. More importantly however is that the Potter Party falls absolutely silent when it comes to the topic of corporations doing business in this country.Not a word in protest from you fellows about the fact that 2/3 's of these corps pay NO taxes at all.
Isn't it fun to make things up? 2/3 of corporations pay no taxes? Completely false. The United States, btw, has the highest corporate tax rate. You're trying to make it out like they aren't being monitored at all. Again, fueled by your hate-on for corporate America and the capitalist system.
I love how cd applauds your post even though its riddled with falsehoods. Simply yelling out "corporate crooks" and "they don't even pay their taxes" is just a bunch of nonsense. Try supporting your arguments with facts rather that feelings.
But it must be fun to make that stuff up, I suppose.
0
Quote Originally Posted by hugo:
. More importantly however is that the Potter Party falls absolutely silent when it comes to the topic of corporations doing business in this country.Not a word in protest from you fellows about the fact that 2/3 's of these corps pay NO taxes at all.
Isn't it fun to make things up? 2/3 of corporations pay no taxes? Completely false. The United States, btw, has the highest corporate tax rate. You're trying to make it out like they aren't being monitored at all. Again, fueled by your hate-on for corporate America and the capitalist system.
I love how cd applauds your post even though its riddled with falsehoods. Simply yelling out "corporate crooks" and "they don't even pay their taxes" is just a bunch of nonsense. Try supporting your arguments with facts rather that feelings.
But it must be fun to make that stuff up, I suppose.
Not to mention, cd, your ridiculous claim that should we conservative lose our jobs we would certainly be clamoring for handouts. Way to make a mass assumption.
Sorry, but under no circumstances would I ever try to make a living by getting something I didn't earn. When I had an assistantship in grad school, I once receieved a pay check for two weeks I was on vacation that I wasn't supposed to get. I quickly went down to HR and gave it back.
Sorry, but not all of us are like you.
0
Not to mention, cd, your ridiculous claim that should we conservative lose our jobs we would certainly be clamoring for handouts. Way to make a mass assumption.
Sorry, but under no circumstances would I ever try to make a living by getting something I didn't earn. When I had an assistantship in grad school, I once receieved a pay check for two weeks I was on vacation that I wasn't supposed to get. I quickly went down to HR and gave it back.
Not to mention, cd, your ridiculous claim that should we conservative lose our jobs we would certainly be clamoring for handouts. Way to make a mass assumption.
Sorry, but under no circumstances would I ever try to make a living by getting something I didn't earn. When I had an assistantship in grad school, I once receieved a pay check for two weeks I was on vacation that I wasn't supposed to get. I quickly went down to HR and gave it back.
Sorry, but not all of us are like you.
Yeah okay, when you lose your job and cant find another one, you would be to proud to look for govt handouts to feed your family. Yes thats believable
comparing collecting unemployment to you turning in a vacation check that didnt belong to you, are not even in the same ballpark.
You gave that paycheck back because you knew that you would get caught sooner or later, so it wasnt worth the trouble of keeping. So who are you kidding with all this honest Abe crap.
If you think just because our country has a high corporate tax rate that companies are actually paying that, then you are living on fantasy island. Like Hugos has stated these companies all set up their addresses overseas to get out of paying their taxes. Go do your research if you dont believe it.
It was a well known fact about haliburton and was all over the news, but i guess you were to busy watching russ to see it. The politicians wanted to have all their contracts stopped due to them taking money from the govt for Iraq contracts and not paying taxes.
0
Quote Originally Posted by snuke:
Not to mention, cd, your ridiculous claim that should we conservative lose our jobs we would certainly be clamoring for handouts. Way to make a mass assumption.
Sorry, but under no circumstances would I ever try to make a living by getting something I didn't earn. When I had an assistantship in grad school, I once receieved a pay check for two weeks I was on vacation that I wasn't supposed to get. I quickly went down to HR and gave it back.
Sorry, but not all of us are like you.
Yeah okay, when you lose your job and cant find another one, you would be to proud to look for govt handouts to feed your family. Yes thats believable
comparing collecting unemployment to you turning in a vacation check that didnt belong to you, are not even in the same ballpark.
