In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

4. Eliminate most, if not all, regulations implemented in probably
the last decade or two.

yes,

because we need more towns like West, Texas to implement urban renewal
in one quick blast (without any notice)


The regulation of the storage and safety of ammonium nitrate had been
placed in the hands of the Feds (specifically our old buddies at
Homeland Security). This was no longer a state initiative.

but it was the state/county zoning ordinances that allowed it's close
proximity to all those businesses and the school



because we don't need safer cars

Cars have been becoming safer for years long before the feds entered
the scene. The fatalities per 100 million miles driven started falling
in the 30s and has continued downward ever since.

and the regulations had absolutely nothing to do with this lowering
death rate?



because we inspect too much food
Yeah, we haven't had hardly any problems with federally-inspected
food in the last few years. (one of the reasons I get all giggly when
people start worrying about the Chinese buying Smithfield)


5. Eliminate the desire of the idiot-in-chief wanting to spend more
of our money for his political gain.

at least he hasn't started any wars for his political gain

But he certainly didn't end any either.

he's doing more than Bush did, but then again Bush actually started a few

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/31/2013 9:46 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:35:28 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

4. Eliminate most, if not all, regulations implemented in probably
the last decade or two.

yes,

because we need more towns like West, Texas to implement urban renewal
in one quick blast (without any notice)

because corporations need the incentive to dump their waste in rivers or
the air

because we don't need safer cars

because we inspect too much food

because we should allow more farm workers to die in the fields (mostly
because who gives a **** about illegals)




5. Eliminate the desire of the idiot-in-chief wanting to spend more
of our money for his political gain.

at least he hasn't started any wars for his political gain

See Kurt's reply to all of your ramblings except one.

To your unanswered rambling "because we should allow more farm workers
to die in the fields (mostly because who gives a **** about illegals)"
my response would be:

If they weren't illegal they wouldn't be here to die in our fields.

they aren't here to die in our fields, they are here to make sure you
get cheap lettuce, tomatos and other veggies for your salads

In
other words, it's their own damn fault for being illegal.


They are criminals as soon as they sneak across the border. I'm not
Politically Correct at all, I call them "Criminal Invaders". I don't
understand what the heck people don't grok about "ILLEGAL"? o_O

TDD

if they are criminals, then the farmers who employ them are criminals
for hiring them, guess we should just put the farmers out in the fields
and see how well they do

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:


because we inspect too much food
Yeah, we haven't had hardly any problems with federally-inspected
food in the last few years. (one of the reasons I get all giggly when
people start worrying about the Chinese buying Smithfield)

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm

says you are wrong

On 8/1/2013 2:15 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article , The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 7/31/2013 9:46 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:35:28 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article , Gordon
Shumway wrote:

4. Eliminate most, if not all, regulations implemented in
probably the last decade or two.

yes,

because we need more towns like West, Texas to implement urban
renewal in one quick blast (without any notice)

because corporations need the incentive to dump their waste in
rivers or the air

because we don't need safer cars

because we inspect too much food

because we should allow more farm workers to die in the fields
(mostly because who gives a **** about illegals)




5. Eliminate the desire of the idiot-in-chief wanting to
spend more of our money for his political gain.

at least he hasn't started any wars for his political gain

See Kurt's reply to all of your ramblings except one.

To your unanswered rambling "because we should allow more farm
workers to die in the fields (mostly because who gives a ****
about illegals)" my response would be:

If they weren't illegal they wouldn't be here to die in our
fields.

they aren't here to die in our fields, they are here to make sure
you get cheap lettuce, tomatos and other veggies for your salads

In
other words, it's their own damn fault for being illegal.


They are criminals as soon as they sneak across the border. I'm
not Politically Correct at all, I call them "Criminal Invaders". I
don't understand what the heck people don't grok about "ILLEGAL"?
o_O

TDD

if they are criminals, then the farmers who employ them are
criminals for hiring them, guess we should just put the farmers out
in the fields and see how well they do


Under the law, anyone who knowingly hires illegal aliens is a criminal.
Of course, if a citizen violates some minor law such as overtime
parking, the government will do more to the citizen who ignores a
parking ticket, than it will do to the illegal alien who invades the
country. o_O

TDD

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:15:59 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/31/2013 9:46 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:35:28 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

4. Eliminate most, if not all, regulations implemented in probably
the last decade or two.

yes,

because we need more towns like West, Texas to implement urban renewal
in one quick blast (without any notice)

because corporations need the incentive to dump their waste in rivers or
the air

because we don't need safer cars

because we inspect too much food

because we should allow more farm workers to die in the fields (mostly
because who gives a **** about illegals)




5. Eliminate the desire of the idiot-in-chief wanting to spend more
of our money for his political gain.

at least he hasn't started any wars for his political gain

See Kurt's reply to all of your ramblings except one.

