On Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:04:12 PM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:


=========
Another excellent argument for an AMCT [alternative minimum
corporate tax] possibly based on total domestic gross sales
rather than net domestic profit.


We have that right now in Oregon and it taxes "C" corps on their gross sales in Oregon. This is the second year in force because the legislature back dated the law! "S" corps and others pay a minimum of $150. I have had to borrow that amount because my company lost money.

As many "C" corps as possible have changed to "S" corps. Many co-ops have gone out of business. Many large wheat ranches, etc. have been sold to out of state corporations. They would have NO in state sales.

Of course, the lawyers, the "PC" professional corporations, are exempt!

What a screwed up mess.

Paul

KD7HB wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:04:12 PM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:

Another excellent argument for an AMCT [alternative minimum
corporate tax] possibly based on total domestic gross sales
rather than net domestic profit.


We have that right now in Oregon and it taxes "C" corps on their gross
sales in Oregon. This is the second year in force because the legislature
back dated the law! "S" corps and others pay a minimum of $150. I have had
to borrow that amount because my company lost money.

As many "C" corps as possible have changed to "S" corps. Many co-ops have
gone out of business. Many large wheat ranches, etc. have been sold to out
of state corporations. They would have NO in state sales.

Of course, the lawyers, the "PC" professional corporations, are exempt!

What a screwed up mess.

Why do people so steadfastly refuse that there's no such thing as a
corporate tax, at least not the way the politics of envy sees it. To
a corporation, no matter how much you tax them, from their point of
view, it's just part of the cost of doing business, and the only place
they get the money to pay it is from their customers. When you raise
corporate taxes, all you're doing is raising the price you pay for
products.

Thanks,
Rich

On Mar 25, 3:10*pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:55:10 -0700 (PDT), KD7HB





wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:04:12 PM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:

=========
Another excellent argument for an AMCT [alternative minimum
corporate tax] possibly based on total domestic gross sales
rather than net domestic profit. *

We have that right now in Oregon and it taxes "C" corps on their gross sales in Oregon. This is the second year in force because the legislature back dated the law! "S" corps and others pay a minimum of $150. I have had to borrow that amount because my company lost money.

As many "C" corps as possible have changed to "S" corps. Many co-ops have gone out of business. Many large wheat ranches, etc. have been sold to out of state corporations. They would have NO in state sales.

Of course, the lawyers, the "PC" professional corporations, are exempt!

What a screwed up mess.

Paul

================
seehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/g-e-paid-no-taxes-on-5-1-bil....
snip
As Washington worries about the United States' growing
deficit problem, there's mounting evidence the government is
failing to collect taxes from wealthy individuals and
corporations. A piece in today's New York Times by David
Kocieniewski outlines how G.E. skirted paying any taxes on
$5.1 billion in profits in 2010--in addition to claiming a
$3.2 billion tax credit.
snip
------------
The general rule must be "if you're gonna' play then you
gotta' pay." *

Particularly at the municipal and state levels, corporations
expect/demand governmental services such as law enforcement,
civil/criminal courts, emergency services such as fire and
medical, and obtain the benefits of universal education in
their work force. *It seems only reasonable that part of
their normal business expenses include reasonable taxes to
help pay for these benefits.

-- Unka George *(George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I strongly agree.

TMT

On Mar 25, 1:08*pm, Rich Grise wrote:
KD7HB wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:04:12 PM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:

Another excellent argument for an AMCT [alternative minimum
corporate tax] possibly based on total domestic gross sales
rather than net domestic profit.

We have that right now in Oregon and it taxes "C" corps on their gross
sales in Oregon. This is the second year in force because the legislature
back dated the law! "S" corps and others pay a minimum of $150. I have had
to borrow that amount because my company lost money.

As many "C" corps as possible have changed to "S" corps. Many co-ops have
gone out of business. Many large wheat ranches, etc. have been sold to out
of state corporations. They would have NO in state sales.

Of course, the lawyers, the "PC" professional corporations, are exempt!

What a screwed up mess.

Why do people so steadfastly refuse that there's no such thing as a
corporate tax, at least not the way the politics of envy sees it. To
a corporation, no matter how much you tax them, from their point of
view, it's just part of the cost of doing business, and the only place
they get the money to pay it is from their customers. When you raise
corporate taxes, all you're doing is raising the price you pay for
products.

Thanks,
Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And your (conservative pro-business) point IS?

What is the problem for requiring those who use public services to pay
for them?

And businesses use all of them.

TMT

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:55:10 -0700 (PDT), KD7HB
wrote:

On Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:04:12 PM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:


=========
Another excellent argument for an AMCT [alternative minimum
corporate tax] possibly based on total domestic gross sales
rather than net domestic profit.


We have that right now in Oregon and it taxes "C" corps on their gross sales in Oregon. This is the second year in force because the legislature back dated the law! "S" corps and others pay a minimum of $150. I have had to borrow that amount because my company lost money.

As many "C" corps as possible have changed to "S" corps. Many co-ops have gone out of business. Many large wheat ranches, etc. have been sold to out of state corporations. They would have NO in state sales.

Of course, the lawyers, the "PC" professional corporations, are exempt!

What a screwed up mess.

Paul
================
see
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...BhaWRub3RheGU-
snip
As Washington worries about the United States' growing
deficit problem, there's mounting evidence the government is
failing to collect taxes from wealthy individuals and
corporations. A piece in today's New York Times by David
Kocieniewski outlines how G.E. skirted paying any taxes on
$5.1 billion in profits in 2010--in addition to claiming a
$3.2 billion tax credit.
snip
------------
The general rule must be "if you're gonna' play then you
gotta' pay."

Particularly at the municipal and state levels, corporations
expect/demand governmental services such as law enforcement,
civil/criminal courts, emergency services such as fire and
medical, and obtain the benefits of universal education in
their work force. It seems only reasonable that part of
their normal business expenses include reasonable taxes to
help pay for these benefits.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Mar 25, 4:11*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


The defense industry is very, very good at not paying their way.

TMT


From the Lockheed Martin 2009 annual report.

$4,284,000,000 earnings before taxes

1,267,000,000 Federal Income Taxes.

Doing the math I get 29.58 % as the percentage of Federal Taxes.
Did you pay as high a percentage of your income in taxes? Or are you
much better than Lockheed Martin at not paying your way?

Dan

On Mar 25, 7:21*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Lockheed Martin's business is 74% defense contracts. We pay them for what
they make, and they build their taxes into their bids -- so we pay them on
top of what they make for the taxes they pay back to us.

Nice work if you can get it.