You gave that paycheck back because you knew that you would get caught sooner or later, so it wasnt worth the trouble of keeping. So who are you kidding with all this honest Abe crap.
If you think just because our country has a high corporate tax rate that companies are actually paying that, then you are living on fantasy island. Like Hugos has stated these companies all set up their addresses overseas to get out of paying their taxes. Go do your research if you dont believe it.
It was a well known fact about haliburton and was all over the news, but i guess you were to busy watching russ to see it. The politicians wanted to have all their contracts stopped due to them taking money from the govt for Iraq contracts and not paying taxes.
Snuke, I have posted in numerous previous posts ,authority for my assertion that two-thirds of the corporations doing business in this country pay no taxes. Said authority included information from the Census bureau, The IRS and the CBO. I also referenced an extensive Boston Globe article about KBR and their phony subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands where they allegedly employ more people than live there. Not once did anyone on your side of the aisle ever question the accuracy of my references.That is probably because they took the time to verify them.I am not going to go through that process again.But if you want to google up non-tax paying corporations the first page you will encounter will give you all you need about the 68% of the corps who exploit the system. I am sure after you read that your position might change or at least it should. Oh, by the way, I dont have suffiecent clout with Google or any of their sources wherein they would falsify info to support my arguments.
P.S. As for that high corporate tax rate, it is 35% the same as it was under President Eisenhower. And if you really believe that any of the paying corporations actually pay anywhere near that amount with their high priced CPA's exploiting loopholes and shelters I really can't help you. Other countries that have lower corporate tax rates dont have the same tools with which to reduce their liability. The only one I am personally familiar with to some extent is Sweden whose rate is 22% or at least used to be, with very rigid guidelines regarding deductions, investment credits, shelters etc.
0
Snuke, I have posted in numerous previous posts ,authority for my assertion that two-thirds of the corporations doing business in this country pay no taxes. Said authority included information from the Census bureau, The IRS and the CBO. I also referenced an extensive Boston Globe article about KBR and their phony subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands where they allegedly employ more people than live there. Not once did anyone on your side of the aisle ever question the accuracy of my references.That is probably because they took the time to verify them.I am not going to go through that process again.But if you want to google up non-tax paying corporations the first page you will encounter will give you all you need about the 68% of the corps who exploit the system. I am sure after you read that your position might change or at least it should. Oh, by the way, I dont have suffiecent clout with Google or any of their sources wherein they would falsify info to support my arguments.
P.S. As for that high corporate tax rate, it is 35% the same as it was under President Eisenhower. And if you really believe that any of the paying corporations actually pay anywhere near that amount with their high priced CPA's exploiting loopholes and shelters I really can't help you. Other countries that have lower corporate tax rates dont have the same tools with which to reduce their liability. The only one I am personally familiar with to some extent is Sweden whose rate is 22% or at least used to be, with very rigid guidelines regarding deductions, investment credits, shelters etc.
Yeah okay, when you lose your job and cant find another one, you would be to proud to look for govt handouts to feed your family. Yes thats believable
Well, you're beyond hope. Because apparently you can't understand the concept of someone wanting to earn what they get. So its no surprise that its completely unbelievable to you that someone wouldn't depend on the government for anything. Should I hit hard times, I can assure you I won't be going to the government for any handouts. That's called dependency. I will work my way back if I have to work at a fast food restaurant or clean floors somewhere. Its called SELF RESPONSIBILITY. It really is so telling about the liberal mentality that they can't even grasp the concept that someone would never take a handout, even if they hit rock bottom.
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
Yeah okay, when you lose your job and cant find another one, you would be to proud to look for govt handouts to feed your family. Yes thats believable
Well, you're beyond hope. Because apparently you can't understand the concept of someone wanting to earn what they get. So its no surprise that its completely unbelievable to you that someone wouldn't depend on the government for anything. Should I hit hard times, I can assure you I won't be going to the government for any handouts. That's called dependency. I will work my way back if I have to work at a fast food restaurant or clean floors somewhere. Its called SELF RESPONSIBILITY. It really is so telling about the liberal mentality that they can't even grasp the concept that someone would never take a handout, even if they hit rock bottom.