To your unanswered rambling "because we should allow more farm workers
to die in the fields (mostly because who gives a **** about illegals)"
my response would be:

If they weren't illegal they wouldn't be here to die in our fields.

they aren't here to die in our fields, they are here to make sure you
get cheap lettuce, tomatos and other veggies for your salads

What part of "illegal" don't you understand? Them dying in our fields
was an over dramatic description of some bleeding heart liberal, but
for the sake of argument let's say it's accurate. They committed a
crime and they paid the ultimate price. At least it didn't cost any
tax payer dollars to solve the problem.


In
other words, it's their own damn fault for being illegal.


They are criminals as soon as they sneak across the border. I'm not
Politically Correct at all, I call them "Criminal Invaders". I don't
understand what the heck people don't grok about "ILLEGAL"? o_O

TDD

if they are criminals, then the farmers who employ them are criminals
for hiring them, guess we should just put the farmers out in the fields
and see how well they do

Have I ever said the farmers, or any employer of illegals, were
blameless? If so, show me.

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:53:06 PM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:49:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 11:27:42 AM UTC-4, wrote:



On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:12:39 AM UTC-7, dgk wrote:







So what happens when a corporation does something, like export jobs,















that increases the bottom line but hurts American workers? Does that















matter? That's why the stock market goes up, enriching corporate















owners, but the average American does worse.































Now that the large corporations are multinational and have no loyalty















at all to America, what do we do when they screw us over and over?















The first thing we can do is stop giving them tax breaks







which is something politicians and especially republican







ones are reluctant to do.











You do realize that taxes are just another cost of doing



business and past on to the consumer in the form of higher



prices for goods and services?



You would be AMAZED as to how much of their personal salaries those CEOs would be willing to sacrifice to protect their phony baloney jobs.



Hi,

One thing I am REALLY ****ed. Off shore corporate accounts. It should be

illegal holding money outside country.

Yeah, better to be with the countries that restrict the free flow of
capital and where you can put it, like Cuba, North Korea, China, former
USSR, etc. It's done wonders for them.

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:
l






because we don't need safer cars

Cars have been becoming safer for years long before the feds entered
the scene. The fatalities per 100 million miles driven started falling
in the 30s and has continued downward ever since.

and the regulations had absolutely nothing to do with this lowering
death rate?

Since it started long before there were regulations, it is doubtful
that they had much more than a marginal impact. Especially since we have
been getting safer and safer cars LONG before anybody thought to "help".



he's doing more than Bush did, but then again Bush actually started a few

Hardly.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:


because we inspect too much food
Yeah, we haven't had hardly any problems with federally-inspected
food in the last few years. (one of the reasons I get all giggly when
people start worrying about the Chinese buying Smithfield)

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm

says you are wrong

Can I get a WHOOSH? Federally inspected food has STILL been killing
people. Many of these recalls are after federally inspected food has
been released as good and wholesome and then started killing people.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:


because we inspect too much food
Yeah, we haven't had hardly any problems with federally-inspected
food in the last few years. (one of the reasons I get all giggly when
people start worrying about the Chinese buying Smithfield)

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm

says you are wrong

Can I get a WHOOSH? Federally inspected food has STILL been killing
people. Many of these recalls are after federally inspected food has
been released as good and wholesome and then started killing people.

and since the majority of food isn't inspected, that's a positive in
your world

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:15:59 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/31/2013 9:46 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:35:28 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

4. Eliminate most, if not all, regulations implemented in probably
the last decade or two.

yes,

because we need more towns like West, Texas to implement urban renewal
in one quick blast (without any notice)

because corporations need the incentive to dump their waste in rivers or
the air

because we don't need safer cars

because we inspect too much food

because we should allow more farm workers to die in the fields (mostly
because who gives a **** about illegals)




5. Eliminate the desire of the idiot-in-chief wanting to spend more
of our money for his political gain.

at least he hasn't started any wars for his political gain

See Kurt's reply to all of your ramblings except one.

To your unanswered rambling "because we should allow more farm workers
to die in the fields (mostly because who gives a **** about illegals)"
my response would be:

If they weren't illegal they wouldn't be here to die in our fields.

they aren't here to die in our fields, they are here to make sure you
get cheap lettuce, tomatos and other veggies for your salads

What part of "illegal" don't you understand? Them dying in our fields
was an over dramatic description of some bleeding heart liberal, but
for the sake of argument let's say it's accurate. They committed a
crime and they paid the ultimate price. At least it didn't cost any
tax payer dollars to solve the problem.

as it happens they all aren't illegals, but they still die. farmers
employing "illegals" should be persecuted and prosecuted to the full
extent of the law for their traitorous activities




In
other words, it's their own damn fault for being illegal.


They are criminals as soon as they sneak across the border. I'm not
Politically Correct at all, I call them "Criminal Invaders". I don't
understand what the heck people don't grok about "ILLEGAL"? o_O

TDD

if they are criminals, then the farmers who employ them are criminals
for hiring them, guess we should just put the farmers out in the fields
and see how well they do

Have I ever said the farmers, or any employer of illegals, were
blameless? If so, show me.

have I ever said you said that?