--
Ed Huntress

As far as I know, every company gets paid for what they make. And
every company build taxes into their bids. So every time you buy
something you are paying for the taxes on top of what the item costs.

So I do not understand what you are trying to say.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 7:21 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Lockheed Martin's business is 74% defense contracts. We pay them for what
they make, and they build their taxes into their bids -- so we pay them on
top of what they make for the taxes they pay back to us.

Nice work if you can get it.

--
Ed Huntress

As far as I know, every company gets paid for what they make. And
every company build taxes into their bids. So every time you buy
something you are paying for the taxes on top of what the item costs.

So I do not understand what you are trying to say.

Most of Lockheed Martin's defense work is sole-sourced, no-bid,
fixed-price-incentive, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and/or cost-plus-fixed-fee.

You remarked about the high percentage -- 29.58% -- of profits they pay in
taxes. The reason they pay high taxes is that they don't care. They just
tack it on to their fees.

As I said, nice work if you can get it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 25, 8:33*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Most of Lockheed Martin's defense work is sole-sourced, no-bid,
fixed-price-incentive, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and/or cost-plus-fixed-fee.

You remarked about the high percentage -- 29.58% -- of profits they pay in
taxes. The reason they pay high taxes is that they don't care. They just
tack it on to their fees.

As I said, nice work if you can get it.

--
Ed Huntress

Most of Lockheed Martin's defense work is on contracts which were
competitively bid. Boeing, Northrup, etc are some of the companies
that Lockheed Martin competes with.

As I said all companies add taxes on to the bids, so Lockheed Martin
is no different than any other companies. Corporate taxes are always
tacked on. That is why it is often said the corporations do not pay
taxes. They just pass the taxes on to the consumer. You really do
not expect them to bid ignoring taxes, do you?

So I still do not understand your comment.

Dan

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:08:05 -0700, Rich Grise
KD7HB wrote:

Of course, the lawyers, the "PC" professional corporations, are exempt!

What a screwed up mess.

Why do people so steadfastly refuse that there's no such thing as a
corporate tax, at least not the way the politics of envy sees it. To
a corporation, no matter how much you tax them, from their point of
view, it's just part of the cost of doing business, and the only place
they get the money to pay it is from their customers. When you raise
corporate taxes, all you're doing is raising the price you pay for
products.

===========
This is another argument which seems plausible and appealing
on the surface.

The problem is that if corporations are [largely] exempted
from taxes this introduces severe economic distortions in
the free market which depends on transparent pricing to
operate.

Oh, come on. Every tax is ultimately paid out of the pocket of
some individual human being. As I've said, the corporation itself
couldn't care less - if you want to nail them, nail the _people_
who are responsible.

There _is_ an answer, however, but nobody seems to want to hear it:

The National Purchase Tax:

Wanna tax "the Rich?"
Replace the Income Tax with an Outgo Tax.

Instead of a platoon of bureaucrats tracking down what people _earn_, (and
the rich fat cats evade anyway - hell, their "elected" minions wrote the
loopholes) simply tax what they _SPEND_. Don't call it a sales tax, though,
because of the negative connotations. Call it a Purchase Tax. Grocery store
food, medical supplies, and pre-owned items would be TOTALLY EXEMPT! If you
cook your own food and aren't too proud to buy clothes at the Thrift Shop,
you'd pay ZERO tax!!!!

Talk about nailing "the Rich!!!" They'd pay 10% (or 15, or 20, or whatever
the Congress decides and the President signs) of ALL of their purchases,
including greens fees, hotel bills, limos, plane tickets, Carnival Cruises,
multi-million dollar yachts, mansions, million-dollar diamond necklaces and
Lamborghinis for the princess's birthday, ...

Tax restaurant food, but not tips - that'd be an income tax on the server.
The server will pay her taxes when she goes and buys a new designer
purse. ;-)

But DO tax all Wall St. transactions.

let me repeat that:

Tax all Wall St. transactions at the same retail rate.

A bonus might be that it would slow down the rampant speculation as well. A
stock certificate wouldn't count as "used goods."

The way I see it, it's perfect!

Buy a $500,000,000.00 corporation, pay $50,000,000.00 Purchase Tax.
Buy a $50,000,000.0 mansion, pay $5,000,000.00 Purchase Tax.
Buy a $10,000,000.00 yacht, pay $1,000,000.00 Purchase Tax.
Buy a $6,000.00 designer suit, pay $600.00 Purchase tax.
Buy a $600.00 "regular" suit, pay $60.00 Purchase.
Get a passable suit at the thrift shop for sixty bucks, pay no tax -
this would help "the poor."

The rate might have to start a little higher at first, until we get
Obammy the Commy's astronomical deficit paid down, but if we could
also get rid of the armies of unelected bureaucrats, that would help
a lot.

The politicians, bureaucrats, union bosses, prostitutes, drug dealers,
gamblers, and other criminals would pay tax when they SPEND their ill-
gotten gains.

And nobody would be able to evade it, because it would simply be collectes
at the Point of Sale.

AND ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALREADY IN PLACE!!!!

We might have to have some discussion on used houses and used cars, but
isn't "discussion" what government is supposed to be about?

Cheers!
Rich

wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 8:33 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Most of Lockheed Martin's defense work is sole-sourced, no-bid,
fixed-price-incentive, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and/or
cost-plus-fixed-fee.

You remarked about the high percentage -- 29.58% -- of profits they pay in
taxes. The reason they pay high taxes is that they don't care. They just
tack it on to their fees.

As I said, nice work if you can get it.

--
Ed Huntress

Most of Lockheed Martin's defense work is on contracts which were
competitively bid. Boeing, Northrup, etc are some of the companies
that Lockheed Martin competes with.

"More than 70 percent of Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin's $90 billion in
prime contracts during the past six years were awarded without a full or
open competition..." (2004)

When I was researching US arms trade, seven or eight years ago, one of the
first things I learned was that most defense contracting, in terms of total
dollars, that is awarded first on a competitive bid is then followed-up with
orders are placed with no bid. The companies involved generally claim that
they bid on the whole project but they rarely did.

Overall, even including the little companies, roughly 40% of US defense
contracts are awarded no-bid. And, without getting into this one, many of
the cases where there ARE bids, they are highly rigged.

As I said all companies add taxes on to the bids, so Lockheed Martin
is no different than any other companies.

Not if you're not really competing.

Corporate taxes are always
tacked on. That is why it is often said the corporations do not pay
taxes. They just pass the taxes on to the consumer. You really do
not expect them to bid ignoring taxes, do you?

Only if they're bidding on government contracts. That's not a place to try
to play games with taxes. It's so much easier just to tack them onto the
bills.

