On 11/17/2011 8:30 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html

General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a
whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't
pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed
electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and
stacked.

...

You wouldn't have to pay taxes either if you sucked Obama's dick,
instead of Gunner's.

sigh, another rcm troll



Yeah, look who's talking, and what's wrong with GE not paying any taxes?
It's the little people like you that should be paying them not our
corporations. They need lower taxes. Don't you remember your republican
talking points? Business needs a tax cut because they pay too much, just
like GE does.

By lowering their taxes we have to raise it on you and all the other
stupid low earners. You just don't get it. The rich aren't supposed to
pay taxes; it's the ordinary people who are supposed to foot the bills
for the country. You're supposed to just be happy that there are people
who have tons of money. They earned it so they should keep it. You and
people of your class should pay the country's bills, not them. I don't
get why you can't keep the republican agenda straight. It never changes.

Hawke

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:12:01 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/17/2011 8:30 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html

General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a
whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't
pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed
electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and
stacked.

...

You wouldn't have to pay taxes either if you sucked Obama's dick,
instead of Gunner's.

sigh, another rcm troll



Yeah, look who's talking, and what's wrong with GE not paying any taxes?
It's the little people like you that should be paying them not our
corporations. They need lower taxes. Don't you remember your republican
talking points? Business needs a tax cut because they pay too much, just
like GE does.

By lowering their taxes we have to raise it on you and all the other
stupid low earners. You just don't get it. The rich aren't supposed to
pay taxes; it's the ordinary people who are supposed to foot the bills
for the country. You're supposed to just be happy that there are people
who have tons of money. They earned it so they should keep it. You and
people of your class should pay the country's bills, not them. I don't
get why you can't keep the republican agenda straight. It never changes.

Hawke



Go suck your strawman's dick, Hack. I made no comments about G.E. one
way or the other. I was simply telling Douchebag how he can avoid
paying his taxes.

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:12:01 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/17/2011 8:30 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html

General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a
whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't
pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed
electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and
stacked.

...

You wouldn't have to pay taxes either if you sucked Obama's dick,
instead of Gunner's.

sigh, another rcm troll



Yeah, look who's talking, and what's wrong with GE not paying any taxes?
It's the little people like you that should be paying them not our
corporations. They need lower taxes. Don't you remember your republican
talking points? Business needs a tax cut because they pay too much, just
like GE does.

By lowering their taxes we have to raise it on you and all the other
stupid low earners. You just don't get it. The rich aren't supposed to
pay taxes; it's the ordinary people who are supposed to foot the bills
for the country. You're supposed to just be happy that there are people
who have tons of money. They earned it so they should keep it. You and
people of your class should pay the country's bills, not them. I don't
get why you can't keep the republican agenda straight. It never changes.

Hawke


Did you read the article? They said that 9 billion came from foreign
activities that weren't liable to US tax laws. which is not to say
that no tax was paid to a foreign entity. Next the article says that a
further 5 billion was exempted because it came form investments in low
cost housing, green energy, depreciation, etc.

So, apparently, in spite of your quote the other day about green
energy you feel that there should be no US government interest in
developing green energy? Inspite of your frequent remarks about the
little guy there should be no US government interest in developing or
building low cost housing? You feel that depreciation of property, the
recovering of monies used to purchase real property is not valid?
Depreciation, I might comment, was been an accepted accounting
practice under the Democrats....


--
John B.

On 11/18/2011 11:12 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 11/17/2011 8:30 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html


General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a
whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't
pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed
electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and
stacked.

...


ignoring the innuendo attempted trolling there are at least three things
wrong with this - the size of the tax return (how much does it cost to
prepare a 57.000 page return?), the disproportionality, and the
accounting methods that can turn profit into loss.

That said, there is a fine argument to be made that corporations should
not pay taxes on business profits, only on real-estate and other assets.
tax profits only when they are distributed to real humans. Of
course, that would mean that corporations are not real humans and
therefore probably don't have first amendment rights. Maybe proposing
this will lead to fun as the republican fundies explode trying to decide
if they would rather lower taxes for corporations or have their dollars
as donations.

--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

On 11/18/2011 4:22 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:12:01 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/17/2011 8:30 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html

General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a
whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't
pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed
electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and
stacked.

...

You wouldn't have to pay taxes either if you sucked Obama's dick,
instead of Gunner's.

sigh, another rcm troll



Yeah, look who's talking, and what's wrong with GE not paying any taxes?
It's the little people like you that should be paying them not our
corporations. They need lower taxes. Don't you remember your republican
talking points? Business needs a tax cut because they pay too much, just
like GE does.

By lowering their taxes we have to raise it on you and all the other
stupid low earners. You just don't get it. The rich aren't supposed to
pay taxes; it's the ordinary people who are supposed to foot the bills
for the country. You're supposed to just be happy that there are people
who have tons of money. They earned it so they should keep it. You and
people of your class should pay the country's bills, not them. I don't
get why you can't keep the republican agenda straight. It never changes.

Hawke



Go suck your strawman's dick, Hack. I made no comments about G.E. one
way or the other. I was simply telling Douchebag how he can avoid
paying his taxes.



You don't really need to. But your duty as a right winger is to defend
anything that corporations do not matter how wrong or unfair they are.
In the case of taxes, GE makes billions and kicks in nothing to the
country. You aren't so lucky. Most would say that's completely unfair
for a working person like you to pay a big chunk of what you earn but
giant corporations to pay nothing. But you have to support and defend
the corporations so not matter what they do you support them. Now, that
makes no sense to me. You are happy to have your taxes higher so
companies like GE can get off not paying anything. Seems crazy to me but
you like it that way.

Hawke

On 11/18/2011 4:56 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:12:01 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/17/2011 8:30 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html

General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a
whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't
pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed
electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and
stacked.

...

You wouldn't have to pay taxes either if you sucked Obama's dick,
instead of Gunner's.

sigh, another rcm troll



Yeah, look who's talking, and what's wrong with GE not paying any taxes?
It's the little people like you that should be paying them not our
corporations. They need lower taxes. Don't you remember your republican
talking points? Business needs a tax cut because they pay too much, just
like GE does.

By lowering their taxes we have to raise it on you and all the other
stupid low earners. You just don't get it. The rich aren't supposed to
pay taxes; it's the ordinary people who are supposed to foot the bills
for the country. You're supposed to just be happy that there are people
who have tons of money. They earned it so they should keep it. You and
people of your class should pay the country's bills, not them. I don't
get why you can't keep the republican agenda straight. It never changes.

Hawke


Did you read the article? They said that 9 billion came from foreign
activities that weren't liable to US tax laws. which is not to say
that no tax was paid to a foreign entity. Next the article says that a
further 5 billion was exempted because it came form investments in low
cost housing, green energy, depreciation, etc.

So, apparently, in spite of your quote the other day about green
energy you feel that there should be no US government interest in
developing green energy? Inspite of your frequent remarks about the
little guy there should be no US government interest in developing or
building low cost housing? You feel that depreciation of property, the
recovering of monies used to purchase real property is not valid?
Depreciation, I might comment, was been an accepted accounting
practice under the Democrats....



I wasn't talking about green energy or profits made offshore. I was
simply making the point that multibillion dollar corporations are making
tons of money and not paying any taxes. Why wasn't up to question. The
point is if they aren't paying anything in taxes then who is? I say it's
the average working person who is paying if the corporations are not.
That's pretty clear isn't it?

I don't think that's right. I think those businesses should be paying
much closer to 30% of all the taxes to the treasury. I also find it
amusing that the average guy, who is paying for everything in this
country doesn't seem to mind that he's paying a lot of taxes and huge
corporations pay none. I find that ironic to say the least.

Hawke

On Nov 19, 4:52*pm, Hawke wrote:

I wasn't talking about green energy or profits made offshore. I was
simply making the point that multibillion dollar corporations are making
tons of money and not paying any taxes. Why wasn't up to question. The
point is if they aren't paying anything in taxes then who is? I say it's
the average working person who is paying if the corporations are not.
That's pretty clear isn't it?

So do you believe that companies should pay U.S. income taxes on
profits that are made outside the U.S.?



I don't think that's right. I think those businesses should be paying
much closer to 30% of all the taxes to the treasury. I also find it
amusing that the average guy, who is paying for everything in this
country doesn't seem to mind that he's paying a lot of taxes and huge
corporations pay none. I find that ironic to say the least.

So do you believe that companies ought to not follow the U. S. tax
code? That is, if Congress says it wants to encourage green energy
sources such as wind power and provides tax incentives to do so, that
G.E. should not build generators for wind mills.