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 8/1/2013 2:15 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article , The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 7/31/2013 9:46 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:35:28 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article , Gordon
Shumway wrote:

4. Eliminate most, if not all, regulations implemented in
probably the last decade or two.

yes,

because we need more towns like West, Texas to implement urban
renewal in one quick blast (without any notice)

because corporations need the incentive to dump their waste in
rivers or the air

because we don't need safer cars

because we inspect too much food

because we should allow more farm workers to die in the fields
(mostly because who gives a **** about illegals)




5. Eliminate the desire of the idiot-in-chief wanting to
spend more of our money for his political gain.

at least he hasn't started any wars for his political gain

See Kurt's reply to all of your ramblings except one.

To your unanswered rambling "because we should allow more farm
workers to die in the fields (mostly because who gives a ****
about illegals)" my response would be:

If they weren't illegal they wouldn't be here to die in our
fields.

they aren't here to die in our fields, they are here to make sure
you get cheap lettuce, tomatos and other veggies for your salads

In
other words, it's their own damn fault for being illegal.


They are criminals as soon as they sneak across the border. I'm
not Politically Correct at all, I call them "Criminal Invaders". I
don't understand what the heck people don't grok about "ILLEGAL"?
o_O

TDD

if they are criminals, then the farmers who employ them are
criminals for hiring them, guess we should just put the farmers out
in the fields and see how well they do


Under the law, anyone who knowingly hires illegal aliens is a criminal.
Of course, if a citizen violates some minor law such as overtime
parking, the government will do more to the citizen who ignores a
parking ticket, than it will do to the illegal alien who invades the
country. o_O

TDD

nice segue, in fact the gov't will do more to a parking violator than it
does to anyone who knowingly hires illegal aliens, but that's the
benefit of fewer regulations, isn't it

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:
l






because we don't need safer cars

Cars have been becoming safer for years long before the feds entered
the scene. The fatalities per 100 million miles driven started falling
in the 30s and has continued downward ever since.

and the regulations had absolutely nothing to do with this lowering
death rate?

Since it started long before there were regulations, it is doubtful
that they had much more than a marginal impact. Especially since we have
been getting safer and safer cars LONG before anybody thought to "help".


Could you document that "doubt"?




he's doing more than Bush did, but then again Bush actually started a few

Hardly.

I guess Afghanistan and Iraq don't count

On 8/1/2013 8:39 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
dgk wrote:

No, corporations are not evil, they are amoral. But when they were
first created, the corporate charter that allowed their existance
required operating for the public good and for a specific period of
time for a specific purpose. Over time, and with the help of Delaware,
those restrictions were removed. That's why so many corporations were
charterd in Delaware.

FWIW, New Jersey was the first with Delaware following suit. In a rather
instructive happenstance, NJ lost its lead as state where people
incorporated when NJ increased taxes on corps driving them out.


Delaware is the corporate state and has the best legal system in the
country. So far, the Democrats have not messed it up.

http://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-climate/delaware

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:43:30 PM UTC-7, Big Al wrote:
On 7/31/2013 10:12 AM, dgk wrote:

So what happens when a corporation does something, like export jobs,

that increases the bottom line but hurts American workers? Does that

matter? That's why the stock market goes up, enriching corporate

owners, but the average American does worse.



Now that the large corporations are multinational and have no loyalty

at all to America, what do we do when they screw us over and over?



It's easy to blame it on the politicians but it's really the fault of

consumers that buy the Chinese crap. And people will continue to buy

cheap Chinese crap until they lose their jobs and their unemployment

checks run out.



What the ****, I don't care as long as I can buy the latest cheap Chinese Apple iToy.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/mot...ry?id=19833261

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:56:40 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
On 7/31/2013 7:12 AM, dgk wrote:

So what happens when a corporation does something, like export jobs,

that increases the bottom line but hurts American workers? Does that

matter? That's why the stock market goes up, enriching corporate

owners, but the average American does worse.



Now that the large corporations are multinational and have no loyalty

at all to America, what do we do when they screw us over and over?





go stand in front of the mirror and think about what you said.



Corporations are not evil. They've always maximized profit.

Selfishness...aka survival of the fittest...has been going on

since the dawn of time.

Today, it's easier for them to do that by exporting YOUR job.



If you and I would work for Chinese sweat-shop wages, we'd all have jobs.



If you and I would buy expensive stuff created by union wages,

we'd all have jobs.



Problem is that we won't do EITHER of those things and we got what we got..



Globalization has removed our ability to have a higher standard of

living. It's gonna get a lot worse...



Taxes are part of the issue, but more corporate taxes won't get you a job..

They'll get you more wars and more pork-barrel projects for the influential.



Survival of the fittest...that's what drives the world. Always has...

always will.

We can compete with Chinese sweat-shop wages
what we can’t compete with is:
1. China’s regulations on not letting US corporations
compete on the same level playing field in China as we let
Chinese corporations compete with US corporations
here in the US.
2. China completely ignoring intellectual property rights.
3. Corporate, technology and economic espionage by China.
4. China subsidizing its companies so they can sell their goods
here at a loss until their competing US counterparts are out of business.