So I still do not understand your comment.

Try harder.

--
Ed Huntress

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

And your (conservative pro-business) point IS?

That when you tax a corporation, YOU pay the tax anyway.

Hope this is a bit clearer.

Cheers!
Rich

On 3/25/2011 5:33 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 7:21 pm, "Ed wrote:


Lockheed Martin's business is 74% defense contracts. We pay them for what
they make, and they build their taxes into their bids -- so we pay them on
top of what they make for the taxes they pay back to us.

Nice work if you can get it.

--
Ed Huntress

As far as I know, every company gets paid for what they make. And
every company build taxes into their bids. So every time you buy
something you are paying for the taxes on top of what the item costs.

So I do not understand what you are trying to say.

Most of Lockheed Martin's defense work is sole-sourced, no-bid,
fixed-price-incentive, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and/or cost-plus-fixed-fee.

You remarked about the high percentage -- 29.58% -- of profits they pay in
taxes. The reason they pay high taxes is that they don't care. They just
tack it on to their fees.

As I said, nice work if you can get it.


What you said above is not factually correct. most of their work is NOT
sole sourced, Lockheed, Northrup, Boeing compete for most of the large
prime contracts in an overlapping area. Whether you like the defense
industry or not, you really should try to be factually correct.

"." wrote in message ...
On 3/25/2011 5:33 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 7:21 pm, "Ed wrote:


Lockheed Martin's business is 74% defense contracts. We pay them for
what
they make, and they build their taxes into their bids -- so we pay them
on
top of what they make for the taxes they pay back to us.

Nice work if you can get it.

--
Ed Huntress

As far as I know, every company gets paid for what they make. And
every company build taxes into their bids. So every time you buy
something you are paying for the taxes on top of what the item costs.

So I do not understand what you are trying to say.

Most of Lockheed Martin's defense work is sole-sourced, no-bid,
fixed-price-incentive, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and/or
cost-plus-fixed-fee.

You remarked about the high percentage -- 29.58% -- of profits they pay
in
taxes. The reason they pay high taxes is that they don't care. They just
tack it on to their fees.

As I said, nice work if you can get it.


What you said above is not factually correct. most of their work is NOT
sole sourced....

Yes it is.

Lockheed, Northrup, Boeing compete for most of the large prime contracts
in an overlapping area. Whether you like the defense industry or not, you
really should try to be factually correct.

I am. I studied it for six months, including several visits to the BEA and
the Defense Department before writing about US trade in aerospace and arms
it some years ago. Looking around, it appears that nothing much has changed.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 25, 10:23*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

So I *still do not understand your comment.

Try harder.

--
Ed Huntress


I should have said your comment is stupid, rather than say I did not
understand it.

Dan

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:23:26 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:08:05 -0700, Rich Grise
KD7HB wrote:

Of course, the lawyers, the "PC" professional corporations, are exempt!

What a screwed up mess.

Why do people so steadfastly refuse that there's no such thing as a
corporate tax, at least not the way the politics of envy sees it. To
a corporation, no matter how much you tax them, from their point of
view, it's just part of the cost of doing business, and the only place
they get the money to pay it is from their customers. When you raise
corporate taxes, all you're doing is raising the price you pay for
products.

===========
This is another argument which seems plausible and appealing
on the surface.

The problem is that if corporations are [largely] exempted
from taxes this introduces severe economic distortions in
the free market which depends on transparent pricing to
operate.

Oh, come on. Every tax is ultimately paid out of the pocket of
some individual human being. As I've said, the corporation itself
couldn't care less - if you want to nail them, nail the _people_
who are responsible.

There _is_ an answer, however, but nobody seems to want to hear it:

The National Purchase Tax:

Wanna tax "the Rich?"
Replace the Income Tax with an Outgo Tax.

Like the VAT, which is doing so well in commie Euroville with their
50% tax rates?


The rate might have to start a little higher at first, until we get
Obammy the Commy's astronomical deficit paid down, but if we could
also get rid of the armies of unelected bureaucrats, that would help
a lot.

Governments are always being efficient and lowering rates, aren't
they?

Tell me again how this is a Libertarian idea, Rich?

--
Make the best use of what is in your power,
and take the rest as it happens.
-- Epictetus

wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 10:23 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

So I still do not understand your comment.

Try harder.

--
Ed Huntress


I should have said your comment is stupid, rather than say I did not
understand it.

Dan

Defense procurement certainly is stupid, but what I said is correct, and
documented. What you've said about Lockheed Martin's contracting is stupid,
and incorrect.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/26/2011 12:12 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:



Lockheed, Northrup, Boeing compete for most of the large prime contracts
in an overlapping area. Whether you like the defense industry or not, you
really should try to be factually correct.

I am. I studied it for six months, including several visits to the BEA and
the Defense Department before writing about US trade in aerospace and arms
it some years ago. Looking around, it appears that nothing much has changed.


Ed,

Could we see the figures on this? If a major weapon system goes through
a flyoff, (say the F-303 by Wombat Industries or the F-404 from
Corpohell) the contractor with what is deemed the best value package
gets a sole source contract. If the system chosen has a Woodchuck 2000
engine, Woodchuck gets a sole source contract for spares because they
are the sole source.
I would not term these "no bid" contracts. If there was competition, all
the prospective supplier has to do is file a protest. The contract award
is halted automatically, and the award has to be justified.
Having been in the defense contracting business for the last couple of
decades, I will make the statement that a sole source contract is a
difficult thing to put in place, requiring a Justification and
Authorization (J and A) signed off in the upper reaches of The Building.
Those who initiate the contract will most assuredly have to answer to
someone's congressman (for the district that didn't get the bucks). In
war conditions, it sometimes has to be done.
DoD goes to great lengths to preserve competition.

Kevin Gallimore

"axolotl" wrote in message
...
On 3/26/2011 12:12 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:



Lockheed, Northrup, Boeing compete for most of the large prime contracts
in an overlapping area. Whether you like the defense industry or not,
you
really should try to be factually correct.

I am. I studied it for six months, including several visits to the BEA
and
the Defense Department before writing about US trade in aerospace and
arms
it some years ago. Looking around, it appears that nothing much has
changed.


Ed,

Could we see the figures on this?

Sure. This study was done a few years ago by The Center for Public
Integrity. It references DoD sources.

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/...t.aspx?aid=385

I ran into the same figures, generally, when I was researching the finances
of arms trade a year or two earlier.