It really is so telling about the liberal mentality that they can't
even grasp the concept that someone would never take a handout, even if
they hit rock bottom. ____________________________
Its how they keep their electorate on the payroll.
0
It really is so telling about the liberal mentality that they can't
even grasp the concept that someone would never take a handout, even if
they hit rock bottom. ____________________________
Its how they keep their electorate on the payroll.
Snuke, I noticed in your subsequent post you said nothing about the factual accuracy of my assertion that 2/3's of the corporations that do business in this country pay no taxes. I really didnt expect it because anyone who posesses any knowledge pertaining to that issue knows that what I said is true.So your uninformed blanket denial of the reality that I evoked is yet again another example of the myopic Neo-Con who refuses to accept reality even as it stares him in the face. When you actually do some research to back your accusations that I and other informed people in here falsify info, you may engender some respect. Until then your credibility reflects that of your Neo-Con idols who treat factual data as the bubonic plague and prefer to espouse unsubstantiated ideology as their mantra.Intelligent, informed and well founded opinion of any ilk is always welcome. I hope that some day you might rise to that level.
0
Snuke, I noticed in your subsequent post you said nothing about the factual accuracy of my assertion that 2/3's of the corporations that do business in this country pay no taxes. I really didnt expect it because anyone who posesses any knowledge pertaining to that issue knows that what I said is true.So your uninformed blanket denial of the reality that I evoked is yet again another example of the myopic Neo-Con who refuses to accept reality even as it stares him in the face. When you actually do some research to back your accusations that I and other informed people in here falsify info, you may engender some respect. Until then your credibility reflects that of your Neo-Con idols who treat factual data as the bubonic plague and prefer to espouse unsubstantiated ideology as their mantra.Intelligent, informed and well founded opinion of any ilk is always welcome. I hope that some day you might rise to that level.
Snuke, I noticed in your subsequent post you said nothing about the factual accuracy of my assertion that 2/3's of the corporations that do business in this country pay no taxes. I really didnt expect it because anyone who posesses any knowledge pertaining to that issue knows that what I said is true.So your uninformed blanket denial of the reality that I evoked is yet again another example of the myopic Neo-Con who refuses to accept reality even as it stares him in the face. When you actually do some research to back your accusations that I and other informed people in here falsify info, you may engender some respect. Until then your credibility reflects that of your Neo-Con idols who treat factual data as the bubonic plague and prefer to espouse unsubstantiated ideology as their mantra.Intelligent, informed and well founded opinion of any ilk is always welcome. I hope that some day you might rise to that level.
Hugo, you are once again clouding the truth. It is simply NOT TRUE that 2/3rds of corporations don't pay any taxes. The companies that send work overseas don't pay US taxes, yes. But many are sending work overseas due to the ridiculous corp tax rate. Again, it is completely false to claim that the majority of US corporations aren't paying any taxes.
Did you know that 3/5ths of liberals have foot fungus? Or that 4/7ths of democratic senators cheat on their wives?
0
Quote Originally Posted by hugo:
Snuke, I noticed in your subsequent post you said nothing about the factual accuracy of my assertion that 2/3's of the corporations that do business in this country pay no taxes. I really didnt expect it because anyone who posesses any knowledge pertaining to that issue knows that what I said is true.So your uninformed blanket denial of the reality that I evoked is yet again another example of the myopic Neo-Con who refuses to accept reality even as it stares him in the face. When you actually do some research to back your accusations that I and other informed people in here falsify info, you may engender some respect. Until then your credibility reflects that of your Neo-Con idols who treat factual data as the bubonic plague and prefer to espouse unsubstantiated ideology as their mantra.Intelligent, informed and well founded opinion of any ilk is always welcome. I hope that some day you might rise to that level.
Hugo, you are once again clouding the truth. It is simply NOT TRUE that 2/3rds of corporations don't pay any taxes. The companies that send work overseas don't pay US taxes, yes. But many are sending work overseas due to the ridiculous corp tax rate. Again, it is completely false to claim that the majority of US corporations aren't paying any taxes.