I find it ironic that you want the government to encourage green
energy, but you then are upset that G.E. accepts the tax credits for
building generators for wind power. Make up your mind on what you
want.


Dan



Hawke

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:17:48 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/18/2011 4:22 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:12:01 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/17/2011 8:30 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html

General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a
whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't
pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed
electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and
stacked.

...

You wouldn't have to pay taxes either if you sucked Obama's dick,
instead of Gunner's.

sigh, another rcm troll



Yeah, look who's talking, and what's wrong with GE not paying any taxes?
It's the little people like you that should be paying them not our
corporations. They need lower taxes. Don't you remember your republican
talking points? Business needs a tax cut because they pay too much, just
like GE does.

By lowering their taxes we have to raise it on you and all the other
stupid low earners. You just don't get it. The rich aren't supposed to
pay taxes; it's the ordinary people who are supposed to foot the bills
for the country. You're supposed to just be happy that there are people
who have tons of money. They earned it so they should keep it. You and
people of your class should pay the country's bills, not them. I don't
get why you can't keep the republican agenda straight. It never changes.

Hawke



Go suck your strawman's dick, Hack. I made no comments about G.E. one
way or the other. I was simply telling Douchebag how he can avoid
paying his taxes.



You don't really need to. But your duty as a right winger is to defend
anything that corporations do not matter how wrong or unfair they are.
In the case of taxes, GE makes billions and kicks in nothing to the
country. You aren't so lucky. Most would say that's completely unfair
for a working person like you to pay a big chunk of what you earn but
giant corporations to pay nothing. But you have to support and defend
the corporations so not matter what they do you support them. Now, that
makes no sense to me. You are happy to have your taxes higher so
companies like GE can get off not paying anything. Seems crazy to me but
you like it that way.

Hawke

It is not a matter of as you like it.

From what I read in the mentioned article it doesn't appear that they
are doing anything that hasn't been perfectly legal for years; even
before the Republicans took over the world. Profits earned by an
overseas corporation that has tax paid on it at source is not taxable
in the U.S. Been that way for years and years. The fact that one has
an agreement of some nature with that foreign entity does not
automatically infer taxes owed.

The U.S. government (to my personal knowledge) has, for years been
subsidizing goods and services and/or making other financial
incentives for people to do this or that.

The fact that advantage is taken of U.S. tax law does not
automatically infer sin.

But of course, it is a knee-jerk reaction. You see someone/something
with more money then you and automatically that old devil jealousy
rears its ugly head.

I might add that you have stated that you are financially independent
and able to live as you like on your investments, just as the sinners
in the top 1% of the nation do. In fact, from what I read
approximately 50% of the top 1% can be described exactly as you
describe yourself - collage trained, invested income, now financially
independent. What does that say? "don't do as I do; do as I say"?


--
John B.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:52:54 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/18/2011 4:56 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:12:01 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/17/2011 8:30 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html

General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a
whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't
pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed
electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and
stacked.

...

You wouldn't have to pay taxes either if you sucked Obama's dick,
instead of Gunner's.

sigh, another rcm troll



Yeah, look who's talking, and what's wrong with GE not paying any taxes?
It's the little people like you that should be paying them not our
corporations. They need lower taxes. Don't you remember your republican
talking points? Business needs a tax cut because they pay too much, just
like GE does.

By lowering their taxes we have to raise it on you and all the other
stupid low earners. You just don't get it. The rich aren't supposed to
pay taxes; it's the ordinary people who are supposed to foot the bills
for the country. You're supposed to just be happy that there are people
who have tons of money. They earned it so they should keep it. You and
people of your class should pay the country's bills, not them. I don't
get why you can't keep the republican agenda straight. It never changes.

Hawke


Did you read the article? They said that 9 billion came from foreign
activities that weren't liable to US tax laws. which is not to say
that no tax was paid to a foreign entity. Next the article says that a
further 5 billion was exempted because it came form investments in low
cost housing, green energy, depreciation, etc.

So, apparently, in spite of your quote the other day about green
energy you feel that there should be no US government interest in
developing green energy? Inspite of your frequent remarks about the
little guy there should be no US government interest in developing or
building low cost housing? You feel that depreciation of property, the
recovering of monies used to purchase real property is not valid?
Depreciation, I might comment, was been an accepted accounting
practice under the Democrats....



I wasn't talking about green energy or profits made offshore. I was
simply making the point that multibillion dollar corporations are making
tons of money and not paying any taxes. Why wasn't up to question. The
point is if they aren't paying anything in taxes then who is? I say it's
the average working person who is paying if the corporations are not.
That's pretty clear isn't it?

No it is not clear. What is wrong with a company making billions of
dollars? What is wrong with a company paying the taxes that the U.S.
Government mandates that they pay. which,if I read the article
correctly is just what they did. One can, I assume, equally well say
that Hawke is a sinner for taking the deductions on his personal
income tax.


I don't think that's right. I think those businesses should be paying
much closer to 30% of all the taxes to the treasury. I also find it
amusing that the average guy, who is paying for everything in this
country doesn't seem to mind that he's paying a lot of taxes and huge
corporations pay none. I find that ironic to say the least.

Hawke

Of course, and people who can afford to hire Tax consultants to
structure their lives also pay less tax then average. Should we shoot
all the H&R Block accountants.

The point is that following U.S Government laws and regulations is not
a sin and damning a corporation for doing so is simply ridiculous,
isn't it.

To put another light on your statement, taxing a company 30% implies
that the company will not have as high profits after tax as
previously, and what is the easiest cost to cut? Usually people, so
increasing taxes may well result in a reduction in available jobs, and
even possibly a reduction, however infinitesimal, in the tax paid. Not
to mention an added incentive to move off shore.

Your claim that a big company should pay a higher percent of their
profits as tax then a company that does less business is simply
rewarding mediocrity. If you work hard and prosper the government
takes more of your money than taken from the drone who is too lazy to
work.

After all Hawke, you have bragged about the fact that you have a
collage education and that you are financially secure, don't have to
work any more. Exactly the same description applies to people in the
bottom half of the top 1%. Collage education, worked hard, invested
their money, now financially secure through their own endeavors. Does
that mean that Hawke should pay more taxes?


--
John B.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:17:48 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/18/2011 4:22 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:12:01 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/17/2011 8:30 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html

General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a
whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't
pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed
electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and
stacked.

...

You wouldn't have to pay taxes either if you sucked Obama's dick,
instead of Gunner's.

sigh, another rcm troll



Yeah, look who's talking, and what's wrong with GE not paying any taxes?
It's the little people like you that should be paying them not our
corporations. They need lower taxes. Don't you remember your republican
talking points? Business needs a tax cut because they pay too much, just
like GE does.

By lowering their taxes we have to raise it on you and all the other
stupid low earners. You just don't get it. The rich aren't supposed to
pay taxes; it's the ordinary people who are supposed to foot the bills
for the country. You're supposed to just be happy that there are people
who have tons of money. They earned it so they should keep it. You and
people of your class should pay the country's bills, not them. I don't
get why you can't keep the republican agenda straight. It never changes.

Hawke



Go suck your strawman's dick, Hack. I made no comments about G.E. one
way or the other. I was simply telling Douchebag how he can avoid
paying his taxes.



You don't really need to. But your duty as a right winger is to defend
anything that corporations do not matter how wrong or unfair they are.

Yap, yap, yap. You're forgetting that I voted for Obama. I won't be
making that mistaken again, he's getting none of my votes this time!

On 11/19/2011 5:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:17:48 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/18/2011 4:22 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:12:01 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/17/2011 8:30 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html

General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a
whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't
pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed
electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and
stacked.

...

You wouldn't have to pay taxes either if you sucked Obama's dick,
instead of Gunner's.

sigh, another rcm troll



Yeah, look who's talking, and what's wrong with GE not paying any taxes?
It's the little people like you that should be paying them not our
corporations. They need lower taxes. Don't you remember your republican
talking points? Business needs a tax cut because they pay too much, just
like GE does.

By lowering their taxes we have to raise it on you and all the other
stupid low earners. You just don't get it. The rich aren't supposed to
pay taxes; it's the ordinary people who are supposed to foot the bills
for the country. You're supposed to just be happy that there are people
who have tons of money. They earned it so they should keep it. You and
people of your class should pay the country's bills, not them. I don't
get why you can't keep the republican agenda straight. It never changes.