If a major weapon system goes through a flyoff, (say the F-303 by Wombat
Industries or the F-404 from Corpohell) the contractor with what is deemed
the best value package gets a sole source contract. If the system chosen
has a Woodchuck 2000 engine, Woodchuck gets a sole source contract for
spares because they are the sole source.
I would not term these "no bid" contracts. If there was competition, all
the prospective supplier has to do is file a protest. The contract award
is halted automatically, and the award has to be justified.

But that's just the first contract, and not even all of those. The
follow-ups typically are no-bid, or "not full and open," as the Pentagon
puts is, with no competition. And that's where, along with original no-bids,
Lockheed Martin makes something like 74% of its defense-related revenue --
which is, in total, and curiously, is 74% of their total revenue.

Having been in the defense contracting business for the last couple of
decades, I will make the statement that a sole source contract is a
difficult thing to put in place, requiring a Justification and
Authorization (J and A) signed off in the upper reaches of The Building.
Those who initiate the contract will most assuredly have to answer to
someone's congressman (for the district that didn't get the bucks). In war
conditions, it sometimes has to be done.
DoD goes to great lengths to preserve competition.

Most of the contracts for the major prime contractors, in dollar terms, are
no-bid. You can track back the sources from the article linked to above.

This is exactly the same thing that I was told by DoD when I was researching
a similar subject.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 26, 12:25*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Defense procurement certainly is stupid, but what I said is correct, and
documented. What you've said about Lockheed Martin's contracting is stupid,
and incorrect.

--
Ed Huntress

I prefer to think that you, someone who studied the defense
procurement for a good six months, do not have a clue. The defense
contractors compete on many levels. Buying weapons systems is
somewhat like buying a car. Most all cars will take 4 people down the
road at 60 mph. But there is a difference between buying a Ford and
buying a BMW or Mercedes. Some will perform better than the required
minimum. Some are easier to maintain. Some will last longer than
others. Buying a weapons system is not like buying bolts where every
ones product is essentially fungible. The military contract
specifications provide a minimum requirement.


Take a look at the thread on the C-130.

Boeing designed a cargo plane that out performed the current Lockheed
cargo plane in almost every category. However the Lockheed plane
could be loaded and unloaded much faster than the Boeing plane. So
while the Boeing plane could fly faster and carry more, the Lockheed
plane could make two trips for every one trip the Boeing plane could
make and land on unimproved airfields closer to where the supplies
were needed.

Dan

On Mar 26, 3:17*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



But that's just the first contract, and not even all of those. The
follow-ups typically are no-bid, or "not full and open," as the Pentagon
puts is, with no competition. And that's where, along with original no-bids,
Lockheed Martin makes something like 74% of its defense-related revenue -- *
which is, in total, and curiously, is 74% of their total revenue.

--
Ed Huntress

So when your Ford needs a major assembly, you are going to see if you
can buy that part from GM? Of course the follow ups are not bought
from someone that does not have the tooling to build the parts. But
maintenance costs are taken into consideration when the original
contract is let. The military know what the costs are for making
parts. They can and do evaluate the costs for follow up purchases.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 12:25 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Defense procurement certainly is stupid, but what I said is correct, and
documented. What you've said about Lockheed Martin's contracting is
stupid,
and incorrect.

--
Ed Huntress

I prefer to think that you, someone who studied the defense
procurement for a good six months, do not have a clue. The defense
contractors compete on many levels. Buying weapons systems is
somewhat like buying a car. Most all cars will take 4 people down the
road at 60 mph. But there is a difference between buying a Ford and
buying a BMW or Mercedes. Some will perform better than the required
minimum. Some are easier to maintain. Some will last longer than
others. Buying a weapons system is not like buying bolts where every
ones product is essentially fungible. The military contract
specifications provide a minimum requirement.

Let's get back for a moment to the original point of contention. You showed
that Lockheed Martin pays nearly 30% of their profit in income taxes. Aside
from the suggestion that Lockheed Martin is truly stupid compared, for
example, to GE, who pays no income taxes, one wonders what point you were
making, given that we know that most companies pay far less.

I pointed out that they don't care how much tax they pay, because they're
not really in competition for most of their contract dollars and they can
just lay the taxes on top of their charges. They're easy to justify and no
one is going to underbid them on that basis.

To which you said, my statements are stupid. To which I replied that your
figures are cockeyed, starting with your initial claim that "Most of
Lockheed Martin's defense work is on contracts which were competitively
bid." This is patently false. Anyone who has dealt with the economics of
defense contracting knows immediately that it's false. You can't spend any
time investigating the defense industry and not learn that the big
contractors derive most of their revenue from no-bid projects.

Take a look at the thread on the C-130.

Boeing designed a cargo plane that out performed the current Lockheed
cargo plane in almost every category. However the Lockheed plane
could be loaded and unloaded much faster than the Boeing plane. So
while the Boeing plane could fly faster and carry more, the Lockheed
plane could make two trips for every one trip the Boeing plane could
make and land on unimproved airfields closer to where the supplies
were needed.

So are you now saying there are justifications for no-bid contracts? That's
a separate issue. I'm not arguing with you about that. What I said is that
the nature of the bidding and contracts that Lockheed Martin is awarded
makes the taxes they pay a non-issue. They pay a lot of taxes -- with our
tax money. And they have no incentive to minimize their taxes. because it's
not a competitive issue for them. The taxes don't come out of their pocket,
either directly or indirectly. They're just pass-alongs.
--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 3:17 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



But that's just the first contract, and not even all of those. The
follow-ups typically are no-bid, or "not full and open," as the Pentagon
puts is, with no competition. And that's where, along with original
no-bids,
Lockheed Martin makes something like 74% of its defense-related revenue --
which is, in total, and curiously, is 74% of their total revenue.

--
Ed Huntress

So when your Ford needs a major assembly, you are going to see if you
can buy that part from GM? Of course the follow ups are not bought
from someone that does not have the tooling to build the parts.

Now you're justifying no-bid again. I'm not arguing with you about whether
it's justified. My point is that it's a FACT, and that the fact leads
directly to another fact, which is that Lockheed Martin doesn't care what it
pays in taxes, because most of their defense work -- in fact, most of ALL of
their work -- is done on no-bid contracts.

But
maintenance costs are taken into consideration when the original
contract is let. The military know what the costs are for making
parts. They can and do evaluate the costs for follow up purchases.

Dan

Dan, the original contract for the C-130 was granted in 1951. Most of the
money made on the C-130 has nothing to do with the original contract, and
couldn't have been anticipated.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/26/2011 3:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/26/2011 12:12 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:



Lockheed, Northrup, Boeing compete for most of the large prime contracts
in an overlapping area. Whether you like the defense industry or not,
you
really should try to be factually correct.