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:
l






because we don't need safer cars

Cars have been becoming safer for years long before the feds entered
the scene. The fatalities per 100 million miles driven started falling
in the 30s and has continued downward ever since.

and the regulations had absolutely nothing to do with this lowering
death rate?

Since it started long before there were regulations, it is doubtful
that they had much more than a marginal impact. Especially since we have
been getting safer and safer cars LONG before anybody thought to "help".


Could you document that "doubt"?

No more than you can document that the safety is related to govermental
intervention. Indeed, since the trend started long before governmental
intervention, the documentation that is available certainly argues more
that the intervention has less to do with it.




he's doing more than Bush did, but then again Bush actually started a few

Hardly.

I guess Afghanistan and Iraq don't count

We are still there and just starting to talk about maybe doing a
drawdown, maybe. Actually I am into giving Pres. O the benefit of the
doubt on the first 18 months since that was the campaign promise. After
that, it is ALL on Pres. O.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

And, I wonder why.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 8/2/2013 2:59 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

Darn! I didn't think of classifying all of them as terrorists even
though I'm aware the border patrol officers have caught Arabic and
Farsi speaking critters sneaking across the Southern border. That's
something the morons in charge are ignoring. o_O

TDD

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 21:04:37 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:

I've wondered for the last several years. Why are local patriots treated
so poorly, and taxed to death. That tax money given by buckets full to
law breakers?

it would seem to me that they can't be patriots. patriots would be in
the military defending us overseas

Well you are clearly not a patriot. You are certainly not defending
us, either over seas or here!

I served my time in the East China Sea during Nam, what about you,
Dick Wad?

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:39:28 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
dgk wrote:

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:04:34 -0500, Fat-Dumb and Happy
wrote:

dgk wrote:
So what happens when a corporation does something, like export jobs,
that increases the bottom line but hurts American workers? Does that
matter? That's why the stock market goes up, enriching corporate
owners, but the average American does worse.

Now that the large corporations are multinational and have no loyalty
at all to America, what do we do when they screw us over and over?



You get two part time jobs maybe three and be sure to vote for the
folks that made all this possible.

Mostly it's the Republicans but the Democrats are often nearly as bad.
They all take the campaign contributions from the same people that
send the jobs overseas. I donate maybe $500 a year to politicians that
I like but it sure isn't enough to offset the folks who have real
money.

If you look at the actual votes (instead of the actual rhetoric) you
will find most of the decsions were bipartisan.

That just means they are all bought off. IN the recent vote over
stopping the NSA the amount of bribes (legal ones of course) given to
our so called reps tracked their votes better then their political
affliction did. They are ALL bought and paid for. Occasionally they
will cast an unimportant vote against those who own them just to
remind their owners that continued obedience requires continued
payment of the bribes. The best thing that could happen to the US
would be for someone to nuke DC while congress is in session.

The nation needs a lot of types of people, not just active duty
military. Some folks are too young, old, or handicapped to be carrying a
rifle, and marching. But, even oldies and hadicappers can still love the
USA and work hard, and be honest.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 8/3/2013 12:04 AM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:

I've wondered for the last several years. Why are local patriots treated
so poorly, and taxed to death. That tax money given by buckets full to
law breakers?

it would seem to me that they can't be patriots. patriots would be in
the military defending us overseas

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:



That just means they are all bought off. IN the recent vote over
stopping the NSA the amount of bribes (legal ones of course) given to
our so called reps tracked their votes better then their political
affliction did. They are ALL bought and paid for. Occasionally they
will cast an unimportant vote against those who own them just to
remind their owners that continued obedience requires continued
payment of the bribes. The best thing that could happen to the US
would be for someone to nuke DC while congress is in session.

Neve said otherwise. Just bringing up two facts. (1) Despite the other
side's protestations of guilt or blame on only one side, they were also
very much a part of the process that they are now rather hypocritically
ranting against. (2) Those who think bipartisanship is always something
good should be careful about what they wish for.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
stuff snipped

CNN says average corporate taxes paid are 12.6%. Hardly what anyone would
consider a large #. The maximum rate is rarely reached.


http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news...ate/index.html

Not only that, by hiring an army of tax lawyers, lobbyists and CPAs
companies like GE end up taking money OUT of the treasury. Some people will
assure you that tax avoidance is completely legal, but it doesn't seem very
moral. Especially when common citizens have NO chance to get special,
personalized tax breaks.

As for the myth of passing on the cost of taxes to consumers, I suspect one
or two truly competitive companies will go looking to cut costs like
exhorbitant CEO salaries. When they do and their stocks flourish, the
others will have to follow suit.

When I read through some of the posts here, you would think that some people
aren't living in the same country. They wail about our plight when many US
companies are reaching record stock prices, despite the poor rich folks
having to pay taxes at the pre-Bush rates.

What they seem to forget is how America flourished for decades, even with
high taxes on the rich and on corporations. Through lobbying and creative
accounting the corporate tax burden as a percentage of taxes collected
continues to shrink as our national debt continued to soar.