Did you know that 3/5ths of liberals have foot fungus? Or that 4/7ths of democratic senators cheat on their wives?
BTW, your assertion makes it out as if they are illegally avoiding paying any taxes. A simple search will reveal that they are doing it all legitimately. It has to do with operating losses, tax credits, etc. BUT THEY ARE STILL PAYING TAXES. They just pass the tax on to the consumer.
0
BTW, your assertion makes it out as if they are illegally avoiding paying any taxes. A simple search will reveal that they are doing it all legitimately. It has to do with operating losses, tax credits, etc. BUT THEY ARE STILL PAYING TAXES. They just pass the tax on to the consumer.
Snuke, this my last last attempt to get you to look at factual data and respond to it rather than merely alleging that I am clouding the truth witout any authority to back your position. Please read the Government Accounting Office report on U.S. corporations (66%) thereof) that pay no taxes for doing business in this country.These corporations if they paid taxes at the 35% rate (tho no corp does that with all the tools they have at their disposal) they would owe 875 billion in income taxes. That is based on on annual sales of goods and services of 2.5 trillion in sales collectively. There according to the GAO 2 main ways they avoid paying.. This has nothing to do with sending work overseas as you have maintained. The first method is the establishing of phony corporate offices in banana republics like the Cayman Islands KBR, for example, claims to have 2 subsidiary companies in the Caymans.The 2 ,Service Worker International and Overseas Administrative Services claim to have have 21,500 employees from the Caymans tho it is highly unlikely that many people live there.The work is performed by U.S.citizens most of whom are in the Middle East.
Because the workers are supposedly Cayman Islanders KBR doesnt have to pay Medicare,Unemployment taxes etc on the workers nor income taxes on the fruits of their labor, most of ironically is rendered to the U.S government. The 2nd method used to avoid paying income tax on profits made here is called transfer pricing.This is a subtle, complex way of commingling sales proceeds to show profits being made on sales and services being made and/or performed in countries where there is little or no tax liability and showing (paper) losses on U.S. business. To try and simplify I will use an example to illustrate. ACME corp conducts business in the U.S. and Timbuktu. They sell widgets that cost them $5 to make in both countries. In the U.S they sell them for $10 and in Timbuktu they sell them for $5. They sold 100 widgets in the U.S. for a real profit of $500 and in Timbuktu they sold them for no real profit. However ,their corporate books and U.S. tax returns show no profit made in the U,S, and $500 profit made in Timbuktu where they have no tax. Now this is obviously an oversimplification, but I think you get the point.
The GAO report did not claim criminal liability against these corps ,but neither did they absolve them. The Dems ever since Clinton's early years have tried to close these loopholes only to be stonewalled by the GOP, many of which had ties to these corps like Dick Cheney with KBR's parent company Halliburton. Now maybe you are naive enough to believe that this practice somehow benefits the American public or that the paying corps in this country actually pay anywhere near 35% of their profits in taxes, but I dont think so.. But if you are going to accuse me of "clouding the truth" or flat out lying please come armed with some fact. I could go on with more data from the CBO,IRS the Census Bureau etc, but hopefully that wont be necessary. By the way the GAO report I was referring to, was issued on 8-13-08 less than 6 months ago.
0
Snuke, this my last last attempt to get you to look at factual data and respond to it rather than merely alleging that I am clouding the truth witout any authority to back your position. Please read the Government Accounting Office report on U.S. corporations (66%) thereof) that pay no taxes for doing business in this country.These corporations if they paid taxes at the 35% rate (tho no corp does that with all the tools they have at their disposal) they would owe 875 billion in income taxes. That is based on on annual sales of goods and services of 2.5 trillion in sales collectively. There according to the GAO 2 main ways they avoid paying.. This has nothing to do with sending work overseas as you have maintained. The first method is the establishing of phony corporate offices in banana republics like the Cayman Islands KBR, for example, claims to have 2 subsidiary companies in the Caymans.The 2 ,Service Worker International and Overseas Administrative Services claim to have have 21,500 employees from the Caymans tho it is highly unlikely that many people live there.The work is performed by U.S.citizens most of whom are in the Middle East.
