Grizalltheway wrote:
The point is, whatever the 'fair share' ends up being, companies like Apple, Google, GE etc will find a way not to pay it.
Great. Unfortunately, that point was irrelevant to my post. Who determines what the rich's "fair share" is? I gather that you support making the rich pay their "fair share," so why not say who will determine it? I am guessing you're going to rely on Congress to do that?
Now you've changed the question from companies/corporations to wealthy individuals? Two completely different things. And yes, who besides Congress is going to determine how much corporations pay in taxes?
Grizalltheway wrote:
The point is, whatever the 'fair share' ends up being, companies like Apple, Google, GE etc will find a way not to pay it.
Great. Unfortunately, that point was irrelevant to my post. Who determines what the rich's "fair share" is? I gather that you support making the rich pay their "fair share," so why not say who will determine it? I am guessing you're going to rely on Congress to do that?
Before we get to determining it, I just wish someoneone would define it.
ASUMountaineer wrote:
Great. Unfortunately, that point was irrelevant to my post. Who determines what the rich's "fair share" is? I gather that you support making the rich pay their "fair share," so why not say who will determine it? I am guessing you're going to rely on Congress to do that?
Now you've changed the question from companies/corporations to wealthy individuals? Two completely different things. And yes, who besides Congress is going to determine how much corporations pay in taxes?
Negative ghostrider. Aren't they interchangeable, after all coporations are people? No, we're talking companies. The post that I responded to posing this question dealt with HD's post about GE not having to pay it's "fair share," assuming that we're discussing in the future when companies are "finally" made to carry their weight.
Perhaps I should have asked it as, "would you define 'fair share?'" The assumption here is that companies have not been carrying their weight, and getting by with not paying their "fair share." It sounds nice to say such a thing, but given that Congress would determine what is a company's "fair share," it seems many in congress would come to a different conclusion on what is a "fair share." In general, I find talk of a "fair share" to be misnomer used to criticize companies for operating within the current law.
Do I advocate eliminating loopholes? Yes. Do I advocate coupling that with a reduced tax rate for companies? Yes. My point was, at what point will a company have paid their "fair share," and when will those critical of companies' tax policies be satisfied that they are paying their "fair share?" My apologies for asking the question in a confusing way. Now, blast away.
Appalachian State Mountaineers:
National Champions: 2005, 2006, and 2007 Southern Conference Champions: 1986, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WE'RE GONNA SHOUT IT! NOTHING'S HOTTER THAN A-S-U!
ASUMountaineer wrote:
Great. Unfortunately, that point was irrelevant to my post. Who determines what the rich's "fair share" is? I gather that you support making the rich pay their "fair share," so why not say who will determine it? I am guessing you're going to rely on Congress to do that?
Before we get to determining it, I just wish someoneone would define it.
Right. You said that much more succinctly than I did in my post.
Appalachian State Mountaineers:
National Champions: 2005, 2006, and 2007 Southern Conference Champions: 1986, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WE'RE GONNA SHOUT IT! NOTHING'S HOTTER THAN A-S-U!
No, we're talking companies. The post that I responded to posing this question dealt with HD's post about GE not having to pay it's "fair share," assuming that we're discussing in the future when companies are "finally" made to carry their weight. 