The table below (in millions of dollars) is based on statistics from the
Office of Management and the Budget in the White House

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

Year Total Individual Income Taxes
Total Corporate Income Taxes
(In Millions)
(In Millions)
1943 6,505
9,557
1948 19,319
9,678
1968 68,726
28,665
1988 401,181
94,508
2008 1,145,747
304,346

Gee, if only I could hire an army of lawyers, lobbyists and accountants to
get special deals to reduce MY tax bill! Something's definitely wrong with
this picture.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
stuff snipped

CNN says average corporate taxes paid are 12.6%. Hardly what anyone would
consider a large #. The maximum rate is rarely reached.


http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news...ate/index.html

Not only that, by hiring an army of tax lawyers, lobbyists and CPAs
companies like GE end up taking money OUT of the treasury. Some people will
assure you that tax avoidance is completely legal, but it doesn't seem very
moral. Especially when common citizens have NO chance to get special,
personalized tax breaks.

So, basically you want tax law based on morality.. or more
specifically what offends you?

As for the myth of passing on the cost of taxes to consumers, I suspect one
or two truly competitive companies will go looking to cut costs like
exhorbitant CEO salaries. When they do and their stocks flourish, the
others will have to follow suit.
You do, of course, know that actually salaries run around $1 million
or so a year and that most the money comes from stock options and such,
which are largely taken out of the pockets of the shareholders by
dilution. Look at the 10-Ks and you will find most are that way because
of tax changes (ironically enough passed because the Congress at the
time was worried about increasing exec payment. You gotta love the law
of unintended consequences).
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
U.S. Patriot and Proud of It! wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 21:04:37 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:

I've wondered for the last several years. Why are local patriots treated
so poorly, and taxed to death. That tax money given by buckets full to
law breakers?

it would seem to me that they can't be patriots. patriots would be in
the military defending us overseas

Well you are clearly not a patriot. You are certainly not defending
us, either over seas or here!

I served my time in the East China Sea during Nam, what about you,
Dick Wad?

My service, like my religion is private

but if you are on the border showing us how patriotic you are, have fun,
especially when they shoot back

and that's Mr Dick Wad to you

On 8/3/13 12:18 PM, Robert Green wrote:

Some cut.


When I read through some of the posts here, you would think that some people
aren't living in the same country. They wail about our plight when many US
companies are reaching record stock prices, despite the poor rich folks
having to pay taxes at the pre-Bush rates.

More cut.

Just a single point about the Dow. This
http://tinyurl.com/mts85hr leads to a chart at aboutinflation.com..
It isn't all that high after adjusting for inflation.
It says on another page the average American earned $5/hour in 1976.
That would be about $19.70 today.

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 1:18:58 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"Bob F" wrote in message

...

stuff snipped



CNN says average corporate taxes paid are 12.6%. Hardly what anyone would

consider a large #. The maximum rate is rarely reached.





http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news...ate/index.html



Not only that, by hiring an army of tax lawyers, lobbyists and CPAs

companies like GE end up taking money OUT of the treasury. Some people will

assure you that tax avoidance is completely legal, but it doesn't seem very

moral. Especially when common citizens have NO chance to get special,

personalized tax breaks.



No chance for tax breaks for the common citizen? What exactly
is the mortgage tax deduction? Or the tax credits we recently
had for making energy efficient improvements to your home? Or
deductions for medical expenses? IRAs? Good grief.





As for the myth of passing on the cost of taxes to consumers, I suspect one

or two truly competitive companies will go looking to cut costs like

exhorbitant CEO salaries. When they do and their stocks flourish, the

others will have to follow suit.



Try taking a course in economic. And then explain to us why
a business would treat a cost increase cost in the form of higher
taxes any differently then they would an increase in raw materials
cost, labor, fuel costs, etc.





When I read through some of the posts here, you would think that some people

aren't living in the same country. They wail about our plight when many US

companies are reaching record stock prices, despite the poor rich folks

having to pay taxes at the pre-Bush rates.



What they seem to forget is how America flourished for decades, even with

high taxes on the rich and on corporations. Through lobbying and creative

accounting the corporate tax burden as a percentage of taxes collected

continues to shrink as our national debt continued to soar.



The table below (in millions of dollars) is based on statistics from the

Office of Management and the Budget in the White House



www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/



Year Total Individual Income Taxes

Total Corporate Income Taxes

(In Millions)

(In Millions)

1943 6,505

9,557

1948 19,319

9,678

1968 68,726

28,665

1988 401,181

94,508

2008 1,145,747

304,346



Gee, if only I could hire an army of lawyers, lobbyists and accountants to

get special deals to reduce MY tax bill! Something's definitely wrong with

this picture.



--

Bobby G.

What's wrong with the picture, is that you don't get it. Conservatives and
even some Democrats for years have been in favor of reducing the corporate tax rate and at the same time, eliminating a lot of the loopholes and tax breaks.
You'd have a flatter, fairer tax and businesses would be making business
decisions solely on business and not on what they have to do to avoid
paying 40% tax rates. You wouldn't have some corpoarations paying taxes
at 40%, while others pay at 10% or zero.