Because the workers are supposedly Cayman Islanders KBR doesnt have to pay Medicare,Unemployment taxes etc on the workers nor income taxes on the fruits of their labor, most of ironically is rendered to the U.S government. The 2nd method used to avoid paying income tax on profits made here is called transfer pricing.This is a subtle, complex way of commingling sales proceeds to show profits being made on sales and services being made and/or performed in countries where there is little or no tax liability and showing (paper) losses on U.S. business. To try and simplify I will use an example to illustrate. ACME corp conducts business in the U.S. and Timbuktu. They sell widgets that cost them $5 to make in both countries. In the U.S they sell them for $10 and in Timbuktu they sell them for $5. They sold 100 widgets in the U.S. for a real profit of $500 and in Timbuktu they sold them for no real profit. However ,their corporate books and U.S. tax returns show no profit made in the U,S, and $500 profit made in Timbuktu where they have no tax. Now this is obviously an oversimplification, but I think you get the point.
The GAO report did not claim criminal liability against these corps ,but neither did they absolve them. The Dems ever since Clinton's early years have tried to close these loopholes only to be stonewalled by the GOP, many of which had ties to these corps like Dick Cheney with KBR's parent company Halliburton. Now maybe you are naive enough to believe that this practice somehow benefits the American public or that the paying corps in this country actually pay anywhere near 35% of their profits in taxes, but I dont think so.. But if you are going to accuse me of "clouding the truth" or flat out lying please come armed with some fact. I could go on with more data from the CBO,IRS the Census Bureau etc, but hopefully that wont be necessary. By the way the GAO report I was referring to, was issued on 8-13-08 less than 6 months ago.
Hugo, I have take the time to read the reports the accountability office releases. At no point are ANY of those businesses doing anything illegal. Loopholes, sure. But if you actually look at the data, there is no indication that 66% are going the Cayman Islands route. That's a clever trick, throwing that in there when it applies to very few of the corporations paying taxes. Like I said before, most companies avoid taxes when they operate at a law. Tax credits also come into play. And the whole reason these companies are avoiding taxes is because it has become unprofitable for them to operate in the U.S. on this level. I can hardly blame them for not wanting to throw most of their profits into the black hole of government.
And if you look how this thread got started, you will notice that it had to do with recent democrats not paying taxes - this isn't a loophole issue, they just didn't pay them. If corporations were actually not paying their taxes altogether, or illegally operating their business, the federal government would come down on them fairly quickly. So the comparison originally made is completely off base.
And what a shock, yet another Obama appointee with tax issues (not loophole issues).
0
Hugo, I have take the time to read the reports the accountability office releases. At no point are ANY of those businesses doing anything illegal. Loopholes, sure. But if you actually look at the data, there is no indication that 66% are going the Cayman Islands route. That's a clever trick, throwing that in there when it applies to very few of the corporations paying taxes. Like I said before, most companies avoid taxes when they operate at a law. Tax credits also come into play. And the whole reason these companies are avoiding taxes is because it has become unprofitable for them to operate in the U.S. on this level. I can hardly blame them for not wanting to throw most of their profits into the black hole of government.
And if you look how this thread got started, you will notice that it had to do with recent democrats not paying taxes - this isn't a loophole issue, they just didn't pay them. If corporations were actually not paying their taxes altogether, or illegally operating their business, the federal government would come down on them fairly quickly. So the comparison originally made is completely off base.
And what a shock, yet another Obama appointee with tax issues (not loophole issues).
If you need a better explanation of the "2/3rds don't pay taxes" fallacy please read on:
Do Corporations Really Pay No Taxes?
[E]ven in a strong economy there are plenty of losers—not just winners.
And that should help explain what’s wrong with the press’s coverage of
a Government Accountability Office study released last week, which
reported that two-thirds of American corporations paid no taxes in
2005—including a quarter of big businesses. The report, commissioned by
several labor-friendly Democratic Senators who pretty much knew based
on previous studies what it would say, sparked a lot of manufactured
outrage in political circles and produced a series of misleading
stories, like one by the Associated Press that ran in dozens of
newspapers under sensationalistic headlines like “Corporations Pay No
Taxes.”