Hawke



Go suck your strawman's dick, Hack. I made no comments about G.E. one
way or the other. I was simply telling Douchebag how he can avoid
paying his taxes.



You don't really need to. But your duty as a right winger is to defend
anything that corporations do not matter how wrong or unfair they are.
In the case of taxes, GE makes billions and kicks in nothing to the
country. You aren't so lucky. Most would say that's completely unfair
for a working person like you to pay a big chunk of what you earn but
giant corporations to pay nothing. But you have to support and defend
the corporations so not matter what they do you support them. Now, that
makes no sense to me. You are happy to have your taxes higher so
companies like GE can get off not paying anything. Seems crazy to me but
you like it that way.

Hawke

It is not a matter of as you like it.

From what I read in the mentioned article it doesn't appear that they
are doing anything that hasn't been perfectly legal for years; even
before the Republicans took over the world. Profits earned by an
overseas corporation that has tax paid on it at source is not taxable
in the U.S. Been that way for years and years. The fact that one has
an agreement of some nature with that foreign entity does not
automatically infer taxes owed.

The U.S. government (to my personal knowledge) has, for years been
subsidizing goods and services and/or making other financial
incentives for people to do this or that.

The fact that advantage is taken of U.S. tax law does not
automatically infer sin.

But of course, it is a knee-jerk reaction. You see someone/something
with more money then you and automatically that old devil jealousy
rears its ugly head.

I might add that you have stated that you are financially independent
and able to live as you like on your investments, just as the sinners
in the top 1% of the nation do. In fact, from what I read
approximately 50% of the top 1% can be described exactly as you
describe yourself - collage trained, invested income, now financially
independent. What does that say? "don't do as I do; do as I say"?


I'm using GE as a metaphor for what is wrong with the country. I
understand fully why GE has not paid any taxes. According to the tax
laws they don't owe any. But I'm just using GE as a symbol of what's
wrong. Namely, you have entities and individuals making huge incomes and
are not paying anything into the treasury while at the same time people
working for eight or ten dollars an hour are paying up to a third of
what they make in taxes. That situation is wrong and needs to be
changed. All that is required to ameliorate that is for the tax laws to
be changed.

Corporations used to pay nearly 30% of all tax revenues and now they pay
less than 7%. Someone has to make that up and it's the middle and lower
classes who have had to do it. That needs to be changed. Those with the
ability to pay are those who should pay.

As for myself, yes it's true that I do not have to be employed to live.
I would prefer to but in this economy the jobs just aren't there that I
would be doing if the economy was doing well. So for now I am living on
what comes in from investments. That's what I was shooting for all along
but unfortunately due to the recession and market drop in value I'm not
taking in anything near what the 1% are. It's enough to live on but not
enough to live like a king, that's for sure. So as usual nothing is as
one would like it to be.

Hawke

On 11/19/2011 5:59 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:

By lowering their taxes we have to raise it on you and all the other
stupid low earners. You just don't get it. The rich aren't supposed to
pay taxes; it's the ordinary people who are supposed to foot the bills
for the country. You're supposed to just be happy that there are people
who have tons of money. They earned it so they should keep it. You and
people of your class should pay the country's bills, not them. I don't
get why you can't keep the republican agenda straight. It never changes.

Hawke



Go suck your strawman's dick, Hack. I made no comments about G.E. one
way or the other. I was simply telling Douchebag how he can avoid
paying his taxes.



You don't really need to. But your duty as a right winger is to defend
anything that corporations do not matter how wrong or unfair they are.

Yap, yap, yap. You're forgetting that I voted for Obama. I won't be
making that mistaken again, he's getting none of my votes this time!


Yeah, be smart and vote for Ron Paul. We'll all be glad you did.

Hawke

On 11/19/2011 4:34 PM, wrote:
On Nov 19, 4:52 pm, wrote:

I wasn't talking about green energy or profits made offshore. I was
simply making the point that multibillion dollar corporations are making
tons of money and not paying any taxes. Why wasn't up to question. The
point is if they aren't paying anything in taxes then who is? I say it's
the average working person who is paying if the corporations are not.
That's pretty clear isn't it?

So do you believe that companies should pay U.S. income taxes on
profits that are made outside the U.S.?

I haven't given that question much thought so I'm not sure where I stand
on that. But off the top of my head it seems fair that if a company is
an "American" company then they should pay some portion of taxes in
their home country no matter were they earn their profits.


I don't think that's right. I think those businesses should be paying
much closer to 30% of all the taxes to the treasury. I also find it
amusing that the average guy, who is paying for everything in this
country doesn't seem to mind that he's paying a lot of taxes and huge
corporations pay none. I find that ironic to say the least.

So do you believe that companies ought to not follow the U. S. tax
code? That is, if Congress says it wants to encourage green energy
sources such as wind power and provides tax incentives to do so, that
G.E. should not build generators for wind mills.

As I said in my last post I am using GE as a symbol for corporations
making lots of money and paying nothing in taxes while the little guy
pays a third of his income in taxes. My point is that unfairness of that
situation. GE is getting specific tax credits and breaks for things the
government is encouraging it to do. I'm all for that. But we have the
same thing to a certain extent going on with almost all companies. They
are all getting breaks so they can avoid paying taxes while the regular
guy gets none of that and pays a high percentage of what he makes.
That's not fair.


I find it ironic that you want the government to encourage green
energy, but you then are upset that G.E. accepts the tax credits for
building generators for wind power. Make up your mind on what you
want.


What I want is clear. I want corporations in general to pay a lot more
of the tax revenues for the country. I want the government to encourage
clean energy. I know that the companies that participate in these
programs get tax breaks. But way too many companies are getting way too
many breaks. Companies need to pay a lot more so that average guys can
keep more of their money, which they need very badly just to live on.

Hawke

On 11/19/2011 5:36 PM, John B. wrote:


I wasn't talking about green energy or profits made offshore. I was
simply making the point that multibillion dollar corporations are making
tons of money and not paying any taxes. Why wasn't up to question. The
point is if they aren't paying anything in taxes then who is? I say it's
the average working person who is paying if the corporations are not.
That's pretty clear isn't it?

No it is not clear. What is wrong with a company making billions of
dollars? What is wrong with a company paying the taxes that the U.S.
Government mandates that they pay. which,if I read the article
correctly is just what they did. One can, I assume, equally well say
that Hawke is a sinner for taking the deductions on his personal
income tax.

Nothing is wrong with a company making billions in profits. But that's
as long as they pay a fair share into the treasury. When they pay none
at all it's kind of hard to see it as fair. Simply because they come out
owing nothing due to the peculiarities of the tax code doesn't mean
that's fair. What if the tax code itself is unfair? You can be following
the rules perfectly but that doesn't' mean what you are doing is fair.


I don't think that's right. I think those businesses should be paying
much closer to 30% of all the taxes to the treasury. I also find it
amusing that the average guy, who is paying for everything in this
country doesn't seem to mind that he's paying a lot of taxes and huge
corporations pay none. I find that ironic to say the least.

Hawke

Of course, and people who can afford to hire Tax consultants to
structure their lives also pay less tax then average. Should we shoot
all the H&R Block accountants.

No, but they shouldn't be able to find ways to make it where lots of
money can be made without owing any tax debt, unless it's a special deal
the government is trying to foster.


The point is that following U.S Government laws and regulations is not
a sin and damning a corporation for doing so is simply ridiculous,
isn't it.

It's when the government and the corporation collude with each other and
it harms the majority of citizens that you have a problem. I see a
problem. One privileged group is making out like bandits and the
majority are eating it.


To put another light on your statement, taxing a company 30% implies
that the company will not have as high profits after tax as
previously, and what is the easiest cost to cut? Usually people, so
increasing taxes may well result in a reduction in available jobs, and
even possibly a reduction, however infinitesimal, in the tax paid. Not
to mention an added incentive to move off shore.

China has no problems like this. Business and the government don't
collude in China. In China the government tells business what to do and
they do it, or else. In our country way too often it works out just the
opposite, and it's been going on like this for quite a while not and
that is why there is so much inequality. Business and wealth have gotten
control over a lot of the government. That has caused a lot of misery
among ordinary Americans.


Your claim that a big company should pay a higher percent of their
profits as tax then a company that does less business is simply
rewarding mediocrity. If you work hard and prosper the government
takes more of your money than taken from the drone who is too lazy to
work.

That is not how the market works. The harder working company makes more
than the lazy company. That's a crock. Plenty of companies that don't do
well work like dogs but just don't succeed that well. It's more about
the popularity of products than about hard work. I'd wager all the phone
companies work just as hard as Apple does when it comes to making and
selling phones. It's just that Apple's phones sell a lot better than
their competitors. Apple makes more than the other phone companies so
they pay more in taxes. I don't say their tax rate should be different
from their less prosperous competitors. I say corporate tax rates should
be higher than what working class citizens are paying.



After all Hawke, you have bragged about the fact that you have a
collage education and that you are financially secure, don't have to
work any more. Exactly the same description applies to people in the
bottom half of the top 1%. Collage education, worked hard, invested
their money, now financially secure through their own endeavors. Does
that mean that Hawke should pay more taxes?


If I make more money than they do then yes I should. But if I only
barely make ends meet off of my investments and someone else makes a lot
more from a wage paying job then who should pay more? In that case I say
it's about how high is your income not how did you come by it. If I make
30K a year from investments and the other guy makes 120K from his job
then he should pay the higher rate.

Hawke

On Nov 20, 8:58*pm, Hawke wrote:


I'm using GE as a metaphor for what is wrong with the country.

It would be easier for all concerned if you would take a little time
and think before selecting a company to use as a symbol.

I
understand fully why GE has not paid any taxes. According to the tax
laws they don't owe any. But I'm just using GE as a symbol of what's
wrong. Namely, you have entities and individuals making huge incomes and
are not paying anything into the treasury while at the same time people
working for eight or ten dollars an hour are paying up to a third of
what they make in taxes. That situation is wrong and needs to be
changed. All that is required to ameliorate that is for the tax laws to
be changed.

If you are only talking about income taxes, then people making $10 an
hour are not paying any income taxes unless they have significant
income from other sources.


Corporations used to pay nearly 30% of all tax revenues and now they pay
less than 7%. Someone has to make that up and it's the middle and lower
classes who have had to do it. That needs to be changed. Those with the
ability to pay are those who should pay.

So it is Congress that made all the loopholes. Pick who to vote for
with care.

Dan


As for myself, yes it's true that I do not have to be employed to live.
I would prefer to but in this economy the jobs just aren't there that I
would be doing if the economy was doing well. So for now I am living on
what comes in from investments. That's what I was shooting for all along
but unfortunately due to the recession and market drop in value I'm not
taking in anything near what the 1% are. It's enough to live on but not
enough to live like a king, that's for sure. So as usual nothing is as
one would like it to be.

Hawke

On Nov 20, 9:08*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 11/19/2011 4:34 PM, wrote:

On Nov 19, 4:52 pm, *wrote:


So do you believe that companies should pay U.S. income taxes on
profits that are made outside the U.S.?

I haven't given that question much thought so I'm not sure where I stand
on that. But off the top of my head it seems fair that if a company is
an "American" company then they should pay some portion of taxes in
their home country no matter were they earn their profits.

Not a problem. Just expect a lot of companies to quit being "
American " companies. Well maybe they would still be American
companies, but Canadian companies instead of U.S. companies.


I don't think that's right. I think those businesses should be paying
much closer to 30% of all the taxes to the treasury. I also find it
amusing that the average guy, who is paying for everything in this
country doesn't seem to mind that he's paying a lot of taxes and huge
corporations pay none. I find that ironic to say the least.

So do you believe that companies ought to not follow the U. S. tax
code? *That is, if Congress says it wants to encourage green energy
sources such as wind power and provides tax incentives to do so, that
G.E. should not build generators for wind mills.

As I said in my last post I am using GE as a symbol for corporations
making lots of money and paying nothing in taxes while the little guy
pays a third of his income in taxes. My point is that unfairness of that
situation. GE is getting specific tax credits and breaks for things the
government is encouraging it to do. I'm all for that. But we have the
same thing to a certain extent going on with almost all companies. They
are all getting breaks so they can avoid paying taxes while the regular
guy gets none of that and pays a high percentage of what he makes.
That's not fair.

But you said you had investments in a lot of companies and read the
Annual reports.

Okay here is one. Nordstrom earned 991 million dollars before taxes.
They paid 378 million in income taxes. I calculate that as just over
38 %. Of course they paid other taxes too as real estate taxes.



I find it ironic that you want the government to encourage green
energy, but you then are upset that G.E. accepts the tax credits for
building generators for wind power. *Make up your mind on what you
want.

What I want is clear. I want corporations in general to pay a lot more
of the tax revenues for the country. I want the government to encourage
clean energy. I know that the companies that participate in these
programs get tax breaks. But way too many companies are getting way too
many breaks. Companies need to pay a lot more so that average guys can
keep more of their money, which they need very badly just to live on.

So pick your pony. Clean energy or companies paying more in income
taxes.

Of course you do realise that the average guy is going to come out
about the same. They can have more money after taxes but with GE
paying more income taxes, they will raise the price of electric
generators and the power companies will raise their rates. The same
with groceries , autos, gasoline , medicine etc.

Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

Dan


Hawke

On 11/21/2011 5:38 AM, John B. wrote:

As for myself, yes it's true that I do not have to be employed to live.
I would prefer to but in this economy the jobs just aren't there that I
would be doing if the economy was doing well. So for now I am living on
what comes in from investments. That's what I was shooting for all along
but unfortunately due to the recession and market drop in value I'm not
taking in anything near what the 1% are. It's enough to live on but not
enough to live like a king, that's for sure. So as usual nothing is as
one would like it to be.

Hawke

It is not a matter of how much your investments return.

I was saying, and you are confirming, that you did exactly as the
lower half of the top 1% have done. You worked and invested and now
you are secure. So, you are condemning people who did exactly as you
did and were either harder working or luckier then you and have a few
more quid. So, should you be assessed higher taxes simply because you
worked your butt off?

I'm not condemning anyone for making a lot of money unless they did it
unethically. I believe we all set out to work to make enough so that we
can retire and not still have to work to live. So whether I am there or
not is irrelevant as far as what I think is right. If I am barely making
it from what I have put away then I should not be taxed heavily. If I
made a fortune from my investments than be my guest and tax me at 50 or
75 percent of what I bring in. As long as my lifestyle is still lavish I
would not care how much I am paying in taxes. You pay according to your
ability to handle the burden. I believe that is a fair system.

And if not, why should others who only did as you did be penalized?

Paying high taxes is not a penalty of any kind. It's actually just what
goes along with making huge sums of money. You make a lot you are
obligated to pay in a lot too. Would you rather have the alternative?
You don't pay in much because you have very little? Not me. Tax me but
let me make a lot so I have plenty left over.


As for your "soak the rich" thesis, post your net worth and I can find
a hundred people who have less and would agree that your taxes should
be higher. So that certainly isn't a valid notion.

Just because you can find a number of people to go along with you
doesn't make them right. You can find plenty of jealous people. Instead
find a lot of objective people and ask them what's fair. Most would
agree with the theories of taxation we've had for the last 100 years or
so, if they know anything.


But to be more specific, why should Steve Jobs, for example, be
penalized because he started a company in the garage and guided and
goaded it into becoming a real money spinner?

Because as he goes from a kid fooling around in his garage and making
very little money to a rich businessman to ultra rich his ability to pay
increases and so does his tax bill. As you notice, even though you would
expect Jobs to have paid high taxes over the years he still became
fabulously rich, didn't he? So the high taxes didn't keep him from being
a billionaire. So I guess they weren't that high after all.



He already pays more dollars then most, why should the percentage of
tax he pays be higher then your's, for example? Solely because he has
more? The Robin Hood theory - take from the rich and give to the poor?

He should pay more because his ability to pay more is greater. You go on
a packing trip with your family and do you make up all the packs to be
of equal weight even though you have women and children with you? No you
don't. You figure how much each person can comfortably manage and you
give them a pack that they can handle. It's the same idea with the
taxes. People pay according to how much they can handle.



Ultimately, of course, your philosophy would result in a nation with
no one having more then the common herd, sort of a "dummying down" of
the financial system to match the dummying down of the education
system (which is now rated lower then Poland - so no more dumb Pollack
jokes). A noble purpose that, the creation of a poor. dumb, nation.


You would like to think that is what it would be like but you would be
wrong. We are not looking to make a system where everything is equal. We
want one where everything is fair though. That means we will have all
classes of people but we want most to be middle class with a small
number of poor and a small number of rich. We want most people to be
prosperous and have good lives but not to have very many living like
sultans or in poverty.

We just spent 30 years helping the upper class in the goofy notion that
if you make it better for them it will help all. We now know better than
that. So I say for the next 30 years we help the middle and lower
classes regain a stronger financial position and my bet is that by
helping the middle class you actually will help all the other classes as
well. That means taxing the top earners a lot more and lowering the tax
burden on everyone else. That alone will flatten out the inequality
curve that has gotten so out of whack over the last 3 decades. Much as
you dislike my methods they will work and they will make a better
country for most people. To me that's what I call fair. Not making a
country better for the top 300,000 people.

Hawke

On 11/20/2011 2:40 PM, wrote:
On Nov 20, 9:08 pm, wrote:
On 11/19/2011 4:34 PM, wrote:

On Nov 19, 4:52 pm, wrote:


So do you believe that companies should pay U.S. income taxes on
profits that are made outside the U.S.?

I haven't given that question much thought so I'm not sure where I stand
on that. But off the top of my head it seems fair that if a company is
an "American" company then they should pay some portion of taxes in
their home country no matter were they earn their profits.

Not a problem. Just expect a lot of companies to quit being "
American " companies. Well maybe they would still be American
companies, but Canadian companies instead of U.S. companies.

That's okay. Any company that isn't American can expect to have not so
good terms for doing business in this country. Our companies would find
it advantageous to remain American.


I don't think that's right. I think those businesses should be paying
much closer to 30% of all the taxes to the treasury. I also find it
amusing that the average guy, who is paying for everything in this
country doesn't seem to mind that he's paying a lot of taxes and huge
corporations pay none. I find that ironic to say the least.

So do you believe that companies ought to not follow the U. S. tax
code? That is, if Congress says it wants to encourage green energy
sources such as wind power and provides tax incentives to do so, that
G.E. should not build generators for wind mills.

I expect that only a few companies in a few specific industries would be
getting special treatment because the government wants to see certain
kinds of businesses thrive. So of course there would be a few companies
getting special treatment but the bulk would not.



As I said in my last post I am using GE as a symbol for corporations
making lots of money and paying nothing in taxes while the little guy
pays a third of his income in taxes. My point is that unfairness of that
situation. GE is getting specific tax credits and breaks for things the
government is encouraging it to do. I'm all for that. But we have the
same thing to a certain extent going on with almost all companies. They
are all getting breaks so they can avoid paying taxes while the regular
guy gets none of that and pays a high percentage of what he makes.
That's not fair.

But you said you had investments in a lot of companies and read the
Annual reports.

Yes, that's true.


Okay here is one. Nordstrom earned 991 million dollars before taxes.
They paid 378 million in income taxes. I calculate that as just over
38 %. Of course they paid other taxes too as real estate taxes.

Any way you slice it Nordstroms is a very good company and very
profitable. They sell to Americans so they have to pay most of their
taxes here. They may be one of the few companies that has a high tax
burden. But then so do the competitors in their industry. It's fair.
They make good profits. We don't know how much they make according to
what they are worth. Too bad we can't get all companies to pay this
much. If we could then we could think about lowering all their rates but
as we know most corporations are paying no income taxes.



I find it ironic that you want the government to encourage green
energy, but you then are upset that G.E. accepts the tax credits for
building generators for wind power. Make up your mind on what you
want.

I'm not bothered by what seems contradictory. This is a unique case
where the country wants companies to take risks in the energy sector. We
need the energy and it's worth it to take some risk trying to get ahead
in this field. Most companies don't get this kind of favorable
treatment. Other larger factors are at play so it's fine what they are
doing.


What I want is clear. I want corporations in general to pay a lot more
of the tax revenues for the country. I want the government to encourage
clean energy. I know that the companies that participate in these
programs get tax breaks. But way too many companies are getting way too
many breaks. Companies need to pay a lot more so that average guys can
keep more of their money, which they need very badly just to live on.

So pick your pony. Clean energy or companies paying more in income
taxes.

I pick both. I want clean energy and I want corporations to pay at least
25% of the country's tax revenues. They used to and we'd be fine if they
still did. More ordinary people would have more money to spend and the
economy would be more vibrant.



Of course you do realise that the average guy is going to come out
about the same. They can have more money after taxes but with GE
paying more income taxes, they will raise the price of electric
generators and the power companies will raise their rates. The same
with groceries , autos, gasoline , medicine etc.

It won't be one of one. Some prices may go up but over all the amount of
extra money most people would have would make a big difference in
economic activity.



Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

All I can say is things would be a lot better for a lot more people if
we did what I recommend. We tried what the republicans recommended back
in the first seven years of this century. It didn't work. Now it's my
turn. I'm sure my ideas will produce better results than the ones those
people tried.

Hawke

On Nov 22, 12:40*am, Hawke wrote:

You are a true believer. No matter what evidence is presented to
you , you do not change your opinions.

That's okay. Any company that isn't American can expect to have not so
good terms for doing business in this country. Our companies would find
it advantageous to remain American.


So much for equal under the law.



As I said in my last post I am using GE as a symbol for corporations
making lots of money and paying nothing in taxes while the little guy
pays a third of his income in taxes. My point is that unfairness of that
situation. GE is getting specific tax credits and breaks for things the
government is encouraging it to do. I'm all for that. But we have the
same thing to a certain extent going on with almost all companies. They
are all getting breaks so they can avoid paying taxes while the regular
guy gets none of that and pays a high percentage of what he makes.
That's not fair.

Congress created this. They think it is fair. The tax deductions
corporations use are all created because Congress thought they were
fair. And if you examine each one, you would probably agree. And
then bitch about the result.


Any way you slice it Nordstroms is a very good company and very
profitable. They sell to Americans so they have to pay most of their
taxes here. They may be one of the few companies that has a high tax
burden. But then so do the competitors in their industry. It's fair.
They make good profits. We don't know how much they make according to
what they are worth. Too bad we can't get all companies to pay this
much. If we could then we could think about lowering all their rates but
as we know most corporations are paying no income taxes.


But we know no such thing. You claim that most corporation are paying
almost no income tax. But the actual facts are different.


I'm not bothered by what seems contradictory. This is a unique case
where the country wants companies to take risks in the energy sector. We
need the energy and it's worth it to take some risk trying to get ahead
in this field. Most companies don't get this kind of favorable
treatment. Other larger factors are at play so it's fine what they are
doing.


No you are never bothered by facts.



So pick your pony. *Clean energy or companies paying more in income
taxes.

I pick both. I want clean energy and I want corporations to pay at least
25% of the country's tax revenues. They used to and we'd be fine if they
still did. More ordinary people would have more money to spend and the
economy would be more vibrant.

Ah, but you can not pick both. The each option excludes the other.


Of course you do realise that the average guy is going to come out
about the same. *They *can have more money after taxes but with GE
paying more income taxes, they will raise the price of electric
generators and the power companies will raise their rates. *The same
with groceries , autos, gasoline , medicine etc.

It won't be one of one. Some prices may go up but over all the amount of
extra money most people would have would make a big difference in
economic activity.


Right. High corporate taxes are a regressive form of tax. It all
gets passed on and the little guy pays a lot more of what he earns.


Be careful what you ask for. *You might get it.

All I can say is things would be a lot better for a lot more people if
we did what I recommend. We tried what the republicans recommended back
in the first seven years of this century. It didn't work. Now it's my
turn. I'm sure my ideas will produce better results than the ones those
people tried.

Of course you believe your ideas are great. However Congress has
considered them and thinks your ideas are not good.

Dan



Hawke

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 04:38:16 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 22, 12:40*am, Hawke wrote:

You are a true believer. No matter what evidence is presented to
you , you do not change your opinions.

Wasnt he bitching about the Right doing that in another thread?

You will recognize it...I commented on it......chuckle.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On 11/22/2011 4:38 AM, wrote:
On Nov 22, 12:40 am, wrote:

You are a true believer. No matter what evidence is presented to
you , you do not change your opinions.

As soon as you present compelling evidence that what I say is wrong then
I'll quickly change my tune. But that's the catch. You have to present
"compelling" evidence to get me to change my view. Since my view is
based on facts that means you are going to have a hell of a time proving
me wrong. I'm still waiting to see you to do it even once.



That's okay. Any company that isn't American can expect to have not so
good terms for doing business in this country. Our companies would find
it advantageous to remain American.


So much for equal under the law.


Equal treatment under the law is a legal term with specific meanings.
When it comes to things that are matters related to economics it's a
different story because it's commercial. You will find that commercial
interests are not treated the same as others. For example, in the law
commercial speech isn't treated the same as the free speech of
individuals. But that's not equal treatment under the law is it?
Commercial speech isn't given the same weight as individuals' speech.
Sorry Bro, but that is what equal "under the law" means. Everything
isn't treated as if it's the same.



As I said in my last post I am using GE as a symbol for corporations
making lots of money and paying nothing in taxes while the little guy
pays a third of his income in taxes. My point is that unfairness of that
situation. GE is getting specific tax credits and breaks for things the
government is encouraging it to do. I'm all for that. But we have the
same thing to a certain extent going on with almost all companies. They
are all getting breaks so they can avoid paying taxes while the regular
guy gets none of that and pays a high percentage of what he makes.
That's not fair.

Congress created this. They think it is fair. The tax deductions
corporations use are all created because Congress thought they were
fair. And if you examine each one, you would probably agree. And
then bitch about the result.

Congress creates this, that's true. But they do that because of the
pressure exerted on them by business lobbying. In 1986 Reagan cleaned
out almost all the tax breaks for business and lowered the overall
corporate tax rate but they have been incrementally working their way
back in. They do that because lobbyists keep hounding congress to give
their special interest a break. Congress needs to say no. It's just not
fair or ethical for anyone to get special treatment because they are
bribing our lawmakers to get it, and that is what we have now.


Any way you slice it Nordstroms is a very good company and very
profitable. They sell to Americans so they have to pay most of their
taxes here. They may be one of the few companies that has a high tax
burden. But then so do the competitors in their industry. It's fair.
They make good profits. We don't know how much they make according to
what they are worth. Too bad we can't get all companies to pay this
much. If we could then we could think about lowering all their rates but
as we know most corporations are paying no income taxes.


But we know no such thing. You claim that most corporation are paying
almost no income tax. But the actual facts are different.

One thing we do know is that most corporations are not paying anything
near 35%. The real rate is less than 18%. That data comes from the NY
Times and says.

A comprehensive study released on Thursday found that 280 of the biggest
publicly traded American companies faced federal income tax bills equal to
18.5 percent of their profits during the last three years — little more than
half the official corporate rate of 35 percent and lower than their
competitors
in many industrialized countries.

That's a quote from a NY Times article. So you see, I'm not just blowing
smoke. This is a fact. The real tax rate for most American corporations
is on the low end of the scale compared to other countries. As I've said
before, our companies are lying. They pay low taxes already and
constantly whine their taxes need to be cut. What more do I need to say?
Looks to me like you're the one who never changes his mind despite the
facts proving you wrong.


I'm not bothered by what seems contradictory. This is a unique case
where the country wants companies to take risks in the energy sector. We
need the energy and it's worth it to take some risk trying to get ahead
in this field. Most companies don't get this kind of favorable
treatment. Other larger factors are at play so it's fine what they are
doing.


No you are never bothered by facts.

Why would I be? They're always on my side. I don't argue a position
without facts. I don't hold views just because I like the sound of them.
I have the facts first, then I form an opinion. I know that's real
unusual for people around here but that is how I do it. I get the facts
first and then proceed from there.



So pick your pony. Clean energy or companies paying more in income
taxes.

I pick both. I want clean energy and I want corporations to pay at least
25% of the country's tax revenues. They used to and we'd be fine if they
still did. More ordinary people would have more money to spend and the
economy would be more vibrant.

Ah, but you can not pick both. The each option excludes the other.

No it doesn't. It simply assumes that we can choose to have a clean
environment or a dirty one. We can have a prosperous country either way.
EPA has been around for 40 years now and you tell me how has American
business done in that period? I'd say very well, thanks, and that
includes being required to produce products without polluting the ****
out of the country. So it can be done. But the government has to make
business do what is right most of the time. Generally business does
whatever is easiest and doesn't worry about the consequences. Just like
when it cut down all the forests before realizing that wasn't a good
idea. Without conservationists like TR what would business have done to
the environment?


Of course you do realise that the average guy is going to come out
about the same. They can have more money after taxes but with GE
paying more income taxes, they will raise the price of electric
generators and the power companies will raise their rates. The same
with groceries , autos, gasoline , medicine etc.

It won't be one of one. Some prices may go up but over all the amount of
extra money most people would have would make a big difference in
economic activity.


Right. High corporate taxes are a regressive form of tax. It all
gets passed on and the little guy pays a lot more of what he earns.

But it only applies to what you buy. The less you buy the lower your
tax, and it doesn't all get passed on to the consumer. So you can decide
how much tax you want to pay by deciding how much you want to consume.



Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

All I can say is things would be a lot better for a lot more people if
we did what I recommend. We tried what the republicans recommended back
in the first seven years of this century. It didn't work. Now it's my
turn. I'm sure my ideas will produce better results than the ones those
people tried.

Of course you believe your ideas are great. However Congress has
considered them and thinks your ideas are not good.


Not only did congress consider my ideas they put them in place. Just
look at what happened when Clinton passed his tax increases. Revenue
went up, the budget got balanced, the debt was being paid off, business
boomed. All this was not supposed to happen according to the republicans
who predicted dire things would happen if Clinton raised taxes.

So the country has done a lot of what I call for and the record is
clear, it worked far better than the methods the republican's call for.
The problem is we've been playing by the right wing rule book for
decades and look at what has happened. I say throw that book in the
trash and start doing the things I say will work and have worked when
allowed to be used.

Hawke

On 11/21/2011 5:38 AM, John B. wrote:

Nothing is wrong with a company making billions in profits. But that's
as long as they pay a fair share into the treasury. When they pay none
at all it's kind of hard to see it as fair. Simply because they come out
owing nothing due to the peculiarities of the tax code doesn't mean
that's fair. What if the tax code itself is unfair? You can be following
the rules perfectly but that doesn't' mean what you are doing is fair.

You have a strange viewpoint. The federal government says pay this
amount and a company pays it and you then say that it isn't fair.....

Right. Because that company paid someone to go to Washington and stay
there every day and try to get the government to give them breaks that
the rest of us can't ever get. That company has tremendous power to
influence the government to do it's bidding. We've seen examples of this
for 100 years. First it was the shipping industry and timber, then it
was the railroads, and then oil. All of them used their power to get
what they wanted from the government. So when the government asks for a
pittance from them you know that's not the same kind of deal you or I get.


To be frank this sounds very like the people who smoke pot and say,
pot isn't as much of a health risk as drinking whiskey and then say it
isn't fair when they get arrested...

That does sound unfair alright. Whiskey is a lot worse for your health
than pot and you don't get arrested for using it. Do you think the
people who make whiskey have a better lobby than the pot smokers do?




By the way, do you take all the deductions that the tax department
allows you? Or do you say, "Oh well, did pretty well on the
securities this year", and mail the government 30%?

I do, but as a little guy I'm not able to get what the big guys do. I'm
only asking to pay what is fair for what one's economic position is.
People making under 50K a year should pay very little in taxes. How can
they live if they are giving up 10K or more of that money when you
consider how much it costs just to live? Compare that to someone making
ten million who gives up seven in taxes but has three million a year to
live on. You don't see the difference?



I don't think that's right. I think those businesses should be paying
much closer to 30% of all the taxes to the treasury. I also find it
amusing that the average guy, who is paying for everything in this
country doesn't seem to mind that he's paying a lot of taxes and huge
corporations pay none. I find that ironic to say the least.

Hawke

Of course, and people who can afford to hire Tax consultants to
structure their lives also pay less tax then average. Should we shoot
all the H&R Block accountants.

No, but they shouldn't be able to find ways to make it where lots of
money can be made without owing any tax debt, unless it's a special deal
the government is trying to foster.

Hawke, the government makes certain regulations and specify what, in
certain circumstances, you must do. Why do you say that obeying these
regulations and doing exactly what the government specifies is unfair?

Because it all depends on what part of the government you are dealing
with. If you have to obey traffic laws or follow building codes or
things like that then the government is pretty darn fair. You won't see
you getting special treatment on your building permits and I don't. So
for most areas of the government the regulations are applied equally.
When you get into other areas, especially where big, powerful entities
are involved, and with specific agencies, then you see the unfairness.



The point is that following U.S Government laws and regulations is not
a sin and damning a corporation for doing so is simply ridiculous,
isn't it.

It's when the government and the corporation collude with each other and
it harms the majority of citizens that you have a problem. I see a
problem. One privileged group is making out like bandits and the
majority are eating it.

There you go again. But if I'm not mistaken you have a wife and I
assume that when you file your income tax you take the married
deduction and I'm equally sure that a single guy would say that since
you are paying less tax then he does it is unfair.

No wife. Single, white male so it doesn't apply to me. But this issue
has been argued many times and there is a specific argument why married
people pay more. I don't recall what the justification is but I know a
lot of people think it's fair and a lot disagree. I couldn't tell you
one way or the other on this but a lot of times this is how it goes. One
person thinks one thing is fair and the other disagrees.


But more to the point referring to your collusion theory. the last
company I worked for was established in 1975 and thus couldn't
possibly colluded with anyone before that date. However they did file
their taxes in strict accordance with the tax code applicable to their
company and any changes to the code that occurred after the company
was formed. Are they guilty of some crime?

Probably not. Most companies comply with the tax code. Everyone tries to
pay as little as possible. The question is does the government treat us
all fairly. I don't think so and I think the powerful have gotten a
better deal. Is the company you refer to one of them? I don't know.



To put another light on your statement, taxing a company 30% implies
that the company will not have as high profits after tax as
previously, and what is the easiest cost to cut? Usually people, so
increasing taxes may well result in a reduction in available jobs, and
even possibly a reduction, however infinitesimal, in the tax paid. Not
to mention an added incentive to move off shore.

China has no problems like this. Business and the government don't
collude in China. In China the government tells business what to do and
they do it, or else. In our country way too often it works out just the
opposite, and it's been going on like this for quite a while not and
that is why there is so much inequality. Business and wealth have gotten
control over a lot of the government. That has caused a lot of misery
among ordinary Americans.

Don't be too sure about what the Chinese do. It is pretty much a new
ball game over there now. The people's Republic is now very much a
profit center. The Agricultural Bank of China recently had a US$22
billion initial public offering (IPO) - the world's largest, I
believe. Due you really think that the government is dictating to
these people?

Yeah! Do communist leaders rule? Yeah! The rulers give business a free
hand as much as they think it needs. But no more. And everybody knows
who's really the boss and it's the government that calls the tune not
the corporations. Just the opposite of what we have here.



Your claim that a big company should pay a higher percent of their
profits as tax then a company that does less business is simply
rewarding mediocrity. If you work hard and prosper the government
takes more of your money than taken from the drone who is too lazy to
work.

That is not how the market works. The harder working company makes more
than the lazy company. That's a crock. Plenty of companies that don't do
well work like dogs but just don't succeed that well. It's more about
the popularity of products than about hard work. I'd wager all the phone
companies work just as hard as Apple does when it comes to making and
selling phones. It's just that Apple's phones sell a lot better than
their competitors. Apple makes more than the other phone companies so
they pay more in taxes. I don't say their tax rate should be different
from their less prosperous competitors. I say corporate tax rates should
be higher than what working class citizens are paying.


Assuming that you are talking about the blue collar, working man, why
should the company he works for pay more tax then he does? After all
if it weren't for the company the bloke wouldn't even have a job. and
don't talk about how the company makes all the money on the back of
the poor working man. while it might once have been true but with the
advent of the labor unions it isn't true any more.

Because a company isn't a person and companies don't deserve the same
rights as a human being does. A company is just an artificial construct
for a group of people to accomplish some goal. You don't treat that kind
of thing the same as a human. So workers get special treatment compared
to businesses, at least according to me. That's probably backwards
according to any businessman but then I think their view is no humane.


After all Hawke, you have bragged about the fact that you have a
collage education and that you are financially secure, don't have to
work any more. Exactly the same description applies to people in the
bottom half of the top 1%. Collage education, worked hard, invested
their money, now financially secure through their own endeavors. Does
that mean that Hawke should pay more taxes?


If I make more money than they do then yes I should. But if I only
barely make ends meet off of my investments and someone else makes a lot
more from a wage paying job then who should pay more? In that case I say
it's about how high is your income not how did you come by it. If I make
30K a year from investments and the other guy makes 120K from his job
then he should pay the higher rate.

Hawke

But what about the people making minimum wages at McDonalds. Doesn't
your philosophy indicate that you should share with them? After all
you are one of the bloated plutocrats, living off interest instead of
earning your daily crust like an honest man. After all, if you have
municipal bonds in your portfolio you aren't even paying minimum tax
on those and those poor devils swabbing the floor there have to pay on
everything.


If the guy at McDonald's makes 20K a year in wages and I make 20K a year
in dividends and interest shouldn't we pay the same tax rate? I think
so. OTOH, if I make 2 million from my portfolio and he makes 20K then I
think I should be paying a much higher rate than he does. Even if you
take one of the two million I made in a year I can live great on a
million. If you take anything from the McDonald's guy you're really
depriving him of any kind of decent life. Personally, I would never do
that to those on the bottom of the ladder. That's why we pay different
rates.

Hawke

On Nov 22, 10:38*pm, Hawke wrote:

You are a true believer. *No matter what evidence is presented to
you , you do not change your opinions.

As soon as you present compelling evidence that what I say is wrong then
I'll quickly change my tune. But that's the catch. You have to present
"compelling" evidence to get me to change my view. Since my view is
based on facts that means you are going to have a hell of a time proving
me wrong. I'm still waiting to see you to do it even once.

I have done it more than once. But you just say that you really
meant something different from what you said.

I am not going to bother to reply to most of what you said. You are
indeed a true believer, which means you will not accept any compelling
evidence.

One thing we do know is that most corporations are not paying anything
near 35%. The real rate is less than 18%. That data comes from the NY
Times and says.

A comprehensive study released on Thursday found that 280 of the biggest
publicly traded American companies faced federal income tax bills equal to
18.5 percent of their profits during the last three years — little more than
half the official corporate rate of 35 percent and lower than their
competitors
in many industrialized countries.

That's a quote from a NY Times article. So you see, I'm not just blowing
smoke. This is a fact. The real tax rate for most American corporations
is on the low end of the scale compared to other countries. As I've said
before, our companies are lying. They pay low taxes already and
constantly whine their taxes need to be cut. What more do I need to say?
Looks to me like you're the one who never changes his mind despite the
facts proving you wrong.


The New York Times article is about 280 companies. The Wall Street
Journal no longer posts as many stock prices as it used to, but they
still post prices for 1000 corporations. And of course do not post
prices on privately held companies. There are many more companies
than 280. So you are blowing smoke when you then assume that is the
real tax rate for most companies.
So much for your facts.

Like I said, you are a true believer.

Dan




Hawke

On 11/23/2011 4:51 AM, wrote:
On Nov 22, 10:38 pm, wrote:

You are a true believer. No matter what evidence is presented to
you , you do not change your opinions.

As soon as you present compelling evidence that what I say is wrong then
I'll quickly change my tune. But that's the catch. You have to present
"compelling" evidence to get me to change my view. Since my view is
based on facts that means you are going to have a hell of a time proving
me wrong. I'm still waiting to see you to do it even once.

I have done it more than once. But you just say that you really
meant something different from what you said.

I am not going to bother to reply to most of what you said. You are
indeed a true believer, which means you will not accept any compelling
evidence.

One thing we do know is that most corporations are not paying anything
near 35%. The real rate is less than 18%. That data comes from the NY
Times and says.

A comprehensive study released on Thursday found that 280 of the biggest
publicly traded American companies faced federal income tax bills equal to
18.5 percent of their profits during the last three years — little more than
half the official corporate rate of 35 percent and lower than their
competitors
in many industrialized countries.

That's a quote from a NY Times article. So you see, I'm not just blowing
smoke. This is a fact. The real tax rate for most American corporations
is on the low end of the scale compared to other countries. As I've said
before, our companies are lying. They pay low taxes already and
constantly whine their taxes need to be cut. What more do I need to say?
Looks to me like you're the one who never changes his mind despite the
facts proving you wrong.


The New York Times article is about 280 companies. The Wall Street
Journal no longer posts as many stock prices as it used to, but they
still post prices for 1000 corporations. And of course do not post
prices on privately held companies. There are many more companies
than 280. So you are blowing smoke when you then assume that is the
real tax rate for most companies.
So much for your facts.

Like I said, you are a true believer.


In the facts, yes, I confess. But you miss the point as usual. Those 280
companies were not just any companies. They were from S&P 500. So they
are 280 of the biggest companies in the country not just any companies.
You are also making an assumption and a looney one too. I just gave you
the facts that of the 500 biggest companies over half are paying 18% in
taxes. Based on that fact that normal conclusion would be if they aren't
paying that much in taxes then the others probably aren't either. Yet
you are taking the opposite position. Which is if over half of the
biggest companies don't pay high taxes then all the other companies do?
You call that logical?

You also keep wanting me to do your research for you, which I refuse to
do any longer. I find facts and give them to you, then you deny them and
want citations for everything. Why aren't you familiar with the facts
yourself? How come you don't know what rate American companies are
really paying? How can you argue anything about their taxes when you
don't know what they are really paying? I tell you the truth and you
deny it. How about you look up what the "real" rate American
corporations are paying and tell me? Then I can ask you for the citation
and call you a liar until you show them. Until then you can be sure that
when I tell you something it's based on facts I came across not just
some rumor I heard some stranger telling his friend. I'm not Gummer.