But libs want none of it, because you'd rather keep bitching about
the evil corporations and pretending that you're socking it to them
with high, punitive tax rates. Meanwhile, the corps keep their $2 tril
in cash overseas, to avoid paying high tax on it. Then you bitch that
jobs aren't being created here. Go figure.

"Robert Green" wrote in
message

Not only that, by hiring an army of tax lawyers,
lobbyists and CPAs companies like GE end up taking money
OUT of the treasury. Some people will assure you that
tax avoidance is completely legal, but it doesn't seem
very moral. Especially when common citizens have NO
chance to get special, personalized tax breaks.

Oh, pish. No special, personalized tax breaks? I guess it depends upon
what you mean by "special" and "personalized" but what about...

personal deduction

dependant(s) deduction(s)

state taxes

charitable deductions

student load interest

job search

moving

property tax

medical

mortgage interest

education credit. CREDIT, not deduction

child CREDIT

renewable energy CREDIT

child care CREDIT

retirement savings CREDIT

earned income CREDIT

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

And even more if you are a small business owner or work for yourself in some
manner.

And therein lies the problem...our tax code/system is so convoluted, so
twisted, so bend-over-backwards to make up for one thing by screwing us on
another that it is fair to no one.

And it gets worse and worse. Remember when income tax started? I don't nor
is it likely that anyone else here does but it was sold to the public by
saying, "It isn't going to affect YOU, just the rich". Sound familiar?

Then there is withholding which was supposed to be a war time measure.
Sure. It was certainly a master stroke though; a machiavellian one, turning
every employer in the country into a tax collector. I wonder how much
"voluntary compliance" there would be without it.

The whole thing is a mess and it is a mess because of special
interests...from/to corporations, farmers, businesses and just plain folks.
Congress spits it out because it helps them get re-elected.

We need a tax system that is simple and fair; use the system and you pay
more than a non-user (why should I pay to educate/cloth/feed your
offspring?).

We need legislators that are citizen legislators, not professional ones.
One term and you are out, no pension.

We need a government that can live within its means.

We also need pigs that can fly.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:21:02 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
U.S. Patriot and Proud of It! wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 21:04:37 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:

I've wondered for the last several years. Why are local patriots treated
so poorly, and taxed to death. That tax money given by buckets full to
law breakers?

it would seem to me that they can't be patriots. patriots would be in
the military defending us overseas

Well you are clearly not a patriot. You are certainly not defending
us, either over seas or here!

I served my time in the East China Sea during Nam, what about you,
Dick Wad?

My service, like my religion is private

but if you are on the border showing us how patriotic you are, have fun,
especially when they shoot back

and that's Mr Dick Wad to you

Translation:
"I did everything necessary to not serve the country I despise."

On 8/3/2013 1:18 PM, Robert Green wrote:


Not only that, by hiring an army of tax lawyers, lobbyists and CPAs
companies like GE end up taking money OUT of the treasury. Some people will
assure you that tax avoidance is completely legal, but it doesn't seem very
moral. Especially when common citizens have NO chance to get special,
personalized tax breaks.


Our tax code is written as a legal, not moral basis. If you want it
changed, petition you lawmakers. I'm sure they will help you.

You do have many loopholes and credits available to you too. If you
don't see them you need a better accountant.

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:21:02 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
U.S. Patriot and Proud of It! wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 21:04:37 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:

I've wondered for the last several years. Why are local patriots
treated
so poorly, and taxed to death. That tax money given by buckets full to
law breakers?

it would seem to me that they can't be patriots. patriots would be in
the military defending us overseas

Well you are clearly not a patriot. You are certainly not defending
us, either over seas or here!

I served my time in the East China Sea during Nam, what about you,
Dick Wad?

My service, like my religion is private

but if you are on the border showing us how patriotic you are, have fun,
especially when they shoot back

and that's Mr Dick Wad to you

Translation:
"I did everything necessary to not serve the country I despise."

it has been my experience that most of those who brag about how
patriotic they were, were just REMF's

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 3:57:57 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
"Robert Green" wrote in

message



Not only that, by hiring an army of tax lawyers,

lobbyists and CPAs companies like GE end up taking money

OUT of the treasury. Some people will assure you that

tax avoidance is completely legal, but it doesn't seem

very moral. Especially when common citizens have NO

chance to get special, personalized tax breaks.



Oh, pish. No special, personalized tax breaks? I guess it depends upon

what you mean by "special" and "personalized" but what about...



personal deduction



dependant(s) deduction(s)



state taxes



charitable deductions



student load interest



job search



moving



property tax



medical



mortgage interest



education credit. CREDIT, not deduction



child CREDIT



renewable energy CREDIT



child care CREDIT



retirement savings CREDIT



earned income CREDIT



etcetera, etcetera, etcetera



And even more if you are a small business owner or work for yourself in some

manner.



And therein lies the problem...our tax code/system is so convoluted, so

twisted, so bend-over-backwards to make up for one thing by screwing us on

another that it is fair to no one.