I am. I studied it for six months, including several visits to the BEA
and
the Defense Department before writing about US trade in aerospace and
arms
it some years ago. Looking around, it appears that nothing much has
changed.


Ed,

Could we see the figures on this?

Sure. This study was done a few years ago by The Center for Public
Integrity. It references DoD sources.

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/...t.aspx?aid=385

I ran into the same figures, generally, when I was researching the finances
of arms trade a year or two earlier.


If a major weapon system goes through a flyoff, (say the F-303 by Wombat
Industries or the F-404 from Corpohell) the contractor with what is deemed
the best value package gets a sole source contract. If the system chosen
has a Woodchuck 2000 engine, Woodchuck gets a sole source contract for
spares because they are the sole source.
I would not term these "no bid" contracts. If there was competition, all
the prospective supplier has to do is file a protest. The contract award
is halted automatically, and the award has to be justified.

But that's just the first contract, and not even all of those. The
follow-ups typically are no-bid, or "not full and open," as the Pentagon
puts is, with no competition. And that's where, along with original no-bids,
Lockheed Martin makes something like 74% of its defense-related revenue --
which is, in total, and curiously, is 74% of their total revenue.

Having been in the defense contracting business for the last couple of
decades, I will make the statement that a sole source contract is a
difficult thing to put in place, requiring a Justification and
Authorization (J and A) signed off in the upper reaches of The Building.
Those who initiate the contract will most assuredly have to answer to
someone's congressman (for the district that didn't get the bucks). In war
conditions, it sometimes has to be done.
DoD goes to great lengths to preserve competition.

Most of the contracts for the major prime contractors, in dollar terms, are
no-bid. You can track back the sources from the article linked to above.

This is exactly the same thing that I was told by DoD when I was researching
a similar subject.



1) The article references "DoD contracting databases" whatever they may
be. No data source identified.

2) Data described is old.

3) The scenarios given are as I described above, major weapon systems.
They complain about buying a Raytheon missile from Raytheon without a
competitive contract. The government did not pay for data rights so that
anyone could build the missile as a build to print. If you want to throw
a Tomahawk at Libya, you have to buy it from Raytheon, because Raytheon
makes it. Sole Source. There is nothing stopping you from making a
better/less expensive cruise missile and offering it to the military. If
you had a better/less expensive missile the military would buy it from
you, but you don't have a better/less expensive missile. So the military
buys Raytheon. The article cited uses the Faux method of riling up the
populace with half truths.

4) One point raised that is harder to refute is the small/disadvantaged
business scam imposed upon DoD by Congress. A guy can give his wife a
title and paper ownership and suddenly runs a disadvantaged business,
with preference in being awarded contracts. Small business set asides?
There is a good reason for them. The easiest thing for the military to
do is award one contract that covers everything, what are known as
"omnibus" contracts. A set aside insures that there will be little guys
that can grow up to be competition to the big guys.


Kevin Gallimore

"axolotl" wrote in message
...
On 3/26/2011 3:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/26/2011 12:12 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:



Lockheed, Northrup, Boeing compete for most of the large prime
contracts
in an overlapping area. Whether you like the defense industry or not,
you
really should try to be factually correct.

I am. I studied it for six months, including several visits to the BEA
and
the Defense Department before writing about US trade in aerospace and
arms
it some years ago. Looking around, it appears that nothing much has
changed.


Ed,

Could we see the figures on this?

Sure. This study was done a few years ago by The Center for Public
Integrity. It references DoD sources.

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/...t.aspx?aid=385

I ran into the same figures, generally, when I was researching the
finances
of arms trade a year or two earlier.


If a major weapon system goes through a flyoff, (say the F-303 by Wombat
Industries or the F-404 from Corpohell) the contractor with what is
deemed
the best value package gets a sole source contract. If the system chosen
has a Woodchuck 2000 engine, Woodchuck gets a sole source contract for
spares because they are the sole source.
I would not term these "no bid" contracts. If there was competition, all
the prospective supplier has to do is file a protest. The contract award
is halted automatically, and the award has to be justified.

But that's just the first contract, and not even all of those. The
follow-ups typically are no-bid, or "not full and open," as the Pentagon
puts is, with no competition. And that's where, along with original
no-bids,
Lockheed Martin makes something like 74% of its defense-related
revenue --
which is, in total, and curiously, is 74% of their total revenue.

Having been in the defense contracting business for the last couple of
decades, I will make the statement that a sole source contract is a
difficult thing to put in place, requiring a Justification and
Authorization (J and A) signed off in the upper reaches of The Building.
Those who initiate the contract will most assuredly have to answer to
someone's congressman (for the district that didn't get the bucks). In
war
conditions, it sometimes has to be done.
DoD goes to great lengths to preserve competition.

Most of the contracts for the major prime contractors, in dollar terms,
are
no-bid. You can track back the sources from the article linked to above.

This is exactly the same thing that I was told by DoD when I was
researching
a similar subject.



1) The article references "DoD contracting databases" whatever they may
be. No data source identified.

Welcome to the world of real research. g I had to make numerous phone
calls to DoD when I was writing my articles, and they had to send me Excel
and PDF files that were not available online. But they have to make them
available.

This stuff isn't trivial. Sometimes getting an answer takes some work.


2) Data described is old.

As I said, that was 2004. I doubt if anything has changed. I don't know what
John's basis is for saying this, but he says nothing has changed.

This has been going on for a half-century. I don't think you'll find much
difference in 2011 versus 2004, but you can check it out if you're really
interested. It might even be online, if you know how to track those things
down. It can take hours, or even days. But it's available one way or
another.


3) The scenarios given are as I described above, major weapon systems.
They complain about buying a Raytheon missile from Raytheon without a
competitive contract. The government did not pay for data rights so that
anyone could build the missile as a build to print. If you want to throw a
Tomahawk at Libya, you have to buy it from Raytheon, because Raytheon
makes it. Sole Source.

As I said to Dan (and to John), my point is not to argue about whether
sole-sourcing is justified. The point is simply that it's a FACT, which
impinges directly on their willingness to pay taxes. That was the subject.

There is nothing stopping you from making a better/less expensive cruise
missile and offering it to the military. If you had a better/less
expensive missile the military would buy it from you, but you don't have a
better/less expensive missile. So the military buys Raytheon. The article
cited uses the Faux method of riling up the populace with half truths.

Not if you're interested enough to read it critically. That's true with most
such studies.

The entire defense procurement business is seriously f**ked, and always has
been. It was the basis of Eisenhower's warning about the Military Industrial
Complex. Like the health care industry and several others, it has a fine
logic when viewed from the inside, deductively, but it looks like corruption
personified if you're on the outside looking in.

