax burden is killing the middle class.

An example of our taxation system imposed: If you are a parent then you pay more taxes for every extra child you have.
If you are unemployed and have no income you will have to pay taxes.
If you own your house and a car then (as is my case) the total taxes sometimes exceed the income. I have to pay 2,000 Euros MORE than I earn because I own my house, a car and two offices that have been empty the last 5 years because I cannot find anyone to rent them. The Government taxes your property every year irrespective of whether it is generating any income or not. They don't care if you are unemployed; they tax the property.

The rich have tax breaks (yacht repairs, swimming pool repairs etc) While we the middle class cannot deduct tuition expenses for our children's education, we cannot deduct all our expenses bar a few like doctors bills.

If you own a new FERRARI you will pay less car tax than one who owns a 10 year old saloon car.

We have over 40 different property taxes that we have to pay every year. In 10 years of property taxes it is like buying your property over again.

The left wing parties always imposed less taxes on the middle class and more on the rich.

Taxes, taxes, taxes and no relief in sight.

 

[I Eat Pie]

well that's what I mean by smaller government

 

[mzungu]

well that's what I mean by smaller government

If you mean smaller Government to mean less taxes then I agree. But if you mean deregulating the industry then sorry but I vehemently disagree!

 

[I Eat Pie]

nope. just lower taxes and making it easier for businesses to hire people

 

[mzungu]

nope. just lower taxes and making it easier for businesses to hire people

What about lowering the taxes on the general public, or are you in favour of lowering taxes on businesses only?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Less Government means weaker Government open to pressure from corporate and banking interests. In my country German corporations like SIEMENS bribed our politicians and siphoned bloated contracts worth 50% of our GDP. Now we are a bankrupt country and owe twice our GDP to the IMF and other foreign banks. Had we a strong Government like we did in the past and corporations were barred from such practices, we would not be in this predicament.

Are you saying that previously it was illegal to bribe politicians but now has become legal? Can such a change in law really be caused by the strength or weakness of a government? I would think that a strong government that was populated by corrupt officials would be a much greater problem to its citizens than a weak government that was populated by corrupt officials. I do not know the situation in Greece but I can tell you that, from my perspective, government officials in the US solicit bribes from corporations by de facto threatening the corporation's profitability and viability through the passing of unreasonable regulations and subsequently exempting or simply not enforcing those regulations for those that are willing and able to pay the required bribes(campaign contributions). It is the very powerful and large governmental structure that makes such corruption not only possible but inescapable as no politician that refrained from this would have a chance to be elected either from lack of funds or lack of a political party's support.

 

[mzungu]

Are you saying that previously it was illegal to bribe politicians but now has become legal? Can such a change in law really be caused by the strength or weakness of a government? I would think that a strong government that was populated by corrupt officials would be a much greater problem to its citizens than a weak government that was populated by corrupt officials. I do not know the situation in Greece but I can tell you that, from my perspective, government officials in the US solicit bribes from corporations by de facto threatening the corporation's profitability and viability through the passing of unreasonable regulations and subsequently exempting or simply not enforcing those regulations for those that are willing and able to pay the required bribes(campaign contributions). It is the very powerful and large governmental structure that makes such corruption not only possible but inescapable as no politician that refrained from this would have a chance to be elected either from lack of funds or lack of a political party's support.

Politicians in this country are not allowed to receive any bribes nor corporate funding. However, the two political parties that have ruled for the last 40 years had and have a Neo Liberal agenda. This has resulted in the constitution being turned into toilet paper and corporatism be it foreign and or local have taken over. The Government now is too weak to counter the damage and we have become simply a PROTECTORATE. Last week a law was passed that relinquishes our national sovereignty to the banks and financial institutions like the IMF.

I can see the revolution coming and hopefully Syria will be a playground compared to what we the people have in store for these traitorous politicians!

 

[grasping the after wind]

What about lowering the taxes on the general public, or are you in favour of lowering taxes on businesses only?

The tax situation in the US is quite unique I think because of the federal nature of the government and the layers of bureaucracy and governing bodies. In my town taxes are levied by 5 separate governmental bodies the Federal Government , the State government, the County government, the Town government and the School Board. So taxes vary greatly by geographic location depending on the frugality of any of those entities. Since I live where i do my tax rates are among the very highest found in the US. If, however, we were to simplify matters and only deal with one governmental body it becomes less complicated but still not simple. You may have heard it said that 47% of Americans pay no Federal taxes. That statement is not completely true, 47% of Americans pay no income taxes and many of the 47% actually receive money from the government instead of paying income taxes as an earned income credit but any working American pays a payroll tax in 8.75% of every dollar of wage up to a certain cap, which i am sorry but I can't recall what it is now. Then there are various and sundry other taxes that the federal government levies that most Americans end up paying for either directly or indirectly. My point, which I am definitely over analyzing here, is that how to cut taxes for the general population is not that easy to figure out. Certainly a Federal income tax cut for the general population would not at all effect 47% of that population and that 47% would be the 47% with the smallest incomes. Cutting elsewhere would offend and bring fierce opposition from interest groups that might well be all for the ides of a general income tax cut for the less affluent but would not be in favor of cutting the funding mechanism for their pet cause whether it be environmental, social welfare or health related.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Politicians in this country are not allowed to receive any bribes nor corporate funding. However, the two political parties that have ruled for the last 40 years had and have a Neo Liberal agenda. This has resulted in the constitution being turned into toilet paper and corporatism be it foreign and or local have taken over. The Government now is too weak to counter the damage and we have become simply a PROTECTORATE. Last week a law was passed that relinquishes our national sovereignty to the banks and financial institutions like the IMF.

I can see the revolution coming and hopefully Syria will be a playground compared to what we the people have in store for these traitorous politicians!

I can sympathize with you and your countrymen (seems like a sexist word but countrypeople just sounds too weird.) as my country seems to be headed in a similar financial direction accompanied by the strengthening of the federal government rather than its weakening. Hopefully, you can find a peaceful way to resolve your national problems. I think that revolutions often end up as a case of jumping form the frying pan into the fire but I also realize that there are times when no peaceful means are available so, though I myself would never resort to or condone any violent means of revolution, I can, at least, understand the motivations of those that do.

 

[mzungu]

The tax situation in the US is quite unique I think because of the federal nature of the government and the layers of bureaucracy and governing bodies. In my town taxes are levied by 5 separate governmental bodies the Federal Government , the State government, the County government, the Town government and the School Board. So taxes vary greatly by geographic location depending on the frugality of any of those entities. Since I live where i do my tax rates are among the very highest found in the US. If, however, we were to simplify matters and only deal with one governmental body it becomes less complicated but still not simple. You may have heard it said that 47% of Americans pay no Federal taxes. That statement is not completely true, 47% of Americans pay no income taxes and many of the 47% actually receive money from the government instead of paying income taxes as an earned income credit but any working American pays a payroll tax in 8.75% of every dollar of wage up to a certain cap, which i am sorry but I can't recall what it is now. Then there are various and sundry other taxes that the federal government levies that most Americans end up paying for either directly or indirectly. My point, which I am definitely over analyzing here, is that how to cut taxes for the general population is not that easy to figure out. Certainly a Federal income tax cut for the general population would not at all effect 47% of that population and that 47% would be the 47% with the smallest incomes. Cutting elsewhere would offend and bring fierce opposition from interest groups that might well be all for the ides of a general income tax cut for the less affluent but would not be in favor of cutting the funding mechanism for their pet cause whether it be environmental, social welfare or health related.

Our constitution clearly states that all Greeks will be taxed according to their abilities. Right now this has been totally disregarded and everyone with the exception of the very rich are being taxed so much that we literally work to pay taxes with little left over for survival let alone for anything else.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Our constitution clearly states that all Greeks will be taxed according to their abilities. Right now this has been totally disregarded and everyone with the exception of the very rich are being taxed so much that we literally work to pay taxes with little left over for survival let alone for anything else.

Too bad that government officials seem more interested in finding ways to make the case that what is clearly stated in a Constitution is actually vague and was actually intended to change with "new realities" rather than just following the clearly stated words of that Constitution.

 

[mzungu]

Too bad that government officials seem more interested in finding ways to make the case that what is clearly stated in a Constitution is actually vague and was actually intended to change with "new realities" rather than just following the clearly stated words of that Constitution.

If you read it in Greek it makes perfect sense, and not even the Government challenges this clause.

Here in Bold:

Article 4
1. All Greeks are equal before the law.
2. Greek men and women have equal rights and equal obligations.
3. All persons possessing the qualifications for citizenship as specified by law are Greek citizens. Withdrawal of Greek citizenship shall be permitted only in case of voluntary acquisition of another citizenship or of undertaking service contrary to national interests in a foreign country, under the conditions and procedures more specifically provided by law.
4. Only Greek citizens shall be eligible for public service, except as otherwise provided by special laws.
5. Greek citizens contribute without distinction to public charges in proportion to their means.
6. Every Greek capable of bearing arms is obliged to contribute to the defence of the Fatherland as provided by law.
7. Titles of nobility or distinction are neither conferred upon nor recognized in Greek citizens.

 

[grasping the after wind]

If you read it in Greek it makes perfect sense, and not even the Government challenges this clause.

Here in Bold:

Article 4
1. All Greeks are equal before the law.
2. Greek men and women have equal rights and equal obligations.
3. All persons possessing the qualifications for citizenship as specified by law are Greek citizens. Withdrawal of Greek citizenship shall be permitted only in case of voluntary acquisition of another citizenship or of undertaking service contrary to national interests in a foreign country, under the conditions and procedures more specifically provided by law.
4. Only Greek citizens shall be eligible for public service, except as otherwise provided by special laws.
5. Greek citizens contribute without distinction to public charges in proportion to their means.
6. Every Greek capable of bearing arms is obliged to contribute to the defence of the Fatherland as provided by law.
7. Titles of nobility or distinction are neither conferred upon nor recognized in Greek citizens.

You won't get an argument from me. Politicians that wish to do as they please, however, will find ways to define "proportion" and "means" in a manner that suits their purpose even if it totally contradicts the common usage of the words . We have lawyers working constantly in the USA to convince judges that the meaning of particular words are actually quite different than what one might logically expect and in reality do mean exactly what is necessary for them to mean so that the actions of their clients, despite what the common usage of the word would make one think, are perfectly correct. .

 

[mzungu]

You won't get an argument from me. Politicians that wish to do as they please, however, will find ways to define "proportion" and "means" in a manner that suits their purpose even if it totally contradicts the common usage of the words . We have lawyers working constantly in the USA to convince judges that the meaning of particular words are actually quite different than what one might logically expect and in reality do mean exactly what is necessary for them to mean so that the actions of their clients, despite what the common usage of the word would make one think, are perfectly correct. .

Yes but over here they don't even bother with the constitution they just pass bills irrespective of whether they are unconstitutional or not. At least in America the other houses have to agree; Over here whichever party is in power can do pretty much as they please since politicians by law cannot be prosecuted.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/park-avenue-money-power-american-dream/

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes but over here they don't even bother with the constitution they just pass bills irrespective of whether they are unconstitutional or not. At least in America the other houses have to agree; Over here whichever party is in power can do pretty much as they please since politicians by law cannot be prosecuted.

Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream | Watch Free Documentary Online

Unfortunately the same sort of thing happens here only it normally is a President that does it not the Congress. If Congress trys to overreach a President can veto their attempt and even should they override that veto their actions could be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or the Executive could simply refuse to enforce. The congress has no means to enforce their decisions apart from the Executive Branch. President can get away with anything he or she chooses as long as the resistence to it is not vigilant and united. The only thing that stops a US President from being dictatorial is either his or her own forebearance or a swift and united reponse by both the Congress and the Supreme Court and even that could prove ineffective if the right( I actually mean wrong) person were to be elected President. When party politics or alliances of political ideology override the Constitution there is no effective check to the use of power by the Executive Branch. Should a President of sufficient charisma and popularity decide to act as an autocrat the Congress and Supreme Court might well be ignored with impunity and the only recourse would be that the military consider the oath taken to defend the Constitution to be greater than their requirement to obey the oders of their Commander in Chief. Over the history of the US numerous Presidents have abused their power in small ways and some in fairly large ways but none has made it a habit to do so on a regular basis rather they have abused their power only occasionally and not often enough to cause a crisis of revolutionary proportions.