And it gets worse and worse. Remember when income tax started? I don't nor

is it likely that anyone else here does but it was sold to the public by

saying, "It isn't going to affect YOU, just the rich". Sound familiar?



Then there is withholding which was supposed to be a war time measure.

Sure. It was certainly a master stroke though; a machiavellian one, turning

every employer in the country into a tax collector. I wonder how much

"voluntary compliance" there would be without it.



The whole thing is a mess and it is a mess because of special

interests...from/to corporations, farmers, businesses and just plain folks.

Congress spits it out because it helps them get re-elected.



We need a tax system that is simple and fair; use the system and you pay

more than a non-user (why should I pay to educate/cloth/feed your

offspring?).



We need legislators that are citizen legislators, not professional ones.

One term and you are out, no pension.



We need a government that can live within its means.



We also need pigs that can fly.



--



dadiOH

____________________________



Excellent job! I had a good laugh when Bobby claimed that there
are no tax breaks available to the individual. I'll bet that's
like his limousine lib position on guns. No one else should have
the right to a gun, but then he admits he himself had a carry permit.
So I'm sure he's taking full advantage of every tax break himself,
while ****ing and moaning about how they don't exist, except for
corporations. And it's also the loon libs that won't go for a
flat tax that would eliminate most of the loopholes.

Regarding the income tax, when it was passed early last century,
not only were people sold on the idea that it would only effect
the very rich, but also that the top rate was just 7%. Within
just a few years, the top rate became 77%.

"Robert Green" wrote in
:

Tell us what you think those numbers show other than that for year
after year corporations, rich into the billions, have been offloading
their share of the national tax bill onto the middle class which is
slowly bleeding to death.


The corp profits you allude to end up in the pockets of stock holders such
as myself. I presume you are one of the middle clase who own no stock and
are therefor being "bled". So the dwindeling $$$ of people like you are
ending up in the pockets of people like me.

That is as it should be. Read some history.

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/3/2013 1:18 PM, Robert Green wrote:


Not only that, by hiring an army of tax lawyers, lobbyists and CPAs
companies like GE end up taking money OUT of the treasury. Some people will
assure you that tax avoidance is completely legal, but it doesn't seem very
moral. Especially when common citizens have NO chance to get special,
personalized tax breaks.


Our tax code is written as a legal, not moral basis. If you want it
changed, petition you lawmakers. I'm sure they will help you.

You do have many loopholes and credits available to you too. If you
don't see them you need a better accountant.

If any one is interested in actually finding a fact or two, this is
the URL to get the information tax expenditures, Congress speak for
loopholes.
https://www.jct.gov/publications.htm...rtdown&id=4503
(Although I would probably hit the tax expenditures link on the right
hand side because that is smaller and easier to read file).
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


Not only that, by hiring an army of tax lawyers, lobbyists and CPAs
companies like GE end up taking money OUT of the treasury. Some people
will
assure you that tax avoidance is completely legal, but it doesn't seem
very
moral. Especially when common citizens have NO chance to get special,
personalized tax breaks.

So, basically you want tax law based on morality.. or more
specifically what offends you?

How you read what I wrote and came up with that gem really baffles me, Kurt.
"Some people will assure tax avoidance is completely legal but it
doesn't seem very moral". How you wrote that and can't see how I came
up with that gem baffles me.



That is what's not moral. That rich companies can buy their way out of
their long-standing tax liabilities by essentially bribing Congress to give
them favorable treatment that's beyond the reach of most taxpaying citizens.
Totally immoral. I am offended the Congress has been on sale to the highest
bidders for decades now. If it doesn't stop, the US is in big trouble.

And again you make the moral argument.

As for the myth of passing on the cost of taxes to consumers, I suspect
one
or two truly competitive companies will go looking to cut costs like
exorbitant CEO salaries. When they do and their stocks flourish, the
others will have to follow suit.

You do, of course, know that actually salaries run around $1 million
or so a year and that most the money comes from stock options and such,
which are largely taken out of the pockets of the shareholders by
dilution.

Oh Jesus in heaven, burn me at the stake, I said "salary" again and not
"total compensation package." I forgot who I was dealing with - a person to
whom that distinction appears to matter when in fact all the money a
corporation pays its CEO, no matter WHERE that compensation *appears* to
come from, comes from the company's treasury - eventually. Huge
compensation packages for CEO's (who have often failed miserably at their
jobs) reduce a company's ability to compete. These huge golden parachutes
growing larger every year reduce a company's ability to do R&D, hire more
and better workers and do the things that companies used to do before CEO
salaries oops "compensation" got inflated to obscenity.
You don't use the correct terms and that is somehow my fault? Also,
if you want to explain to me how the money paid out in stock options
comes from the treasury, I might be more willing to cut you some slack
in your verbiage. The stock options are only paid for by the
stockholders through dilution according to every study I have seen. If
you would care to make the case otherwise feel free.
And again, you studiously ignore the really neat thing. This was
all done by Congress in an attempt to reign in exec compensation and did
the exact opposite. Actually it also ended doing the exact opposite of
aligning the interests of the executive with the shareholder by making
by far and away the largest percentage of exec pay based on running the
stock price and not the company.