A number of more rational commentators have pointed out some of the
ways that the pols have led the media astray on this one. Kevin
Hassett, in a Bloomberg commentary, explained that most small
businesses are now organized in such a way that many prefer to take
their profits as an owner’s salary and pay taxes on the wages.It’s not
that they aren’t paying taxes, as the headline incorrectly says, but
rather that the money is not flowing to the government through the
corporate levy.
Still, the report leaves open the question of larger businesses that
paid nothing. The impression one gets from corporate critics is that
many are prospering but exploiting loopholes in the tax code and
leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab. But that criticism is based
on the mistaken notion that in robust years, such as 2005, virtually
all businesses do well. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Even in good times, there are plenty of losers in a dynamic economy.
The BLS’ Business Dynamics Survey, for instance, shows that in 2005
there were 7.3 businesses that were contracting for every 7.6 that were
expanding, including 1.3 that were closing their doors for every 1.5
that were starting up. Large businesses were hardly immune to this kind
of tumult. For every 5.8 jobs added by firms with more than 500
employees, other firms that big eliminated 4.9 jobs. Among those hit
hard in 2005 was General Motors, which despite $193 billion in revenues
wracked up a $10.4 billion loss and cut its workforce.
It shouldn’t be necessary to remind reporters and editors who cover
such matters that businesses pay taxes on their profits, not sales.
0
If you need a better explanation of the "2/3rds don't pay taxes" fallacy please read on:
Do Corporations Really Pay No Taxes?
[E]ven in a strong economy there are plenty of losers—not just winners.
And that should help explain what’s wrong with the press’s coverage of
a Government Accountability Office study released last week, which
reported that two-thirds of American corporations paid no taxes in
2005—including a quarter of big businesses. The report, commissioned by
several labor-friendly Democratic Senators who pretty much knew based
on previous studies what it would say, sparked a lot of manufactured
outrage in political circles and produced a series of misleading
stories, like one by the Associated Press that ran in dozens of
newspapers under sensationalistic headlines like “Corporations Pay No
Taxes.”
A number of more rational commentators have pointed out some of the
ways that the pols have led the media astray on this one. Kevin
Hassett, in a Bloomberg commentary, explained that most small
businesses are now organized in such a way that many prefer to take
their profits as an owner’s salary and pay taxes on the wages.It’s not
that they aren’t paying taxes, as the headline incorrectly says, but
rather that the money is not flowing to the government through the
corporate levy.
Still, the report leaves open the question of larger businesses that
paid nothing. The impression one gets from corporate critics is that
many are prospering but exploiting loopholes in the tax code and
leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab. But that criticism is based
on the mistaken notion that in robust years, such as 2005, virtually
all businesses do well. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Even in good times, there are plenty of losers in a dynamic economy.
The BLS’ Business Dynamics Survey, for instance, shows that in 2005
there were 7.3 businesses that were contracting for every 7.6 that were
expanding, including 1.3 that were closing their doors for every 1.5
that were starting up. Large businesses were hardly immune to this kind
of tumult. For every 5.8 jobs added by firms with more than 500
employees, other firms that big eliminated 4.9 jobs. Among those hit
hard in 2005 was General Motors, which despite $193 billion in revenues
wracked up a $10.4 billion loss and cut its workforce.
It shouldn’t be necessary to remind reporters and editors who cover
such matters that businesses pay taxes on their profits, not sales.
Snuke, thank you for at least citing some authority,tho in my opinion it is highly questionable.But your last post raises issues that are debatable by two informed sides, instead of merely accusing me of falsifying or clouding the truth. Hell, I only wish I had the power to falsify official Government reports, imagine what I could do with that license. Any way we still agree to disagree and there is nothing wrong with that.
0
Snuke, thank you for at least citing some authority,tho in my opinion it is highly questionable.But your last post raises issues that are debatable by two informed sides, instead of merely accusing me of falsifying or clouding the truth. Hell, I only wish I had the power to falsify official Government reports, imagine what I could do with that license. Any way we still agree to disagree and there is nothing wrong with that.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
