On Nov 30, 9:09*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 11/28/2011 10:34 AM, wrote:

On Nov 28, 12:11 am, *wrote:

Well I call that illogical. If the biggest companies don't pay very high
rates it's logical to think none of the other ones do either. But I know
from numerous sources that the truth is the U.S. has high corporate tax
rates on the books but in reality the U.S. is near the bottom of real
tax rates, that's the rate they actually pay. Look it up if you don't
know that is true.

No it is not logical to believe that international companies pay the
same rate as small local companies.

Okay, then what is logical? That if the largest companies don't pay high
taxes then, what? Small companies don't either? Which is what I say. Or
small companies pay higher taxes? What follows logically if you know
that if a lot of the big companies don't pay high taxes then what is the
logical conclusion from that?

* I mean if you
can't even trust that I can see a chart on TV and tell you what it said
then you won't believe anything.

I want citations because you make errors is reporting what you saw. *A
good example is using the largest 280 companies as a sample for all
companies. *In other words I do not trust you to see the details that
color what you see.

I guess I should do the same for you then. Every time you say you saw or
heard something on TV or radio I should assume you got it wrong somehow.
You aren't reliable enough to relay what you saw on today's news? That's
what you are telling me.

It's called a sample, Dan. If 50% of the biggest companies in the U.S.
are paying low taxes that should apply to the entire population. Don't
you know the first thing about statistics?

Do you have any idea of the percentage of all the business that is done
in the U.S. by the 500 companies of S&P? In dollars that represents a
huge amount of all business done. Half of that is also a huge percentage.

It so happens that I do know a lot about statistics. *I learned
statistics at a college and have used statistics throughout my
engineering career. *I *have several computer programs that are useful
in using statistics as well as at least three text books on
statistics. *So I suspect that I know a great deal more about
statistics than you do. * You need to take a course in statistics and
pay special attention to what is said about samples. *Because you are
dead wrong in believing that a sample of only large companies
represents the total population.

I've had statistics too, Dan. But I was talking what is a logical
conclusion from the facts. If half of the S&P is paying less than 20% in
taxes it's not a big leap to think neither are a hell of a lot of other
American companies. By the way, I was not using the 280 companies of S&P
as a sample for all businesses of all sizes. I do know quite a bit about
sampling. As for a sample of the S&P it is over 50% so you can hardly do
better than that. So I would say based on the fact we know that more
than half the S&P pay 20% or less you would expect that would apply to
the entire S&P as well.

You may not be like Gunner, but you do feel free to use questionable
data.

That's bull pucky.

No that is a fact proven by your belief that a sample of large
companies represents all companies.

I do not. But it sure is a representative sample of all large ones. Not
only that you forget that I told you I have seen in several places that
the majority of all American corporations pay no income tax, which is
good evidence that small companies are similar to the big ones when it
comes to taxes. So why don't you do some research and prove that is
wrong instead of just claiming it is?

Hawke


It sounds to me as if you think that if you pick the 280 individual
with the highest income , you can use them as a sample to show that
individuals in the U.S. have incomes over a million dollars a year.
You did say that the largest 280 companies were representative of all
companies. So why not the 280 people with the highest incomes being a
sample that represents all the people in the U.S.

I already gave you an example of a company that pays 38% of its profit
in taxes.
And that is a fact, not a claim. And why should I do research to
prove you wrong. You need to come up with facts to prove you are
right. You did come up with an article on the largest 280
companies. You just have a few million more to research.

Dan