Look at the 10-Ks and you will find most are that way because
of tax changes (ironically enough passed because the Congress at the
time was worried about increasing exec payment. You gotta love the law
of unintended consequences).

What Congress did was *appear* to fix the problem but they really served
their corporate masters in the long run by leaving huge loopholes in the tax
laws and never closing them. Those were very much "intended consequences"
IMHO and perfectly in line with a Congress that loves to say "Look we did
something" when in fact they did nothing. Or worse, they did do something:
they screwed the voters over to please the corporations they obviously
really serve.

Of course they did. You rewrite history in addition to economic
indicators?
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 20:25:53 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:21:02 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
U.S. Patriot and Proud of It! wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 21:04:37 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:

I've wondered for the last several years. Why are local patriots
treated
so poorly, and taxed to death. That tax money given by buckets full to
law breakers?

it would seem to me that they can't be patriots. patriots would be in
the military defending us overseas

Well you are clearly not a patriot. You are certainly not defending
us, either over seas or here!

I served my time in the East China Sea during Nam, what about you,
Dick Wad?

My service, like my religion is private

but if you are on the border showing us how patriotic you are, have fun,
especially when they shoot back

and that's Mr Dick Wad to you

Translation:
"I did everything necessary to not serve the country I despise."

it has been my experience that most of those who brag about how
patriotic they were, were just REMF's

I believe "U.S. Patriot and Proud of It!" was merely stating a fact
referencing his service. Who knows, I may have even seen him when I
was stationed in the Philippines in the late 60's. Keep in mind that
I'm not bragging.

So, that brings us back to your lack of service doesn't it? You
pussy.

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 20:25:53 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:21:02 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
U.S. Patriot and Proud of It! wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 21:04:37 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:

I've wondered for the last several years. Why are local patriots
treated
so poorly, and taxed to death. That tax money given by buckets full
to
law breakers?

it would seem to me that they can't be patriots. patriots would be in
the military defending us overseas

Well you are clearly not a patriot. You are certainly not defending
us, either over seas or here!

I served my time in the East China Sea during Nam, what about you,
Dick Wad?

My service, like my religion is private

but if you are on the border showing us how patriotic you are, have fun,
especially when they shoot back

and that's Mr Dick Wad to you

Translation:
"I did everything necessary to not serve the country I despise."

it has been my experience that most of those who brag about how
patriotic they were, were just REMF's

I believe "U.S. Patriot and Proud of It!" was merely stating a fact
referencing his service. Who knows, I may have even seen him when I
was stationed in the Philippines in the late 60's. Keep in mind that
I'm not bragging.

So, that brings us back to your lack of service doesn't it? You
pussy.

thank you for proving my point

Republicans have been on board with that for decades. Even some
Democrats. They want lower tax rates, get rid of most tax breaks.
That results in a simpler, fairer tax system. It takes the power
to fiddle with tax breaks away from Congress. It's the loon libs that won't have any of it.


The main problem with the flat tax proposals is that there are many
variants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

Most that I've seen simply tax salary and leave unearned income alone.
Not really fair to most of the workers.

Show me what you believe is a flat tax proposal. I'm all in favor of
making paying taxes simple, but the vast majority of rules and
regulations don't apply to me. My taxes are pretty simple. The
complications are put there by people with a lot of money that need
sheltering. And, while we're at it, tax religious institutions.

On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 15:57:57 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

And it gets worse and worse. Remember when income tax started? I don't nor
is it likely that anyone else here does but it was sold to the public by
saying, "It isn't going to affect YOU, just the rich". Sound familiar?

Well yes, that is how it started. There seemed to be an assumption
that people who make (or inherit) a lot of money should assume a large
burden of paying for the system that made it possible. Of course over
time they pushed it onto working people.

Now I get to pay for a military that costs as much as that of the rest
of the world combined, but I don't reap many of the benefits.

Actually, our tax rate isn't out of line with the rest of the world.
What is out of line is how much of our taxes goes to the military.

"dgk" wrote in message

And, while we're at it, tax religious institutions.

I have no objection to a tax free status for DONATIONS but I'm damned if I
see why they shouldn't be taxed on their commercial and/or real estate
operations, of which there are many.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

In article ,
dgk wrote:


Most that I've seen simply tax salary and leave unearned income alone.
Not really fair to most of the workers.

Show me what you believe is a flat tax proposal. I'm all in favor of
making paying taxes simple, but the vast majority of rules and
regulations don't apply to me. My taxes are pretty simple. The
complications are put there by people with a lot of money that need
sheltering. And, while we're at it, tax religious institutions.

True flat tax is that take income from all sources, add them up, times
some percentage, and send it in. The REAL problem with flat tax would be
in withholding since I don't all that many people in real life who could
plan far enough ahead to make sure they had the money on 4-15.
I would also suggest a general personal deduction to help alleviate
some of the disparities with people using a large %age of their income
for necessities.
I am not sure you can tax religious institutions because of that
separation of church and state thingy.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe