"Why do you have a right to your money?"
Boris Kapusta
wsne...@hotmail.com
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD809fp6i_0
Tea Party 1, Leftists 0
Chris.B
There are no winners. Every penny saved by government cutbacks has to
be spent on prisons and policing the next generation. By which time
the cutters are living in protected, offshore luxury and writing their
memoirs. The countries they screwed, in the name of personal greed and
ambition, are deeply into negative growth and withering away to a
living hell for all.
There are never any real savings to be made by governments. Only
redistribution of dwindling, national resources according to blind
dogma and believing their own propaganda. If you want the shops and
factories to close and services to fall apart, then you have your
personal vote. Just be very careful what you wish for. An ignorant,
uneducated, ice queen makes a damned poor puppet in a rapidly warming
environment. The stresses will cause deep cracks in society. With many
innocent citizens falling through without any kind of safety net.
Those who do manage to climb back up, from the darkness below, will
want revenge on their tormentors.
You cannot rebuild that which was never dreamt. Government's role is
to serve the people. Not to serve itself. If it wasn't for politics we
wouldn't need any damned politicians. They, and we, forget this at our
peril. By the time we get rid of them again the damage is already
done. It can take generations just to patch up the façade. The slums
behind the edifice will house your, and our, worst nightmares.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On 9 Mar., 03:06, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 8:49 pm, Boris Kapusta <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD809fp6i_0
>
> > Tea Party 1, Leftists 0
>
> There are no winners. Every penny saved by government cutbacks has to
> be spent on prisons and policing the next generation.
I heard that Harry Reid was complaining about the GOP wanting to cut
government funding for the "Cowboy Poetry Festival." Should we suppose
that if the cowboys didn't have this outlet for their creativity, they
will turn to a life of crime out of frustration?
> By which time
> the cutters are living in protected, offshore luxury and writing their
> memoirs.
That sounds more like what liberal politicians and celebs would do.
> The countries they screwed, in the name of personal greed and
> ambition, are deeply into negative growth and withering away to a
> living hell for all.
>
> There are never any real savings to be made by governments. Only
> redistribution of dwindling, national resources according to blind
> dogma and believing their own propaganda. If you want the shops and
> factories to close and services to fall apart, then you have your
> personal vote.
You mean like with cap and trade?
> Just be very careful what you wish for. An ignorant,
> uneducated, ice queen makes a damned poor puppet in a rapidly warming
> environment. The stresses will cause deep cracks in society. With many
> innocent citizens falling through without any kind of safety net.
> Those who do manage to climb back up, from the darkness below, will
> want revenge on their tormentors.
>
> You cannot rebuild that which was never dreamt. Government's role is
> to serve the people. Not to serve itself.
Tell that to the Democrats and other leftists around the world.
> If it wasn't for politics we
> wouldn't need any damned politicians.
If it wasn't for politicians, we would have much less politics, and a
more limited government.
> They, and we, forget this at our
> peril. By the time we get rid of them again the damage is already
> done.
We're trying to vote out the Democrats but only about one third of US
Senators are up for re-election in any given election year.
Shall not be infringed
> On Mar 9, 2:40 am, "Chris.B" <chri...@nypost.dk> wrote:
>
> > On 9 Mar., 03:06, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 8, 8:49 pm, Boris Kapusta <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD809fp6i_0
>
> > > Tea Party 1, Leftists 0
>
> > There are no winners. Every penny saved by government cutbacks has to
> > be spent on prisons and policing the next generation.
>
> I heard that Harry Reid was complaining about the GOP wanting to cut
> government funding for the "Cowboy Poetry Festival." Should we suppose
> that if the cowboys didn't have this outlet for their creativity, they
> will turn to a life of crime out of frustration?
I don't like Cowboys. They punch cows, and that's criminal.
yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
Good luck with that! Given that Kaisch, Scott, Paul (Rand and Ron),
Walker, Vitter, Blunt, Schmikus have all freely admitted for the
record that they have no intention of representing the people, but
rather the companies that bought and paid for them. Given that the so
called Tea Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Enterprises Inc
I doubt there will be much left of conservative (read selfish, self-
righteous welfare kings) party
F. George McDuffee
yourmommycalledandsaidbehave <yourmom...@gmail.com>
wrote:
=========
Another major problem is the age and senility of too many of
our politicians. It is critical that an age cap be enacted
for our elected and appointed officials, with mandatory
physical/mental evaluation of "fitness to serve" at least in
their later years, with alcohol and drug tests for all. The
situation now is far too critical to allow dodderers,
crackheads and sots to continue in positions of authority
and influence. [For the record I just turned 72.]
Not only are many of these politicians still living in a
world that long ago disappeared [or never was], they are
totally unable to grasp [or are in denial of] the enormous
geo-political, demographic, financial/fiscal and social
challenges to not only the US but the west.
-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
pyotr filipivich
yourmommycalledandsaidbehave <yourmom...@gmail.com> reported
Elvis on Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:42:17 -0800 (PST) in misc.survivalism:
>
>> We're trying to vote out the Democrats but only about one third of US
>> Senators are up for re-election in any given election year.
>
>Good luck with that! Given that Kaisch, Scott, Paul (Rand and Ron),
>Walker, Vitter, Blunt, Schmikus have all freely admitted for the
>record that they have no intention of representing the people, but
>rather the companies that bought and paid for them. Given that the so
>called Tea Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Enterprises Inc
>I doubt there will be much left of conservative (read selfish, self-
>righteous welfare kings) party
Given that you're a complete babbler of the DNC talking points,
why don't you go provide inspiration to the trees. Or the daisies, or
even the sand fleas.
--
pyotr filipivich
Just when you think you see the light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a 900lb gorilla with a flashlight!!
Rich Grise
>
> Good luck with that! Given that Kaisch, Scott, Paul (Rand and Ron),
> Walker, Vitter, Blunt, Schmikus have all freely admitted for the
> record that they have no intention of representing the people, but
> rather the companies that bought and paid for them.
"Given" by whom, exactly? Do you have any documentation of these
outrageous claims, or are you just blowing more socialistic propaganda
up our ass?
Thanks,
Rich
wsne...@hotmail.com
No, they punch dogies. Or is it doggies? Maybe some of both.
wsne...@hotmail.com
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/camp-j05.shtml
We'll just keep voting out the Dems and Rinos until we get a sane
Congress.
> Given that the so
> called Tea Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Enterprises Inc
> I doubt there will be much left of conservative (read selfish, self-
> righteous welfare kings) party
You might try listening to what the Tea Party is saying.
Hawke
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
> yourmommycalledandsaidbehave<yourmom...@gmail.com> reported
> Elvis on Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:42:17 -0800 (PST) in misc.survivalism:
>>
>>> We're trying to vote out the Democrats but only about one third of US
>>> Senators are up for re-election in any given election year.
>>
>> Good luck with that! Given that Kaisch, Scott, Paul (Rand and Ron),
>> Walker, Vitter, Blunt, Schmikus have all freely admitted for the
>> record that they have no intention of representing the people, but
>> rather the companies that bought and paid for them. Given that the so
>> called Tea Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Enterprises Inc
>> I doubt there will be much left of conservative (read selfish, self-
>> righteous welfare kings) party
>
> Given that you're a complete babbler of the DNC talking points,
> why don't you go provide inspiration to the trees. Or the daisies, or
> even the sand fleas.
Hey, good answer. Of course I noticed that you didn't respond to any of
the accusations made about the republica governors, the tea party, and
the Koch brothers actions. So I can only assume that you concur with
what was written about them not caring about the majority and being paid
off by the billionaire Koch brothers. Since it's all true.
Hawke
Hawke
We have and they don't make sense. All they have to offer is
libertarianism. They don't seem to know anything about the budget. All
they know is what they are told by their handlers, which is "we have to
cut spending". What they don't get is that they are the reason we're so
far in debt because they voted in republicans and they are the people
getting all the money from the government in entitlements. They also
don't know that the government is not taking in enough in tax revenue
because of all the tax cuts for business and the wealthy. That's why we
don't listen to them.
Hawke
yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
Give me a break! Are you living under a rock? Walker/Koch brothers
recording/transcript is all over the net, Shimkus's statement comes
from his opening statement during a committee meeting. Scott and West
have repeatedly made those statements to the press both after being
elected and during the election cycle.
yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
Yeah I guess you right I should have consider Solly Forell who made
threats against the president because he is black, or maybe you mean
the teaparty members who spit on members of congress, or maybe the
Springboro Ohio teaparty webpage, that makes threats against hispanics
or maybe Al Reynolds another teaparty/republican in Central Illinois
who left a conservative audience speechless with his racist comments.
Tom Gardner
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ilb788$ish$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Except for the fact that you've been caught in innumerable lies, hate-boy. But,
you're a fringe leftist, it's expected.
Tom Gardner
Another lie. >70% of tax breaks are for middle class. But that doesn't sound good to
you fringe leftists, so you lie.
Hawke
>> Hey, good answer. Of course I noticed that you didn't respond to any of the
>> accusations made about the republica governors, the tea party, and the Koch brothers
>> actions. So I can only assume that you concur with what was written about them not
>> caring about the majority and being paid off by the billionaire Koch brothers. Since
>> it's all true.
>>
>> Hawke
>>
>
> Except for the fact that you've been caught in innumerable lies, hate-boy. But,
> you're a fringe leftist, it's expected.
Nice try, but you can't find one lie by me, ever. Keep trying all you
want too but you'll never find one for the simple reason that there
aren't any. Try that with your right wing friends. Every other word from
them is a lie. You're not aware enough to notice though.
That's the problem with your side. You can't actually make a lucid
counter argument to what I say. So you no longer try anymore. It's just
right to the name calling like the post above. Not a word except
personal attacks. All that means is I win the argument...again.
Hawke
Shall not be infringed
Yeh. And punching cows and doggies isn't humane.
Outlaw Cowboy music and the country channels.
Hawke
>>> You might try listening to what the Tea Party is saying.
>>
>> We have and they don't make sense. All they have to offer is libertarianism. They
>> don't seem to know anything about the budget. All they know is what they are told by
>> their handlers, which is "we have to cut spending". What they don't get is that they
>> are the reason we're so far in debt because they voted in republicans and they are
>> the people getting all the money from the government in entitlements. They also
>> don't know that the government is not taking in enough in tax revenue because of all
>> the tax cuts for business and the wealthy. That's why we don't listen to them.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Another lie.>70% of tax breaks are for middle class. But that doesn't sound good to
> you fringe leftists, so you lie.
Scott Walker just put through 150 million in tax cuts for business in
his state. He is cutting the pay and benefits of state workers to make
up for it. Care to prove that's a lie? The other republican governors
are doing the same, passing tax cuts for business and raising taxes on
the middle class. Rick Scott of Florida just did that too. How about
proving me wrong on either one of those points.
Hawke
Shall not be infringed
Sure, raise taxes. Let's have another mass exodus of manufacturing
from our shores.
wsne...@hotmail.com
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_from_America
Then tell us what your problem is.
wsne...@hotmail.com
But country music has some really great lyrics.
John R. Carroll
Especially if you play them backwards...
You get your job, trailer, car, wife, kids and everything else back.
--
John R. Carroll
Shall not be infringed
David Allen Coe was drunk the day his mom got out of prison...
wsne...@hotmail.com
http://www.lyrics007.com/Brad%20Paisley%20Lyrics/I'm%20Gonna%20Miss%20Her%20Lyrics.html
John R. Carroll
OK,
Leave out the wife thing.
LOL
In the mean time, it's off to the ER..................
--
John R. Carroll
Harold & Susan Vordos
<wsne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:58eb6696-fa47-4f43...@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
snip--
But country music has some really great lyrics.
Surely----you jest!
Harold
wsne...@hotmail.com
> <wsnel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Here's a song you two can enjoy together:
http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/byrd-tracy/the-truth-about-men-2714.html
yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
Let's pick one stupid shall we?
Let's try the "Reduce taxes" Nice words, but what do they mean? If you
reduce taxes YOU MUST REDUCE SERVICES, something you libertarians/
conservative/gap-toothed morons do nto accept. If you really mean
reduce services (and you don't) do you mean you don't want to pay for
a military-industrial complex which accounts for 22% of spending
(Don't give me your bullshit about social security and medicare being
larger, there is a separate line item tax that pays for ALL OF social
security and medicares CURRENT AND FUTURE outlays) ? If you really
mean reduce services and you really mean the military-industrial
complex? Of course you don't that would mean Angle, Coburn and Demit's
primary source of income would dry up, that would mean KBR, Haliburton
and Blackwater wouldn't be able to carry suitcases filled with money
out of Afghanistan and into their private Bahamian banks If a US Army
Sergeant can walk out country with $400,000 in a suitcase then
Blackwater which has it's own planes and is more organized IS carry
billions out of country. Do you want to put the two wars back on the
books, so we know what the real cost is (The process is known as full
cost accounting) .
What you gap-toothed morons mean is cut spending on US infrastructure
and social services. You THINK you "lifted yourself by your own
bootstraps" that you don't need the "gobuerments help" What you
libertarians/conservative/gap-toothed morons don't get is that the
teaparty IS NOT A GRASS ROOTS organization it is an ASTROTURF group
You've been had by the likes Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, Dick Armey
and Rick Scott. Of course Rick Scott wants to repeal the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, because then he could go back to
stealing money from Medicare. Yes Rick Scott played an important role
in forming the teaparty AND HE WAS FORCED TO RESIGN AS CEO of
Columbia/HCA amid a scandal over the company's business and Medicare
billing practices; the company ultimately admitted to fourteen
felonies and agreed to pay the federal government over $600 million.
Curly Surmudgeon
Do not include libertarians in that broad brush stroke.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irony defined: http://www.fox.com/lietome/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawke
No, let's do it your way. Cut the shit out of the taxes on business and
raise them on the poor and middle class. Help the ones who need no help
and take from those who have the least. Yep, that's your idea of fair.
Too bad you will never get most people to agree with anything that dumb.
The only fair way is to take more from those who have plenty. That's
really crazy to someone like you isn't it? But then you don't think like
a normal person.
Hawke
F. George McDuffee
<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> Sure, raise taxes. Let's have another mass exodus of manufacturing
>> from our shores.
>
>
>No, let's do it your way. Cut the shit out of the taxes on business and
>raise them on the poor and middle class. Help the ones who need no help
>and take from those who have the least. Yep, that's your idea of fair.
>Too bad you will never get most people to agree with anything that dumb.
>The only fair way is to take more from those who have plenty. That's
>really crazy to someone like you isn't it? But then you don't think like
>a normal person.
More smoke -- more heat -- less light.
It is a well proven axiom that you will catch far more flies
with honey than you will with vinegar...
Rather than simply engaging in ad hominem attacks and
playground name calling, why don't you look up the available
date and present this here.
A large number of countries have implemented or maintained
very low taxes on their large corporations and high net
worth individuals. It is worth while to examine their
metrics such as growth in individual per capita income,
infant mortality, longevity/mortality/morbidity, crime rates
etc. to see how these compare to the other nations, and if
this is what we want here.
While the US corporate income tax rate is indeed high at
35%, operationally when measured as the actual amount of
taxes paid as a percent of claimed income the U.S. rates are
among the lowest in the world. The fraction of the U.S.
federal budget paid by all corporate taxes such as income,
excise, and several others is at the lowest point in 50
years. The operational tax rate paid by the typical
American high net worth/income individual is now about 18%
of declared income, which is less than the operational rates
for much lower paid employees. The disparity is even
greater when the effects of other regressive taxes such as
sales are considered in that the lower income individuals
must spend almost all of their income on items subject to
the sales taxes.
The desire to return to an earlier and simpler world is very
understandable, but this is impossible as this world no
longer exists. Like the old south in Mitchell's book, its
"Gone With The Wind."
The foundational problem, as I suggested in another posting,
is that the current system of taxation relies on a number of
assumptions/myths such as an expanding, largely autarikic,
domestic economy based on heavy industry with extensive
capital investment, mass production, with high and
increasing individual earnings. As all of us are aware,
with the possible exception of our elected officials career
governmental administrators, and educators, these
assumptions/myths about the economy are increasingly
incorrect, and therefore the tax system based on these is
increasingly inefficient.
Rather than wasting time calling each other names, let's do
something useful such as making some suggestions to either
reduce unnecessary expenditures on nonproductive, minimally
effective, or duplicate governmental efforts or create a
more fair and efficient tax system, with some date to
support your position. If these suggestions seem
reasonable, then send to your Congresspeople.
Remember -- taxes are the cover charge we pay to live/work
in a country. Living in a "nice place" always costs more
than living in a dump ...
-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
dca...@krl.org
associates.us> wrote:
> While the US corporate income tax rate is indeed high at
> 35%, operationally when measured as the actual amount of
> taxes paid as a percent of claimed income the U.S. rates are
> among the lowest in the world.
> -- Unka George (George McDuffee)
Kind of a minor nit, but the corporate income tax is not low for all
corporations. Some corporations pay little or no corporate income
tax, but others actually pay a good deal. The other thing that is
hardly talked about is the cost of complying with the corporate income
taxes.
The total effect is the actual corporate income tax paid plus the cost
of filing the corporate income taxes.
Dan
technomaNge
Please!
(about aging)
And the hang overs hurt more then they used to
And corn bread and ice tea took the place of pills and ninety-proof.
technomaNge
--
technomaNge
-snip good information-
George,
Hawkie is a brain dead liberal, parroting what
his managers decree.
Thank you for the intelligent comments, but you
are wasting your time and efforts.
Just killfile his sorry ass.
technomaNge
--
Michael A. Terrell
I always liked cornbread, but I prefer Mt. Dew to iced tea. :)
--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.
Shall not be infringed
No, let's do it your way. The tried and true way of impoverishing
America.
> Cut the shit out of the taxes on business and
> raise them on the poor and middle class.
My taxes are down. We need to cut the shit out of gov't spending.
> Help the ones who need no help
> and take from those who have the least.
We've had help programs since FDR. They've just made more and more
people dependant on the gov't.
> Yep, that's your idea of fair.
"Equal before the law" is my idea of fair.
> Too bad you will never get most people to agree with anything that dumb.
Taking unequally is called stealing.
> The only fair way is to take more from those who have plenty.
Do you even know the meaning of fair?
> That's
> really crazy to someone like you isn't it? But then you don't think like
> a normal person.
I "think." You "feel."
jim
Shall not be infringed wrote:
>
> My taxes are down. We need to cut the shit out of gov't spending.
Why?
Do you have any clue why you want reduced govt. spending?
>
> > Help the ones who need no help
> > and take from those who have the least.
>
> We've had help programs since FDR. They've just made more and more
> people dependant on the gov't.
Using that logic:
we should get rid of cars, electricity, television, computers etc. etc.
All those things make people
more and more dependent on them
>
> > Yep, that's your idea of fair.
>
> "Equal before the law" is my idea of fair.
And that ties in to govt spending - How?
Are you saying govt spending
is violating some law?
>
> > Too bad you will never get most people to agree with anything that dumb.
>
> Taking unequally is called stealing.
You can call anything whatever you want.
Taking equally is often called "Communism"
But so what? Calling govt spending stealing
will not jibe with average person's understanding
and therefore not communicate much of anything
-jim
Shall not be infringed
> Shall not be infringed wrote:
>
>
>
> > My taxes are down. We need to cut the shit out of gov't spending.
>
> Why?
> Do you have any clue why you want reduced govt. spending?
Yes. We're broke.
> > > Help the ones who need no help
> > > and take from those who have the least.
>
> > We've had help programs since FDR. They've just made more and more
> > people dependant on the gov't.
>
> Using that logic:
> we should get rid of cars, electricity, television, computers etc. etc.
> All those things make people
> more and more dependent on them
Did the gov't take money from me to give to you for your car,
electricity, TV, puter, etc, etc?
If so we should get rid of your car, electricity, TV, puter, etc, etc.
> > > Yep, that's your idea of fair.
>
> > "Equal before the law" is my idea of fair.
>
> And that ties in to govt spending - How?
It ties into the unequal taxing that you were talking about.
> Are you saying govt spending
> is violating some law?
If only we had a balanced budget amendment...
> > > Too bad you will never get most people to agree with anything that dumb.
>
> > Taking unequally is called stealing.
>
> You can call anything whatever you want.
> Taking equally is often called "Communism"
Equality before the law is communism?
> But so what? Calling govt spending stealing
> will not jibe with average person's understanding
> and therefore not communicate much of anything
OK. I've never thought that everyone had to agree with me.
jim
Shall not be infringed wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 10:58 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> > Shall not be infringed wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > My taxes are down. We need to cut the shit out of gov't spending.
> >
> > Why?
> > Do you have any clue why you want reduced govt. spending?
>
> Yes. We're broke.
And you believe this because.....?
If I have 80 million in assets and a 3 million a year in income.
How much debt do I need to be broke?
Some people say the government
should treat debt like households do
but if you actually examine the average US households debt
that means the government should have
a lot more debt than it does.
>
> > > > Help the ones who need no help
> > > > and take from those who have the least.
> >
> > > We've had help programs since FDR. They've just made more and more
> > > people dependant on the gov't.
> >
> > Using that logic:
> > we should get rid of cars, electricity, television, computers etc. etc.
> > All those things make people
> > more and more dependent on them
>
> Did the gov't take money from me to give to you for your car,
> electricity, TV, puter, etc, etc?
What has that to do with your previous logic
about govt making people dependent
Are you are going to create
a completely different set of logic
and assumptions every time you respond ?
>
> If so we should get rid of your car, electricity, TV, puter, etc, etc.
If the govt helped us get out of the stone age
then we should all go back to the stone age?
And do you expect others to follow this course willingly?
simply to satisfy your animus for govt?
>
> > > > Yep, that's your idea of fair.
> >
> > > "Equal before the law" is my idea of fair.
> >
> > And that ties in to govt spending - How?
>
> It ties into the unequal taxing that you were talking about.
I thought we were talking about spending
You already conceded taxes were at record lows
>
> > Are you saying govt spending
> > is violating some law?
>
> If only we had a balanced budget amendment...
That was the question - why do we need that?
>
> > > > Too bad you will never get most people to agree with anything that dumb.
> >
> > > Taking unequally is called stealing.
> >
> > You can call anything whatever you want.
> > Taking equally is often called "Communism"
>
> Equality before the law is communism?
It is a tenet of communism
You don't seriously believe that a
poor homeless guy who walks into a US court of law
gets treated the same as Bill Gates does?
he never has and never will
If you have figured out how to get
Equality before the law I'm all ears
>
> > But so what? Calling govt spending stealing
> > will not jibe with average person's understanding
> > and therefore not communicate much of anything
>
> OK. I've never thought that everyone had to agree with me.
So when you pronounce that
"we need to do XYZ"
You have no expectation
that the average person will pay attention
Perhaps the average guy would pay attention
if you could explain why
we need to do XYZ
Hawke
A nit indeed, as we are interested in the big picture here not the
little stuff, and the facts are the facts, which say in general U.S.
corporations pay a small amount in taxes compared to other countries.
This is in sharp contrast to how it was in the past. In the 1950s
American corporations' share of total tax revenue for the country was
nearly 35%.
It is now far less than that and the shortfall is picked up by the poor
and middle class or it's just added to our debt. So it is a lie that our
corporations are over burdened by taxes and can't compete with other
companies around the world. That's utter bullshit.
It is also not debatable that the tax burden has been lifted from both
corporations and the rich. In the 1950s the highest marginal tax rate
was over 90% and Eisenhower meant it to stay at that rate. It was
lowered to 70% by Kennedy and finally to only 28% by Reagan, only to be
raised back to 39% by Clinton. With the rich now paying only 34% and our
corporations paying on average some of the lowest tax rates in the world
who is left to foot the bill? Can't you tell? It's everybody else. All
the people who work for a living are paying through the nose. This is
our beef. It's not fair. When even Warren Buffet says so you ought to
believe it. But then as long as someone is willing to accept the
propaganda from the corporate sector and the rich then you'll never see
anything wrong with the big fish not paying a fair share in taxes.
Hawke
John R. Carroll
> On Mar 12, 10:58 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>> Shall not be infringed wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> My taxes are down. We need to cut the shit out of gov't spending.
>>
>> Why?
>> Do you have any clue why you want reduced govt. spending?
>
> Yes. We're broke.
American consumer net worth is $70 trillion dollars.
Public debt is $14 trillion dollars.
The unfunded liability of Social Security is ZERO by definition.
The only thing broke is your brain.
--
John R. Carroll
z
Hawke
Funny thing. I thought George and I are pretty much in agreement here.
Naturally you, being a member of the aristocratic class, think the
corporations and rich are being abused by over taxation. Oh, wait a
minute. You're not an aristocrat, are you? You're just a dumb working
class white man who wishes he was and hates his own kind because they're
losers. Didn't notice that at first.
Hawke
Hawke
>>>> We have and they don't make sense. All they have to offer is
>>>> libertarianism. They don't seem to know anything about the budget. All
>>>> they know is what they are told by their handlers, which is "we have to
>>>> cut spending". What they don't get is that they are the reason we're so
>>>> far in debt because they voted in republicans and they are the people
>>>> getting all the money from the government in entitlements. They also
>>>> don't know that the government is not taking in enough in tax revenue
>>>> because of all the tax cuts for business and the wealthy. That's why we
>>>> don't listen to them.
>>
>>> Sure, raise taxes. Let's have another mass exodus of manufacturing
>>> from our shores.
>>
>> No, let's do it your way.
>
> No, let's do it your way. The tried and true way of impoverishing
> America.
America has always done it your way. Let me understand you. You don't
think America is the top capitalistic economy in the world. You don't
think America is about the individual. You don't think America is pro
business. That's weird because to everyone else America is about
business, capitalism, free markets, and individualism. We've been on
that agenda since day one. But when things go wrong it's the problem of
something else? Who are you kidding?
>> Cut the shit out of the taxes on business and
>> raise them on the poor and middle class.
>
> My taxes are down. We need to cut the shit out of gov't spending.
First, thank Obama for the tax cuts. Then tell us what government
"SERVICES" you want the shit cut out of. The military, Social Security
for the old folks, VA benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, infrastructure,
police, fire, food safety, FBI, CIA, because that's what has to be cut.
Dinky expenditures like PBS, and other domestic programs don't amount to
shit. The services you need to reduce are the big ones, so tell us who
are you going to hurt real bad? Granny, the poor, the sick, who are you
going to hurt by cutting off their services? Them or the people really
well off by taking more from them in taxes? Let me guess, you'd prefer
to hurt the weak.
>> Help the ones who need no help
>> and take from those who have the least.
>
> We've had help programs since FDR. They've just made more and more
> people dependant on the gov't.
They wouldn't need help if the private sector was able to produce the
jobs necessary for the majority of people to have a decent standard of
living. Clearly our economy doesn't make enough good jobs to go around
does it? But you blame the government when the private sector can't
produce decent paying jobs. That's your scapegoat, the government.
Whenever the private sector fails you blame the government. Typical.
Don't have the guts to admit the truth when you don't like it.
>> Yep, that's your idea of fair.
>
> "Equal before the law" is my idea of fair.
You wouldn't know when something was unfair unless it was you that got
hurt personally. You're no judge of what's fair. And what do you know
about the law?
>> Too bad you will never get most people to agree with anything that dumb.
>
> Taking unequally is called stealing.
Government taxation isn't stealing. Maybe you should look up the legal
definition of "stealing". For your information, the legal word for what
the uninformed call stealing is theft. You don't even know the
difference between theft and taxes. So why are you commenting on the
subject?
>> The only fair way is to take more from those who have plenty.
>
> Do you even know the meaning of fair?
I know what justice is when I see it.
>> That's
>> really crazy to someone like you isn't it? But then you don't think like
>> a normal person.
>
> I "think." You "feel."
Ha, that's a good one. Coming from an over emotional right winger it's
even more hilarious. I've been trained to examine and weigh evidence
objectively, which I do all the time, yet you think I'm the one of us
who "feels". People who know me describe me as lacking in emotion. Yet
you who don't, think the opposite. Typical of someone with poor judgment.
Hawke
Hawke
> Shall not be infringed wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 10:58 am, jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>>> Shall not be infringed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> My taxes are down. We need to cut the shit out of gov't spending.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>> Do you have any clue why you want reduced govt. spending?
>>
>> Yes. We're broke.
>
> American consumer net worth is $70 trillion dollars.
> Public debt is $14 trillion dollars.
> The unfunded liability of Social Security is ZERO by definition.
> The only thing broke is your brain.
Yeah, but he keeps hearing right wingers on Fox all day long telling him
that we are broke. Don't you think he's going to believe them?
Hawke
dca...@krl.org
> > Kind of a minor nit, but the corporate income tax is not low for all
> > corporations. Some corporations pay little or no corporate income
> > tax, but others actually pay a good deal. The other thing that is
> > hardly talked about is the cost of complying with the corporate income
> > taxes.
> > The total effect is the actual corporate income tax paid plus the cost
> > of filing the corporate income taxes.
>
> > Dan
>
> A nit indeed, as we are interested in the big picture here not the
> little stuff, and the facts are the facts, which say in general U.S.
> corporations pay a small amount in taxes compared to other countries.
> Hawke
I wish you would actually read what I wrote. Or maybe it is beyond
your comprehension.
Here are a few actual facts from the Exxon Mobil 2009 annual report in
millions of dollars.
Income before taxes $34,777
Income taxes $15,119
Now if you do the math, that comes out to 43.474 % tax rate.
Do you pay that high a percentage of tax?
I do not have the figures for the Whirlpool Corp. But a recent article
in the WSJ says that do to the way energy credits are counted
Whirlpool will not have to pay any income taxes for about 20 years.
So as I stated some companies pay little or no income tax, but others
pay a lot. And all U.S. corporations pay a lot in accounting costs in
complying with the corporate taxes.
So yes facts are facts. But you can not say that U.S. corporate
income taxes are uniformly low.
Dan
John R. Carroll
> On Mar 12, 2:24 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>>> Kind of a minor nit, but the corporate income tax is not low for all
>>> corporations. Some corporations pay little or no corporate income
>>> tax, but others actually pay a good deal. The other thing that is
>>> hardly talked about is the cost of complying with the corporate
>>> income taxes.
>>> The total effect is the actual corporate income tax paid plus the
>>> cost of filing the corporate income taxes.
>>
>>> Dan
>>
>> A nit indeed, as we are interested in the big picture here not the
>> little stuff, and the facts are the facts, which say in general U.S.
>> corporations pay a small amount in taxes compared to other countries.
>
>> Hawke
>
> I wish you would actually read what I wrote. Or maybe it is beyond
> your comprehension.
>
> Here are a few actual facts from the Exxon Mobil 2009 annual report in
> millions of dollars.
>
> Income before taxes $34,777
>
> Income taxes $15,119
>
> Now if you do the math, that comes out to 43.474 % tax rate.
ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009.
Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in
taxes last year. "Most egregious," Forbes notes, is General Electric, which
"generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to
Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion." Big Oil
giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit,
paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:
Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned
subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that
(legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola,
Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last
year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in
earnings permanently reinvested overseas.
In 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that "two out of every
three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998
through 2005."
> So yes facts are facts.
Indeed. Get a couple.....
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:dd6fb91a-2cd2-4bd0...@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 12, 2:24 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> > Kind of a minor nit, but the corporate income tax is not low for all
> > corporations. Some corporations pay little or no corporate income
> > tax, but others actually pay a good deal. The other thing that is
> > hardly talked about is the cost of complying with the corporate income
> > taxes.
> > The total effect is the actual corporate income tax paid plus the cost
> > of filing the corporate income taxes.
>
> > Dan
>
> A nit indeed, as we are interested in the big picture here not the
> little stuff, and the facts are the facts, which say in general U.S.
> corporations pay a small amount in taxes compared to other countries.
> Hawke
I wish you would actually read what I wrote. Or maybe it is beyond
your comprehension.
Here are a few actual facts from the Exxon Mobil 2009 annual report in
millions of dollars.
Income before taxes $34,777
Income taxes $15,119
Now if you do the math, that comes out to 43.474 % tax rate.
=================================================
Especially interesting, because the top corporate tax rate in the US is 35%.
Think there could be something funny going on here? d8-)
=================================================
dca...@krl.org
Thanks for pointing out the Forbes article. You did note that Walmart
paid 7.1 Billion in corporate taxes for a percentage rate of 34.2 %.
My point was that some companies pay a lot and some little or none.
And the Forbes article proves that.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
=================================================
>
> Especially interesting, because the top corporate tax rate in the US is 35%.
> Think there could be something funny going on here? d8-)
>
> =================================================
> Dan
Easy Exxon Mobil is an international company and pays income taxes in
more than just the U.S.
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:d2882fe9-5dfc-49d1...@r4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Aha. So Exxon Mobil paid nothing in US corporate income taxes, through a
variety of dodges. It's still especially interesting.
--
Ed Huntress
Rich Grise
> Shall not be infringed wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 10:58 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>>> Shall not be infringed wrote:
>>>
>>>> My taxes are down. We need to cut the shit out of gov't spending.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>> Do you have any clue why you want reduced govt. spending?
>>
>> Yes. We're broke.
>
> American consumer net worth is $70 trillion dollars.
> Public debt is $14 trillion dollars.
> The unfunded liability of Social Security is ZERO by definition.
> The only thing broke is your brain.
>
Thanks,
Rich
John R. Carroll
WalMart paid $7 billion on profits of $103 billion.
>
> My point was that some companies pay a lot and some little or none.
OK but you popinted to a bunch of made up nonsense to make your point.
You then followed it with another embarassing misstatement of reality
involving WalMart.
Here are some actual numbers:
Period Ending Jan 31, 2010 Jan 31, 2009
Jan 31, 2008
Gross Profit 103,557,000 100,318,000
92,284,000
Income Tax Expense 7,139,000 7,145,000
6,908,000
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has avoided millions of dollars in state taxes by
paying rent on 87 Wisconsin properties in a way that the state Department of
Revenue calls an "abuse and distortion of income."
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29455149.html
Wal-Mart's Tax on Us
Wal-Mart's phenomenal growth is the result of sweetheart deals and taxpayer
subsidies.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/27864
Wal-Mart, the Alpha Dog of discount stores, has also become the Alpha Hog at
the public trough.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/11/09/walmarts_tax_on_us.php
Wal-Mart's Welfare: How The Taxpayers Subsidize Goliath
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/print_view/13483
I'm tremendously dissapointed in the job Obama has done and the crappy job
Democrats in Congress have followed with.
The only thing more screwed up is the pee party/Republican nonsense and
gullibility of the American voter/public.
--
John R. Carroll
F. George McDuffee
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:
<snip>
>Here are a few actual facts from the Exxon Mobil 2009 annual report in
>millions of dollars.
>
>Income before taxes $34,777
>
>Income taxes $15,119
>
>Now if you do the math, that comes out to 43.474 % tax rate.
>
>Do you pay that high a percentage of tax?
==========
A very serious problem here is that Exxon and almost all of
the other major US corporations are transnationals, and
their statements about their income are generally worth
nothing, even when audited, e.g. Enron and Lehman. There
are too many ways to make pre-tax income disappear for the
ultra high net worth/income individuals and transnational
corporations.
The one number that it is impossible to fudge is the percent
of the federal revenues collected from each source. As
indicated this percent has been falling for corporations
since JFK. A significant amount of the reduction can be
attributed to the proliferation of free trade agreements
that eliminated most of the customs/import duties the
corporations previously paid, some of which savings they
passed on to their customers, but most of which they
pocketed.
To answer the subject question -- While I have a right to
most of my money, the corporations and high networth/income
individuals don't have the right to any of my money to pay
their taxes, much of which are spent for their benefit...
-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
John R. Carroll
I don't know how they would "foreclose" on anything. Maybe you can explain
that to me.
They would have to stop selling us more than we sold them for it to make
sense and if they don't want to accept the worlds reserve currency as
payment they won't be able to buy oil or anything really.
In any event, the currency and T-Bills in China are trivial. The Fed could
suck all of it up with the press of a single button without weakening their
balance sheet or breaking the law.
In fact, China would be well and truly screwed. blued and tattoed if we did
just that and they know it.
--
John R. Carroll
dca...@krl.org
> Aha. So Exxon Mobil paid nothing in US corporate income taxes, through a
> variety of dodges. It's still especially interesting.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
In the accounting business they are not called " Dodges ".
They still paid a bunch of taxes. Congress makes the tax laws.
I pay as little as I can, and do not blame companies for doing the
same. I do blame Congress for making the tax code so complicated.
And blame them for the time it takes for me to figure out my taxes.
I vaguely remember an advertisement by General Electric that stressed
the amount of money they spend to figure out their taxes.
Dan
F. George McDuffee
<nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
>Shall not be infringed wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 10:58 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>>> Shall not be infringed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> My taxes are down. We need to cut the shit out of gov't spending.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>> Do you have any clue why you want reduced govt. spending?
>>
>> Yes. We're broke.
>
>American consumer net worth is $70 trillion dollars.
>Public debt is $14 trillion dollars.
>The unfunded liability of Social Security is ZERO by definition.
>The only thing broke is your brain.
=========
A significant problem in this discussion is that not all
governmental spending is equal.
Too much of the recent and current governmental spending can
be compared to a drunken sailor on shore leave with 6 months
pay in his pocket. Not only does the sailor have nothing to
show for his money, he also discovers he has a raging
hangover, no money, obscene tattoos, and likely a case of
the clap (or worse) when he begins to sober up. [He may also
be AWOL from his ship.]
Where governmental spending has instead "pulled forward"
justified durable investments in infrastructure such as
roads, bridges, ports, etc., has been used to fund
basic/applied research, or has been used to subsidize
private investment in new or upgraded facilities, machines,
processes, products, etc. this is likely to be cost
effective in the long run because of the increased economic
activity, reduced costs, and additional revenues these
improvements/investments should generate. This assumes
[which is increasingly unlikely] governmental spending will
be reduced even as revenue rises in the following up
periods, additional governmental projects competing with the
private sector for labor and materials will not be started,
and the bonds/debts used to finance the durable investments
liquidated.
F. George McDuffee
<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Clearly our economy doesn't make enough good jobs to go around
>does it?
In fact our economy generates huge numbers of good jobs.
The problem is that these are not located in the United
States and the employees in these jobs do not contribute to
US economic activity or pay US taxes such as income, sales
FICA, real estate, etc.
John R. Carroll
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 11:25:29 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
> <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
>
>> Shall not be infringed wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 10:58 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>>>> Shall not be infringed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> My taxes are down. We need to cut the shit out of gov't spending.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>> Do you have any clue why you want reduced govt. spending?
>>>
>>> Yes. We're broke.
>>
>> American consumer net worth is $70 trillion dollars.
>> Public debt is $14 trillion dollars.
>> The unfunded liability of Social Security is ZERO by definition.
>> The only thing broke is your brain.
> =========
> A significant problem in this discussion is that not all
> governmental spending is equal.
>
> Too much of the recent and current governmental spending can
> be compared to a drunken sailor on shore leave with 6 months
> pay in his pocket. Not only does the sailor have nothing to
> show for his money, he also discovers he has a raging
> hangover, no money, obscene tattoos, and likely a case of
> the clap (or worse) when he begins to sober up. [He may also
> be AWOL from his ship.]
Yeah and the hookers and card sharks have a windfall.
LOL
We call hookers "Hedge Fund Managers" these days and card sharks are
"Bankers".
>
> Where governmental spending has instead "pulled forward"
> justified durable investments in infrastructure such as
> roads, bridges, ports, etc., has been used to fund
> basic/applied research, or has been used to subsidize
> private investment in new or upgraded facilities, machines,
> processes, products, etc. this is likely to be cost
> effective in the long run because of the increased economic
> activity, reduced costs, and additional revenues these
> improvements/investments should generate.
It's even cost effective in the short run, George.
As I've always maintained, America doesn't spend to much. That isn't the
issue.
The problem is that we get so little bang for our public bucks.
>This assumes
> [which is increasingly unlikely] governmental spending will
> be reduced even as revenue rises in the following up
> periods, additional governmental projects competing with the
> private sector for labor and materials will not be started,
> and the bonds/debts used to finance the durable investments
> liquidated.
It's worth remembering all of the bright lights that voiced great concern
over the Clinton surpluses.
The cant at the time was that we'd were headed for a time when the Federal
Treasury was going to end up having to go put and find things to invest in
if the pyblic debt were paid down to fast or fully.
Personally, I believe that America would be well of to have that problem.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:dd21a7cf-4837-4d04...@k10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 12, 4:39 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Aha. So Exxon Mobil paid nothing in US corporate income taxes, through a
> variety of dodges. It's still especially interesting.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
> In the accounting business they are not called " Dodges ".
Of course not. I'm sure they have some very pretty, sanitized ways of
explaining it. Maybe they play the National Anthem in the background while
they do their explaining. d8-)
> They still paid a bunch of taxes. Congress makes the tax laws.
Yes they do. Although, as some article said, the recession was so rough that
Exxon Mobil had to lay off 25 congressmen.
> I pay as little as I can, and do not blame companies for doing the
> same. I do blame Congress for making the tax code so complicated.
> And blame them for the time it takes for me to figure out my taxes.
There's plenty of blame to go around. The lobbyists who write our tax laws
are near the top of the list. The Congressmen who won't vote for campaign
limits, and the Court that calls corporations "people," are right in there.
>I vaguely remember an advertisement by General Electric that stressed
>the amount of money they spend to figure out their taxes.
It's tax deductible, of course, and a good way to employ some friends and
relatives who need the money.
--
Ed Huntress
Strabo
> On Mar 11, 2:52 pm, F. George McDuffee<gmcduf...@mcduffee-
> associates.us> wrote:
>
>> While the US corporate income tax rate is indeed high at
>> 35%, operationally when measured as the actual amount of
>> taxes paid as a percent of claimed income the U.S. rates are
>> among the lowest in the world.
>
>
> corporations. Some corporations pay little or no corporate income
> tax, but others actually pay a good deal. The other thing that is
> hardly talked about is the cost of complying with the corporate income
> taxes.
> The total effect is the actual corporate income tax paid plus the cost
> of filing the corporate income taxes.
>
Major nit...
No business pays taxes. Business just collects them. Taxes are added to
the cost of doing business in order to survive to collect more taxes.
Get the picture? It's a sham. Business taxes are simply another way to
milk consumers.
One good thing about failure is the opportunity to start over.
dca...@krl.org
> OK but you popinted to a bunch of made up nonsense to make your point.
> You then followed it with another embarassing misstatement of reality
> involving WalMart.
>
> John R. Carroll
Hey I pointed to the article you mentioned.
Dan
Harold & Susan Vordos
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ilgh9p$k7k$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
snip---
> A nit indeed, as we are interested in the big picture here not the little
> stuff, and the facts are the facts, which say in general U.S. corporations
> pay a small amount in taxes compared to other countries. This is in sharp
> contrast to how it was in the past. In the 1950s American corporations'
> share of total tax revenue for the country was nearly 35%.
>
> It is now far less than that and the shortfall is picked up by the poor
> and middle class or it's just added to our debt. So it is a lie that our
> corporations are over burdened by taxes and can't compete with other
> companies around the world. That's utter bullshit.
Corporations don't pay taxes---they collect taxes for the government. To
imply anything different is being dishonest.
Where the hell do you suppose they get the money? Seems to me it's from the
buyers of their products----the very people you think shouldn't be paying.
Our government uses every possible means to disguise taxation----including
forcing citizens to buy driver licenses and building permits. Call them
what you will---they're a tax.
Harold
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> On Mar 12, 4:39 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Aha. So Exxon Mobil paid nothing in US corporate income taxes, through
>> a variety of dodges. It's still especially interesting.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
> In the accounting business they are not called " Dodges ".
>
> They still paid a bunch of taxes.
Precisely what taxes did Exxon/Mobile pay and how much?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irony defined: http://www.fox.com/lietome/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John R. Carroll
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 14:05:30 -0800, "dca...@krl.org"
> <dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 12, 4:39 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Aha. So Exxon Mobil paid nothing in US corporate income taxes,
>>> through a variety of dodges. It's still especially interesting.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>> In the accounting business they are not called " Dodges ".
>>
>> They still paid a bunch of taxes.
>
> Precisely what taxes did Exxon/Mobile pay and how much?
The amount remittet to the US Treasury by Exxon Mobil is was exactly ZERO.
--
John R. Carroll
Hawke
>> Indeed. Get a couple.....
>>
>> --
>> John R. Carroll
>
> Thanks for pointing out the Forbes article. You did note that Walmart
> paid 7.1 Billion in corporate taxes for a percentage rate of 34.2 %.
>
> My point was that some companies pay a lot and some little or none.
> And the Forbes article proves that.
>
> Dan
Way to overlook the mountain and take in the molehill. Did you not just
read what he said? "two out of every three United States corporations
paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005." Are your math
skills that bad? What's that average if 2/3 pay nothing at all no matter
how big they are? Mighty small I'd say. Which was my point all along.
Compared to other countries the corporations in the U.S. pay one of the
lowest of all rates. That's the fact. You need to accept it instead of
arguing against it. It'll make your arguments in the future a lot more
cogent if you are aware that it's propaganda when it's said the U.S. has
the highest corporate tax rate. Yeah, on paper it does. In reality our
corporations aren't paying jack. Don't you get it that they used to pay
almost a third of all tax revenue but now what they have gotten away
with not paying is being paid by the poor and the middle class? Why do
you think people are saying it's not fair?
Hawke
Hawke
We tell them that we're broke, we don't have the money to pay them back
and they're out of luck. They took a risk loaning us the money. We can't
pay it back so they lost their investment. Last, we tell them "life's
not fair".
Hawke
Hawke
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 11:59:23 -0800, Hawke
> <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Clearly our economy doesn't make enough good jobs to go around
>> does it?
> <snip>
> In fact our economy generates huge numbers of good jobs.
>
> The problem is that these are not located in the United
> States and the employees in these jobs do not contribute to
> US economic activity or pay US taxes such as income, sales
> FICA, real estate, etc.
Ha, Ha, quit kidding around. You know what I meant. The U.S. economy
doesn't create enough jobs in America for enough people to live what we
used to call a middle class life. Sure, they've been creating millions
of jobs overseas but most of them pay way less than even crappy jobs
here. The point is our entire economic system is not successful. It may
have been at one time and for a couple of decades. But history has shown
that for the most part our economy is not capable of creating the kind
of high paying jobs that can maintain our old ideas of middle class life.
It's the same with out energy usage. Our 5% of the world's population is
using 20% or more of all the energy produced in the world. How in the
heck is everyone in the world ever going to be able to consume energy
like we are now doing? The way we did it for a generation is not going
to work any longer. So what do we do? Stick with the same economic
model? I wouldn't try that. It's a guaranteed loser. But that looks like
what the world is planning to do. It's going to be a madhouse.
Hawke
Boris Kapusta
How much did Obama's General Electric pay?
John R. Carroll
I just xearched 10K Wizard for OGE.
Didn't find anything.
Has Obama incorporated?
What's the symbol?
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
I didn't quote anything that I hadn't verified.
That's why.
I get it wrong once in a while but not deliberately and I rarely, never
really, single source anything published as "news".
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
Yeah but if you are paying a tax in Algeria and the price of goods in the US
is including that tax because of our tax code American consumers end up
subsidizing Algerian's.
Get the picture? It's a sham.
--
John R. Carroll
Boris Kapusta
<nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
Check out Obama's new crack pipe in the background.
http://www.energydigital.com/sectors/utilities-electric/ge-ceo-jeffrey-immelt-and-president-obama-s-suspicious-relationship
Rich Grise
> On 3/12/2011 1:41 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
>> John R. Carroll wrote:
>>> Shall not be infringed wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 10:58 am, jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>>>>> Shall not be infringed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My taxes are down. We need to cut the shit out of gov't spending.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>> Do you have any clue why you want reduced govt. spending?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. We're broke.
>>>
>>> American consumer net worth is $70 trillion dollars.
>>> Public debt is $14 trillion dollars.
>>> The unfunded liability of Social Security is ZERO by definition.
>>> The only thing broke is your brain.
>>>
>> I'm wondering what's going to happen when China forecloses?
>
> and they're out of luck. They took a risk loaning us the money. We can't
> pay it back so they lost their investment. Last, we tell them "life's
> not fair".
So, are you going to enjoy learning Mandarin when they repossess the
collateral?
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
> Rich Grise wrote:
>>>
>> I'm wondering what's going to happen when China forecloses?
>
> I don't know how they would "foreclose" on anything. Maybe you can explain
> that to me.
Where were you in 2006 when the housing bubble collapsed? The banks
foreclosed on a lot of houses that the customers couldn't pay their
mortgage on.
Are you really this stupid, or just playing "devil's advocate?"
Thanks,
Rich
John R. Carroll
> John R. Carroll wrote:
>> Rich Grise wrote:
>>>>
>>> I'm wondering what's going to happen when China forecloses?
>>
>> I don't know how they would "foreclose" on anything. Maybe you can
>> explain that to me.
>
> Where were you in 2006 when the housing bubble collapsed? The banks
> foreclosed on a lot of houses that the customers couldn't pay their
> mortgage on.
China hasn't got a mortgage on anything.
The explanation you are looking for is in the part you snipped, as per your
usual momsemse.
Intellectual honesty apparently isn't your forte.
--
John R. Carroll
Rich Grise
good looks?
Or worse yet, B. Hussein Obama's infallible credibility? =:-O
Thanks,
Rich
John R. Carroll
> John R. Carroll wrote:
>> Rich Grise wrote:
>>> John R. Carroll wrote:
>>>> Rich Grise wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering what's going to happen when China forecloses?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how they would "foreclose" on anything. Maybe you can
>>>> explain that to me.
>>>
>>> Where were you in 2006 when the housing bubble collapsed? The banks
>>> foreclosed on a lot of houses that the customers couldn't pay their
>>> mortgage on.
>>
>> China hasn't got a mortgage on anything.
>> The explanation you are looking for is in the part you snipped, as
>> per your usual momsemse.
>>
>> Intellectual honesty apparently isn't your forte.
>>
> You really think China is lending us trillions of dollars based on our
> good looks?
They aren't lending us anything.
They end up with surplus dollars because of our balance of trade and the
safest place for them is US T-Bills.
Their only alternative is to just have currency or stop selling us more
stuff than they buy.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
> John R. Carroll wrote:
>> Rich Grise wrote:
>>> John R. Carroll wrote:
>>>> Rich Grise wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering what's going to happen when China forecloses?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how they would "foreclose" on anything. Maybe you can
>>>> explain that to me.
>>>
>>> Where were you in 2006 when the housing bubble collapsed? The banks
>>> foreclosed on a lot of houses that the customers couldn't pay their
>>> mortgage on.
>>
>> China hasn't got a mortgage on anything.
>> The explanation you are looking for is in the part you snipped, as
>> per your usual momsemse.
>>
>> Intellectual honesty apparently isn't your forte.
>>
> You really think China is lending us trillions of dollars based on our
> good looks?
They aren't lending us anything.
They end up with surplus dollars because of our balance of trade and the
safest place for them is US T-Bills.
Their only alternative is to just have currency or stop selling us more
stuff than they buy, something they really can't afford to do unless they
want a revolution.
The amount they hold isn't all that much in the grand scheme of things.
Consider this. The value of the derivatives market today is $700 TRILLION
dollars.
American consumer net worth is $70 TRILLION Dollars.
The Feds balance sheet currently stands at about $5 Trillion.
China holds, at the most, about $2 TRILLION dollars of our debt.
It would be an simple matter for the FRB to expand their balance sheet in a
single day and cover what the Chinese hold in American public debt.
What actually happens in the real world is that American businesses like GE
have to have a Chinese partner in order to operate in China.
When GE for example partners, they retire T-Bills with their "investment".
In the end, that is how this debt will be moved from one owner to another
and as the notes come due, they are simply paid off.
--
John R. Carroll
F. George McDuffee
=========
Rich -- that's one of the problems with most so called
sovereign debt, i.e. there is no collateral other than the
full faith and credit of the government, where the creditors
have no real recourse.
One current example is Ireland and another is Greece.
In days gone by, a major power/creditor such as the UK,
could and did seize by force of arms the import/customs
stations of small defaulting countries, mainly in
South/Central America and collect [and seize] the
import/export duties until the debts were paid but this is
long past.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262195534chapm1.pdf
-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
Tom Gardner
"Harold & Susan Vordos" <vor...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:VDVep.17$GY...@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
I have to "buy" a city permit for every bottle of compressed gas and every propane
tank for the forklifts. Each is $50/yr. It's like ants on a sandwich!
dca...@krl.org
wrote:
> > They still paid a bunch of taxes.
>
> Precisely what taxes did Exxon/Mobile pay and how much?
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
In 2009 Exxon Mobil paid $15,119,000,000 in income taxes to various
countries in which they do business.
Dan
john
China is buying more gold in the last couple of years than they have
bought in years
past.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chinas-gold-buy-raises-eyebrows-for-right-reasons
I would suspect that they will eventually become the international
currency backed by tangeable assets of gold.
John
john
That is probably one of the reasons that China is building up their
military and military technology . Shooting down communications
satellites will put a crimp on any nation that depends on them for
communication and has no alternate systems in place.
John
John R. Carroll
with diamonds,
China is the worlds largest producer of gold. They need to offer price
support to prevent the collapse of prices.
Rare earth's are where the real money is.
>
> I would suspect that they will eventually become the international
> currency backed by tangeable assets of gold.
I can't imagine a global monetary system that's based on any commodity.
There isn't any advantage and there are many draw backs.
What possible reason would there be for this to happen?
--
John R. Carroll
Curly Surmudgeon
<nunyab...@dev.null> wrote:
Thank you but I was asking dcaster to answer. It was he who claims that
Exxon/Mobile "still paid a lot of taxes". I'd like to know what taxes
Exxon/Mobile paid and how much. They made some $100 Billion (approx)
last year. I sincerely doubt that Exxon/Mobile paid $34,900,000,000.00
in taxes which dcaster says U.S. Corporations pay.
Let's see him wiggle out of his obviously false claim.
john
The world economy is at the present time stuck with the US dollar with
the Fed printing them out as fast as the presses allow. At some point
the dollar will be inflated to a point that it will loose the confidence
of the rest of the world. China wants to be in a position to take up
the slack with a money system that the other nations of the world will
have more confidence in.
John
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
However Exxon/Mobile paid no U.S. taxes so that statement is misleading
at best.
The question included "what taxes". Can you provide a citation to
substantiate your numbers?
John R. Carroll
Having a large gold reserve won't help them on the "confidence" front.
The Chinese government isn't transparent and they don't have a real legal
system. Chinese law is what any one of 20,000 guys decides it's going to be
on a given day.
They also lack any real social order beyond what's rigorously imposed.
China must sustain high growth rates or face civil war. That won't change
until a substantial majorty of the Chinese public enjoys a similarly high
standard of living.
Unless and until those are corrected, the remnimbi isn't going anywhere as a
reserve currency.
These sorts of things don't change quickly. China has real throw weight even
today, but the only to the extent that they are allowed it by the rest of
the world.
This is something they struggle with as a cultural matter every day.
The US economy ( pure wealth ) and legal system are what allow the dollar to
retain it's status as the worlds reserve currency and until China/Asia and
India grow into broadly prosperous societies, that is unlikely to change.
None of that is inevitable. All of it is possible. We'll know in 50 years.
Going to a gold based economy would be the end of China's aspirations to
much of anything.
Furthermore, your statement about the "Fed printing them out as fast as the
presses allow" is just wrong.
The Fed could create ten trillion dollars Monday morning in less time that
it would take you to wipe your butt.
While the FRB has expanded it's balance sheet significantly over the last
three years, little of that expansion has actually entered the real economy.
The latest round of quantitative easing hasn't either produced significant
inflation or a "loss in confidence" in the dollar.
Just the opposite is true on the confidence front and the cure for any
genunely inflationary trend is straightforward and well understood.
The world, not just the US, knows exactly how to wring out monetary
inflation and it's been done more than once and recently.
Private debt, commercial and consumer, are being reduced.
Losses are being monetized in a sort of controlled implosion with the
American consumer, not the American tax payer, bearing all of the cost.
While there are inflationary pressures afoot today, they are all demand
driven with the exception of oil which is K0oK driven.
Grains are up because of wheather driven supply shortages int he face of
increases in demand.
The same is true of comodities like coffee. The coffee crop was wiped out
(again) and short supply has lead to higher prices.
These aren't cases where too much money is chasing a deal and driving
prices. That just isn't happening.
Gorbal Climate Change or cyclical patterns. Take your pick as it doesn't
matter.
Not in the context of this discussion anyway.
--
John R. Carroll
dca...@krl.org
> > In 2009 Exxon Mobil paid $15,119,000,000 in income taxes to various
> > countries in which they do business.
>
> However Exxon/Mobile paid no U.S. taxes so that statement is misleading
> at best.
>
> The question included "what taxes". Can you provide a citation to
> substantiate your numbers?
>
> --
You have an odd idea of what is a misleading statement.
Exxon Mobil is an international company. They paid taxes in various
countries that they do business in. The fact that U.S. tax law lets
them offset taxes paid in other countries is the way the U.S. wrote
the tax code.
The numbers came from the Exxon Mobil 2009 annual report.
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:25e218b9-0163-4bde...@k10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Dan
==================================================
One of the interesting things about it is that many folks complain that US
corporate tax rates (35%) are so high that it drives companies overseas. So
Exxon builds many facilities overseas...and then pays over 43% in foreign
taxes. d8-)
I know why that is. It's an interesting story, but it's still a head-shaker.
--
Ed Huntress
Boris Kapusta
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 07:18:39 -0700, "dca...@krl.org" <dca...@krl.org>
>wrote:
>
>> On Mar 12, 11:20 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> > They still paid a bunch of taxes.
>>>
>>> Precisely what taxes did Exxon/Mobile pay and how much?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards, Curly
>>
>> In 2009 Exxon Mobil paid $15,119,000,000 in income taxes to various
>> countries in which they do business.
>
>However Exxon/Mobile paid no U.S. taxes so that statement is misleading
>at best.
>
>The question included "what taxes". Can you provide a citation to
>substantiate your numbers?
How much US taxes do you pay in Argentina?
Boris Kapusta
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 07:18:39 -0700, "dca...@krl.org" <dca...@krl.org>
>wrote:
>
>> On Mar 12, 11:20 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> > They still paid a bunch of taxes.
>>>
>>> Precisely what taxes did Exxon/Mobile pay and how much?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards, Curly
>>
>> In 2009 Exxon Mobil paid $15,119,000,000 in income taxes to various
>> countries in which they do business.
>
>However Exxon/Mobile paid no U.S. taxes so that statement is misleading
>at best.
>
>The question included "what taxes". Can you provide a citation to
>substantiate your numbers?
How much US taxes do you pay in Argentina?
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2:16 pm, Curly Surmudgeon
>> > In 2009 Exxon Mobil paid $15,119,000,000 in income taxes to various
>> > countries in which they do business.
>>
>> However Exxon/Mobile paid no U.S. taxes so that statement is misleading
>> at best.
>>
>> The question included "what taxes". Can you provide a citation to
>> substantiate your numbers?
>>
>> --
>
>
> You have an odd idea of what is a misleading statement.
You snipped your earlier statement: "They still paid a bunch of taxes."
You snipped my inquiry: "Precisely what taxes did Exxon/Mobile pay and
how much?" However you failed to provide a citation and might have
pulled that number out of the air. Nor did you show where those supposed
taxes were paid.
> Exxon Mobil is
> an international company. They paid taxes in various countries that
> they do business in.
Again, where and how much? Not a cent was paid in the U.S. contrary to
the assertion that corporations pay 34.9% to the U.S. Treasury in taxes.
> The fact that U.S. tax law lets them offset taxes
> paid in other countries is the way the U.S. wrote the tax code.
>
> The numbers came from the Exxon Mobil 2009 annual report.
For the fourth time, please provide the citation so we can examine your
claim.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Mar 13, 2:16 pm, Curly Surmudgeon
>> > In 2009 Exxon Mobil paid $15,119,000,000 in income taxes to various
>> > countries in which they do business.
>>
>> However Exxon/Mobile paid no U.S. taxes so that statement is misleading
>> at best.
>>
>> The question included "what taxes". Can you provide a citation to
>> substantiate your numbers?
>>
>> --
>
>
> You have an odd idea of what is a misleading statement.
You snipped your earlier statement: "They still paid a bunch of taxes."
You snipped my inquiry: "Precisely what taxes did Exxon/Mobile pay and
how much?" However you failed to provide a citation and might have
pulled that number out of the air. Nor did you show where those supposed
taxes were paid.
> Exxon Mobil is
> an international company. They paid taxes in various countries that
> they do business in.
Again, where and how much? Not a cent was paid in the U.S. contrary to
the assertion that corporations pay 34.9% to the U.S. Treasury in taxes.
> The fact that U.S. tax law lets them offset taxes
> paid in other countries is the way the U.S. wrote the tax code.
>
> The numbers came from the Exxon Mobil 2009 annual report.
For the fourth time, please provide the citation so we can examine your
claim.
--
Boris Kapusta
How much US taxes do you thing Curlytard pays in Argentina?
John R. Carroll
Well, you know, if you want Angolan oil you go to Angola - not Atlanta.
LOL
In a lot of countries, what Exxon calls taxes in nothing more than bribes.
The entire point here is that Exxon-Mobil has a profit center in the US.
They make sales and profit from them in the US.
Those profits are taxed at an effective rate of Zero.
What Dan is really doing is making an excellent case for a corporate AMT.
>
> I know why that is. It's an interesting story, but it's still a
> head-shaker.
What's the rest of it?
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nunyab...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:RsOdnVIIAubMueDQ...@giganews.com...
What you said above. One of the articles -- I think it was the Forbes
article you pointed to -- said that the oil-producing states often have much
higher tax rates, because they can.
Globalization, in many ways, is a game of international coercion.
Multinational companies coerce countries into lowering taxes, under threat
of moving their jobs offshore. Oil-producing states, and states with huge
consumer potential (China) coerce companies with the threat of closing their
resources or their markets.
Globalization can be, and presently is, an anarchic race to the bottom. That
is, unless and until there is some governing body with more clout and more
integrity than the WTO.
--
Ed Huntress
>
>
> --
> John R. Carroll
>
>
Joseph Gwinn
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
Not really. Oil companies must go where the oil is. The local
governments tax them heavily, but there is no escape - the oil is where
it is.
Manufacturing companies have more flexibility.
Joe Gwinn