It IS corruption personified. But it's not what we usually think of as
corruption. It's not individuals trying to enrich themselves. It's
individuals charged with the responsibilities of getting things made, and
mixing together practices that would be normal to private business with the
oddity of having one overwhelmingly dominant consumer, which is driven by
regional interests and politics, and no-bid, sole-source deals that
inherently corrupt the whole process, from the point of view of efficiently
serving the country's needs.

Just look at how you and Dan reacted to this thread. The subject was the
fact that the taxes paid by Lockheed Martin are essentially meaningless, and
are so much higher than those paid by typical corporations in America. But
both of you immediately got defensive about the justifications for
sole-source and no-bid deals. They have an internal logic that looks
sensible to people on the inside. And that's how things go to hell, when an
inherently foul system, which has few of the normal competitive checks that
keep private business in check, begin to look like they make perfect sense.

When corruption of the competitive business model looks good, even
necessary, we're screwed. Just like Eisenhower warned us.


4) One point raised that is harder to refute is the small/disadvantaged
business scam imposed upon DoD by Congress. A guy can give his wife a
title and paper ownership and suddenly runs a disadvantaged business, with
preference in being awarded contracts. Small business set asides? There is
a good reason for them. The easiest thing for the military to do is award
one contract that covers everything, what are known as "omnibus"
contracts. A set aside insures that there will be little guys that can
grow up to be competition to the big guys.

There's plenty to complain about. The tax situation we've been discussing is
just one misleading facet of the multi-faceted business.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/25/2011 1:08 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Mar 25, 1:08 pm, Rich wrote:
KD7HB wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:04:12 PM UTC-7, F. George McDuffee wrote:

Another excellent argument for an AMCT [alternative minimum
corporate tax] possibly based on total domestic gross sales
rather than net domestic profit.

We have that right now in Oregon and it taxes "C" corps on their gross
sales in Oregon. This is the second year in force because the legislature
back dated the law! "S" corps and others pay a minimum of $150. I have had
to borrow that amount because my company lost money.

As many "C" corps as possible have changed to "S" corps. Many co-ops have
gone out of business. Many large wheat ranches, etc. have been sold to out
of state corporations. They would have NO in state sales.

Of course, the lawyers, the "PC" professional corporations, are exempt!

What a screwed up mess.

Why do people so steadfastly refuse that there's no such thing as a
corporate tax, at least not the way the politics of envy sees it. To
a corporation, no matter how much you tax them, from their point of
view, it's just part of the cost of doing business, and the only place
they get the money to pay it is from their customers. When you raise
corporate taxes, all you're doing is raising the price you pay for
products.

Thanks,
Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And your (conservative pro-business) point IS?

What is the problem for requiring those who use public services to pay
for them?

And businesses use all of them.

TMT


The ignorant slob defenders of business are always using this line of
bull puckey to attack taxes on business. But when you hear real
businessmen talk about taxes they don't ever say that. I have heard many
CEOs in interviews talk about taxes and none of them say, "oh, we don't
care about taxes because we just pass them all on to the the consumer by
raising prices, so we don't really pay any taxes anyway". The don't say
that because it isn't true. Businesses can only pass so much on to the
consumer. Taxes are important to business and they have to plan for
them. They pay them. Like the rest of us they try to reduce and avoid
them but they know they are going to pay them. So the idea they just
pass all taxes on to the public is a crock.

Hawke

On Mar 26, 7:03*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Just look at how you and Dan reacted to this thread. The subject was the
fact that the taxes paid by Lockheed Martin are essentially meaningless, and
are so much higher than those paid by typical corporations in America.
--
Ed Huntress

Wrong again. The original subject was TMT's remark that the defense
industry is very good at avoiding taxes. I posted some facts that
showed he had no idea of reality. Then you jumped in and said that
Lockheed did not care about income taxes because it was a defense
contractor. And I pointed out that every company passes tax cost on
to who ever buys their product. And you keep trying to say it is
because they are a defense contractor. That makes no sense. For
every dollar of taxes that they can avoid, they make that much more
profit. Exactly the same as any other company. So they are just as
concerned about avoiding taxes as other companies. However they are
unable to get a Energy Star rating for the products that they build.
So they are not able to avoid as much taxes as some companies. Do
note that they paid %29 percent of their profit in taxes. If they did
not care, that number would be 34% or at least closer to it. Boeing
for example flies its commercial planes to Idaho and sell them there
to avoid Washington State sales tax.

Dan

On 3/25/2011 1:56 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

==Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws that
encouraged some businesses and professionals to file as
individuals, have pushed down the corporate share of the
nation's tax receipts — from 30 percent of all federal
revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.==
snip


I've been wanting to know for a while what percentage that business is
paying today. 6.6 percent, that's down from somewhere in the 30s in the
fifties. I don't think people understand what that means. Somebody has
to make up the 24 percent lost that the businesses have avoided. That's
where we come in. The public is making up what business used to pay.
Either that or the country goes in debt farther.

It makes you wonder how people can look at facts like this and not get
infuriated at business or the republicans for allowing this. We're all
paying more so wealthy and profitable businesses can pay less. That sure
****es me off. I can't understand why that doesn't bother conservatives
and how they always make excuses for why it's a good thing. Yeah, it's
better for IBM to have a few thousand dollars more and I have a few
thousand less. I'd like to know why.

Hawke

wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 7:03 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Just look at how you and Dan reacted to this thread. The subject was the
fact that the taxes paid by Lockheed Martin are essentially meaningless,
and
are so much higher than those paid by typical corporations in America.
--
Ed Huntress

Wrong again. The original subject was TMT's remark that the defense
industry is very good at avoiding taxes. I posted some facts that
showed he had no idea of reality. Then you jumped in and said that
Lockheed did not care about income taxes because it was a defense
contractor.

TMT is right. They pay nothing at all in federal income tax on federal
contracts. It's just a pass along. See below.

And I pointed out that every company passes tax cost on
to who ever buys their product. And you keep trying to say it is
because they are a defense contractor. That makes no sense.

Yeah it does. It explains why they're paying almost 30%, while the average
profit-making corporation in the US pays much less.

For
every dollar of taxes that they can avoid, they make that much more
profit. Exactly the same as any other company.

Nope. Taxes are an allowable cost in federal government contracts, per FAR
31.205-41. You just lard them onto the other costs. It is not a competitive
issue.

So they are just as
concerned about avoiding taxes as other companies. However they are
unable to get a Energy Star rating for the products that they build.
So they are not able to avoid as much taxes as some companies. Do
note that they paid %29 percent of their profit in taxes. If they did
not care, that number would be 34% or at least closer to it.