Hawke

On Nov 25, 5:19*pm, Hawke wrote:




In the facts, yes, I confess. But you miss the point as usual. Those 280
companies were not just any companies. They were from S&P 500. So they
are 280 of the biggest companies in the country not just any companies.
You are also making an assumption and a looney one too. I just gave you
the facts that of the 500 biggest companies over half are paying 18% in
taxes. Based on that fact that normal conclusion would be if they aren't
paying that much in taxes then the others probably aren't either. Yet
you are taking the opposite position. Which is if over half of the
biggest companies don't pay high taxes then all the other companies do?
You call that logical?

Yes I do call that logical. The biggest corporations are much more
likely to be international companies with a lot of their profits from
overseas operations. The profits from overseas operations are not
subject to U.S. income tax until brought back to the states. So it is
extremely logical that the largest companies are not representative of
companies as a whole.


You also keep wanting me to do your research for you, which I refuse to
do any longer.

I keep wanting you to do some research and use real facts. When you
pull numbers out of your ass, I do want citations because I do not
feel you can find any evidence to your claims.

I find facts and give them to you, then you deny them and
want citations for everything. Why aren't you familiar with the facts
yourself? How come you don't know what rate American companies are
really paying?

Duh. You are the one making the claims. And when questioned you come
up with some junk research as basing all companies on being like the
biggest companies.

How can you argue anything about their taxes when you
don't know what they are really paying? I tell you the truth and you
deny it. How about you look up what the "real" rate American
corporations are paying and tell me? Then I can ask you for the citation
and call you a liar until you show them. Until then you can be sure that
when I tell you something it's based on facts I came across not just
some rumor I heard some stranger telling his friend. I'm not Gummer.

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

Dan


Hawke

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 08:13:50 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


How can you argue anything about their taxes when you
don't know what they are really paying? I tell you the truth and you
deny it. How about you look up what the "real" rate American
corporations are paying and tell me? Then I can ask you for the citation
and call you a liar until you show them. Until then you can be sure that
when I tell you something it's based on facts I came across not just
some rumor I heard some stranger telling his friend. I'm not Gummer.

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

Dan

Gunner ALWAYS provides cites and stats when asked to back up his
opinion.
Some of the Leftwingers may not like them..chuckle...as they are
generally from non-leftwing sources..but he always provides them.

Often times before being asked for them..in their faces..as it were.

VBG

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On 11/26/2011 8:13 AM, wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:19 pm, wrote:




In the facts, yes, I confess. But you miss the point as usual. Those 280
companies were not just any companies. They were from S&P 500. So they
are 280 of the biggest companies in the country not just any companies.
You are also making an assumption and a looney one too. I just gave you
the facts that of the 500 biggest companies over half are paying 18% in
taxes. Based on that fact that normal conclusion would be if they aren't
paying that much in taxes then the others probably aren't either. Yet
you are taking the opposite position. Which is if over half of the
biggest companies don't pay high taxes then all the other companies do?
You call that logical?

Yes I do call that logical. The biggest corporations are much more
likely to be international companies with a lot of their profits from
overseas operations. The profits from overseas operations are not
subject to U.S. income tax until brought back to the states. So it is
extremely logical that the largest companies are not representative of
companies as a whole.

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


You also keep wanting me to do your research for you, which I refuse to
do any longer.

I keep wanting you to do some research and use real facts. When you
pull numbers out of your ass, I do want citations because I do not
feel you can find any evidence to your claims.

I only give facts when I know they are facts. Just because I don't have
a citation every time I see a graph or chart on TV doesn't mean they are
not valid. I wouldn't give you something I didn't have a high degree of
confidence in. I don't do that.


I find facts and give them to you, then you deny them and
want citations for everything. Why aren't you familiar with the facts
yourself? How come you don't know what rate American companies are
really paying?

Duh. You are the one making the claims.

No, I'm not making claims. I am passing information on to you that you
don't have. If you did I wouldn't have to give it to you. If I see a
chart on the ED Show that shows what the recession, the wars, and the
tax cuts, has done to the economy or that wages in the U.S. have
remained steady since the 1970s you ought to believe it. I mean if you
can't even trust that I can see a chart on TV and tell you what it said
then you won't believe anything.


And when questioned you come
up with some junk research as basing all companies on being like the
biggest companies.

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


How can you argue anything about their taxes when you
don't know what they are really paying? I tell you the truth and you
deny it. How about you look up what the "real" rate American
corporations are paying and tell me? Then I can ask you for the citation
and call you a liar until you show them. Until then you can be sure that
when I tell you something it's based on facts I came across not just
some rumor I heard some stranger telling his friend. I'm not Gummer.

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


That's bull pucky.

Hawke

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

That's bull pucky.

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

Dan

Hawke

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:34:28 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


Hack doesn't need an education in statistics. He believes that
everyone else needs an education in statistics, but not himself,
because he's the Hack.



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

That's bull pucky.

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

Dan

Hawke

On 11/28/2011 10:34 AM, wrote:
On Nov 28, 12:11 am, wrote:

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


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

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




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

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

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




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

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


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

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



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

That's bull pucky.

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


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

Hawke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's bull pucky.

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

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

Hawke


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

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

Dan

On 11/30/2011 8:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:09:41 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 11/28/2011 10:34 AM, wrote:
On Nov 28, 12:11 am, wrote:

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


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

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


I suggest that most companies, and particularly the larger ones, pay
exactly as much tax as they are required to. The difference is that
they employ tax experts that structure the business in such a manner
so to take advantage of every bit of the federal tax regulations.

Yeah, I would agree with that. Big companies have whole sections that do
nothing but handle tax issues, so you know they will abide by the law,
but they will also find every legal way to pay only what they absolutely
have to.

Along with being big comes complexity too. Your corner gas station or
hamburger joint is pretty simple when it comes to figuring their taxes.
Depending on the kind of business some of them aren't able to find as
many loopholes as others can and have to pay a higher rate. It's all
across the board what everyone pays. The system could definitely use
some changes. Like with individuals, I would like to see the small
companies pay a lower rate than the big ones. I doubt it'll happen though.




However this is not a sin. I know individuals who do the same thing
(usually the wealthier ones) and structure their finances in such a
manner as to comply strictly with the US tax code.

You need money to take advantage of the tax code. But I don't see any
way to be critical of any company or person who is abiding by the
current law. If it isn't fair the blame is on the government for not
applying taxes in a fair way.



Investment in municipal bonds, for example, city, town or larger,
usually comes with a reduced tax burden - an incentive to invest in
your town or city. Many people invest in these securities to lower
their tax liability.

That's true but along with that lower tax rate comes a low return on
investment, usually 4% or less. With 2% inflation per year you are
barely making anything on those investments. So you get one benefit but
you give up another. People in high tax brackets benefit from this but
not a lot of others.




Of course you can apply punitive corporate taxes but the big companies
can equally well move parts of their business to more advantageous
areas. Ford has started building a factory in Thailand that they
stated would supply most of their world wide requirement for pickup
trucks...

Just what you would expect from a transnational corporation that has no
loyalty to any nation. You build where you can get labor that is as
close to slavery as possible, and environmental concern is virtually non
existent. That makes good business sense.



It may be a good idea to investigate whether high corporate taxes are
a deciding factor for a company to move their operations, and
employment, overseas.


It's costs in general. Maybe it's labor, maybe it's taxes, maybe it's
corruption, maybe it's crime, and maybe it's something else. But it
costs more to make things in some places than others. For a business
that has only one worry and that is making profits it goes where it can
build it's products the cheapest.

For a government that represents the interests of its people, it's
interest is a lot different from that of a corporation. The government
ostensibly has the welfare of the citizens as its top priority. So it's
easy to see that the goals of government and of business are mutually
exclusive. Any country that allows business to do what is best for it
and not for it's citizens doesn't deserve to stay in power. Because the
minute a country is run to benefit corporations instead of citizens it's
the citizens who are going to see their lives take a sharp turn for the
worst.

Just look at us. Our corporations have done remarkably well in the last
two years but the average citizen has seen his lot decline drastically.
For instance, on the radio yesterday I heard a pilot for American
Airlines say that his pay was the same now as it was in 1992. With
inflation that means it's really a lot less. That's typical of what has
happened to most Americans; meanwhile "our" corporations continue making
record profits.

Hawke