Not necessarily. Government contracts are 74% of their business. What did
they pay in taxes on their non-government business?

Boeing
for example flies its commercial planes to Idaho and sell them there
to avoid Washington State sales tax.

Good for them. That's not federal income tax, which was what you identified
in your figure.

--
Ed Huntress

Hawke wrote:

It makes you wonder how people can look at facts like this and not get
infuriated at business or the republicans for allowing this. We're all
paying more so wealthy and profitable businesses can pay less. That sure
****es me off. I can't understand why that doesn't bother conservatives
and how they always make excuses for why it's a good thing. Yeah, it's
better for IBM to have a few thousand dollars more and I have a few
thousand less. I'd like to know why.

That's why the conservatives are fighting tooth and nail against Obammy
the Commy's Socialized medicine scheme. Under it, you, that's YOU, will
be paying even more than you are now, and getting less for it. Well,
that's _UNLESS_ you're on the GIMME! GIMME! GIMME! GIMME! GIMME! list of
Obammy the Commy's cronies that are getting the waivers.

Are you looking forward to seeing the ER run like the DMV?

Thanks,
Rich

big snip

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:08:05 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:
snip

Why do people so steadfastly refuse that there's no such thing as a
corporate tax, at least not the way the politics of envy sees it. To
a corporation, no matter how much you tax them, from their point of
view, it's just part of the cost of doing business, and the only place
they get the money to pay it is from their customers. When you raise
corporate taxes, all you're doing is raising the price you pay for
products.

Thanks,
Rich
=================
News item on America's tin cup / tax evading / no-load
corporations that should be of interest:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...enation/159503
snip
“I’m tired of people calling for shared sacrifice and it’s
all coming from the workers and nothing’s coming from the
top,” says protester Dave Sonenberg. “I’m sick of companies
like Bank of America not paying their taxes.”“I’m tired of
people calling for shared sacrifice and it’s all coming from
the workers and nothing’s coming from the top,” says
protester Dave Sonenberg. “I’m sick of companies like Bank
of America not paying their taxes.”
snip
Bank of America hasn’t paid a nickel in federal income taxes
for the past two years, and in fact raked in an additional
$1 billion in tax “benefits.” The bank is enjoying these
profits after accepting $45 billion from taxpayers, which
the company then got to count as a deduction when they paid
back the money.

Big corporations get to play by a whole different set of
rules, says tax expert Bob Willens of New York-based Robert
Willens LLC:

It's also not unusual for a company to pay no federal taxes,
while still paying state and local taxes, Willens said.
Items that can be deducted for federal purposes aren't
always deductible for state and local returns, he said.
State taxes can also be based on the amount of capital
deployed in a state, not pre-tax income.
snip
This is why two-thirds of corporations in America pay no
federal income taxes. If they were forced to, we're told,
the whole country would suffer. Jobs would be lost, salaries
slashed. Thank heavens we’ve avoided such calamity by
allowing corporations to shape legislation in their favor.

In 2010, Bank of America handed out $2.2 million in campaign
contributions to congressional representatives and PACs (36
percent went to Democrats, 64 percent to Republicans). By
throwing around that much cash, huge companies like BoA have
a big say when it comes to crafting legislation that permits
them to escape paying taxes, according to US Uncut organizer
J.A. Myerson.
snip
-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

Rich Grise wrote:


Are you looking forward to seeing the ER run like the DMV?

Why would that be a bad thing? The average wait time at an ER is 222
min. What is the wait time for DMV?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817906/ns/nightly_news/

-jim

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Boeing
for example flies its commercial planes to Idaho and sell them there
to avoid Washington State sales tax.

Good for them. That's not federal income tax, which was what you
identified in your figure.


Patently false, and on several levels....

First off, sellers in Washington State don't "pay" sales tax--rather, they
are required under statute to collect it from the buyer and hold in escrow
on behalf of the state, generally forwarding the it to the State on a
quarterly basis.

Second, sales tax is only due on sales made by residents of and by
businesses who operate within Washington State. For instance, in-state sales
to residents of Oregon, Idaho or any other state for that matter, are
exempt.

Third, and more importantly, it does not matter where the "sale" took
place--even if the sale takes place in Egypt, a Wa. seller is required to
collect sales tax from a buyer if the buyer is a Wa. resident or if the
buyer is a business that has a physical presence in the State.

Lastly, commercial aircraft are exempt from the State Sales Tax.

SEE:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.0262

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.060

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Boeing
for example flies its commercial planes to Idaho and sell them there
to avoid Washington State sales tax.

Good for them. That's not federal income tax, which was what you
identified in your figure.


Patently false, and on several levels....

First off, sellers in Washington State don't "pay" sales tax--rather,
they are required under statute to collect it from the buyer and hold in
escrow on behalf of the state, generally forwarding the it to the State on
a quarterly basis.


*CORRECTION :

Second, sales tax is only due on *PURCHASES made by residents of and by
businesses who operate within Washington State. For instance, in-state
sales to residents of Oregon, Idaho or any other state for that matter,
are exempt.



Third, and more importantly, it does not matter where the "sale" took
place--even if the sale takes place in Egypt, a Wa. seller is required to
collect sales tax from a buyer if the buyer is a Wa. resident or if the
buyer is a business that has a physical presence in the State.

Lastly, commercial aircraft are exempt from the State Sales Tax.

SEE:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.0262

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.060

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Boeing
for example flies its commercial planes to Idaho and sell them there
to avoid Washington State sales tax.

Good for them. That's not federal income tax, which was what you
identified in your figure.


Patently false, and on several levels....

First off, sellers in Washington State don't "pay" sales tax--rather,
they are required under statute to collect it from the buyer and hold in
escrow on behalf of the state, generally forwarding the it to the State on
a quarterly basis.

Second, sales tax is only due on sales made by residents of and by
businesses who operate within Washington State. For instance, in-state
sales to residents of Oregon, Idaho or any other state for that matter,
are exempt.

Third, and more importantly, it does not matter where the "sale" took
place--even if the sale takes place in Egypt, a Wa. seller is required to
collect sales tax from a buyer if the buyer is a Wa. resident or if the
buyer is a business that has a physical presence in the State.

Lastly, commercial aircraft are exempt from the State Sales Tax.

SEE:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.0262

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.060

Are you suggesting that Dan is winging it a bit? d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Boeing
for example flies its commercial planes to Idaho and sell them there
to avoid Washington State sales tax.

Good for them. That's not federal income tax, which was what you
identified in your figure.


Patently false, and on several levels....

First off, sellers in Washington State don't "pay" sales tax--rather,
they are required under statute to collect it from the buyer and hold in
escrow on behalf of the state, generally forwarding the it to the State
on a quarterly basis.

Second, sales tax is only due on sales made by residents of and by
businesses who operate within Washington State. For instance, in-state
sales to residents of Oregon, Idaho or any other state for that matter,
are exempt.

Third, and more importantly, it does not matter where the "sale" took
place--even if the sale takes place in Egypt, a Wa. seller is required
to collect sales tax from a buyer if the buyer is a Wa. resident or if
the buyer is a business that has a physical presence in the State.

Lastly, commercial aircraft are exempt from the State Sales Tax.

SEE:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.0262

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.060

Are you suggesting that Dan is winging it a bit? d8-)


Well, since commercial aircraft are specifically listed the applicable
statue as being exempt...

But since I have you on the wire here, it's important to realize that
military contractors "charge" income taxes... think we can agree that the
result is a zero net gain to the contractor because the money goes back to
the government, when the contractor pays his taxes...

However, following the money trail, this money...which is originally sourced
from the defense budget, Boeing simply "collects it".....then later, Boeing
remits it to the IRS wherein it ends up going into the general funds--in
essence, "re-distributed", if you will....

IOW these dollars tax dollars end up back in the hands of government and are
subsequently used to help fund the entire gamut of federal programs.

--

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
news:IcCdnUsbDbo_HBLQnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Boeing
for example flies its commercial planes to Idaho and sell them there
to avoid Washington State sales tax.

Good for them. That's not federal income tax, which was what you
identified in your figure.


Patently false, and on several levels....

First off, sellers in Washington State don't "pay" sales tax--rather,
they are required under statute to collect it from the buyer and hold in
escrow on behalf of the state, generally forwarding the it to the State
on a quarterly basis.

Second, sales tax is only due on sales made by residents of and by
businesses who operate within Washington State. For instance, in-state
sales to residents of Oregon, Idaho or any other state for that matter,
are exempt.

Third, and more importantly, it does not matter where the "sale" took
place--even if the sale takes place in Egypt, a Wa. seller is required
to collect sales tax from a buyer if the buyer is a Wa. resident or if
the buyer is a business that has a physical presence in the State.

Lastly, commercial aircraft are exempt from the State Sales Tax.

SEE:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.0262

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.060

Are you suggesting that Dan is winging it a bit? d8-)


Well, since commercial aircraft are specifically listed the applicable
statue as being exempt...

But since I have you on the wire here, it's important to realize that
military contractors "charge" income taxes... think we can agree that the
result is a zero net gain to the contractor because the money goes back to
the government, when the contractor pays his taxes...

Sure. I could have been clearer about that.


However, following the money trail, this money...which is originally
sourced from the defense budget, Boeing simply "collects it".....then
later, Boeing remits it to the IRS wherein it ends up going into the
general funds--in essence, "re-distributed", if you will....

Yes. However, it is possible that the amount could be an issue in bidding,
as Dan suggests. But it appears not to be. DoD rules for judging bids do
consider taxes as a cost issue, but then they turn around and say that taxes
are handled as an expense, and are not a part of the bid.

I'd have to dig into this further but it appears that DoD considers whether
taxes are reasonable and justifiable. In other words, if you bid with the
full amount of federal income taxes in your bid, that would be reasonable
and justifiable to the federal government. And it's not treated as a
competitive issue.

Of course, as always, the federal rules would fill a small book. But the
part about taxes being a separate expense is clear.


IOW these dollars tax dollars end up back in the hands of government and
are subsequently used to help fund the entire gamut of federal programs.

Yeah, it's just a transfer back and forth.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 27, 11:59*am, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:

Patently false, and on several levels....


Lastly, commercial aircraft are exempt from the State Sales Tax.

SEE:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.0262

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.060

Sorry, I must not be up to date. I believe this was true some years
back. I do not suppose you know when commercial aircraft were made
exempt from sales tax. Could it be that the exemption was made
because the state was not collecting any sales tax on commercial
aircraft because Boeing was making the sales outside of the state?

F. George McDuffee wrote:

“I’m tired of people calling for shared sacrifice and it’s
all coming from the workers and nothing’s coming from the
top,” says protester Dave Sonenberg. “I’m sick of companies
like Bank of America not paying their taxes.

But, do the people who work there, and the CEOs and stuff, pay
individual taxes? Aren't _they_ the ones you're ****ed off at?

A corporation, despite the legalese defining them, is an inanimate
object.

Every time you tax a corporation, the one that ends up paying
that tax is _YOU_.

Why can't people get that through their thick skulls?

I _do_ have the solution, however:

The OUTGO tax:
http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/TaxTheRich!.html

Cheers!
Rich

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:25:53 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 27, 11:59*am, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:

Patently false, and on several levels....


Lastly, commercial aircraft are exempt from the State Sales Tax.

SEE:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.0262

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.08.060

Sorry, I must not be up to date. I believe this was true some years
back. I do not suppose you know when commercial aircraft were made
exempt from sales tax. Could it be that the exemption was made
because the state was not collecting any sales tax on commercial
aircraft because Boeing was making the sales outside of the state?
=============

It is a truism, but never-the-less true, that "everyone
knows," and "they say" are the two least reliable source of
information.

The problem is not that somehow you are a bad person, but
rather that you are human. As Will Rogers remarked, "it
ain't what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you know
that just ain't so," and this applies even more to our
policy makers and legislators as what "they know that just
ain't so," not only hurts them [even if its just the loss of
an election] but everybody.

The American news media bears much of the responsibility for
this because of an almost total lack of fact checking and
verification. As observed by US Senator and Ambassador
Moynihan (1927-2003) "everyone is entitled to their own
opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan

This is an accelerating and increasingly serious problem in
that what was largely or generally true, even a just few
years ago, has become obsolete with the increasingly rapid
changes in laws, tax codes, treaties, technology, etc.,
particularly in the fields of fiscal/financial policy and
macro-economics, with the result that the Republic is
currently hurtling toward a "train wreck" of epic
proportions as the panaceas, nostrums, elixirs, "snake oil,"
etc. from the past are applied in ever increasing doses,
even though the conditions/circumstances are completely
different.

While it is time consuming, it is also highly instructive to
try to verify many common assumptions and assertions, in
that these frequently are found to be currently
inaccurate/non-operational, although possibly valid when
first formulated, and many more will be discovered to have
no factual hard data basis, even if these sound plausible
and appealing (and the way things otta' be).



-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).