There's a difference between government spending and consumer pricing. A corporation, like any individual should have to pay it's own way, no freeloading. It's the free market way.bobbythekidd wrote:That's exactly what happens and it will always be that way. What else would you suggest happen?kalm wrote:Now back to the topic of taxation, do you think that a corporation should be able to pass its expenses on to the tax payers?
Yup. Guilty as charged, but I thought your essay deserved a proper response.kalm wrote:....Jeez, and some accuse me of being wordy...
Of course the problem is any politician with the cojones to tackle it will be marginalized. Unless things get much worse...native wrote:Yup. Guilty as charged, but I thought your essay deserved a proper response.kalm wrote:....Jeez, and some accuse me of being wordy...
I really do agree with you that we should capitalize on our economic and cultural strengths to establish "fair trade" agreements, kalm! We would just have to agree on the definition of "fair trade" and how to get there. Not an easy task.
Yes, any business entitly must pass its expenses to its customers.kalm wrote:You know what Nate, I read your polemic in full and agree with quite a bit of it. Of course it's utopic and under the current political system of glorified bribary, 90% of it is totally unachievable.
But nice work none the less.
Now back to the topic of taxation, do you think that a corporation should be able to pass its expenses on to the tax payers?
True, but due to Obama's "successful" heavy handed socialist agenda on healthcare, financial "reform," and global warming tomfoolery, there is a very good chance that things will get much worse before they get better.kalm wrote:Of course the problem is any politician with the cojones to tackle it will be marginalized. Unless things get much worse...native wrote:
Yup. Guilty as charged, but I thought your essay deserved a proper response.
I really do agree with you that we should capitalize on our economic and cultural strengths to establish "fair trade" agreements, kalm! We would just have to agree on the definition of "fair trade" and how to get there. Not an easy task.
That's not the question I asked. I'm talking about how tax dollars are spent.native wrote:Yes, any business entitly must pass its expenses to its customers.kalm wrote:You know what Nate, I read your polemic in full and agree with quite a bit of it. Of course it's utopic and under the current political system of glorified bribary, 90% of it is totally unachievable.
But nice work none the less.
Now back to the topic of taxation, do you think that a corporation should be able to pass its expenses on to the tax payers?
You just pointed out the flaw in your own question. Because that is how bottom lines work.kalm wrote:If they create the expense, why should the consumer have to pay for it?
Or we could not subsidize their business and let them sink or swim on their own. If they can't compete without the help of the government, they can be replaced.bobbythekidd wrote:You just pointed out the flaw in your own question. Because that is how bottom lines work.kalm wrote:If they create the expense, why should the consumer have to pay for it?
Which businesses do you think exist only with government subsidy? Exxon?kalm wrote: ...Or we could not subsidize their business and let them sink or swim on their own. If they can't compete without the help of the government, they can be replaced. ...
I didn't say "only" did I? Do you think a business is entitled to profits no matter what?native wrote:Which businesses do you think exist only with government subsidy? Exxon?kalm wrote: ...Or we could not subsidize their business and let them sink or swim on their own. If they can't compete without the help of the government, they can be replaced. ...
The U.S. Navy is your rationale ?!???kalm wrote:I didn't say "only" did I? Do you think a business is entitled to profits no matter what?native wrote:
Which businesses do you think exist only with government subsidy? Exxon?
Does Exxon have a navy that keeps the shipping lanes open in the Persian Gulf? Perhaps they could hire Blackwater.
We agree actually. I don't think corporations pay taxes in the first place. They have their customers pay taxes for them in the price of the goods they sell. The answer is to make all corporations exempt from taxes. This will attract all the off shore money you have an eye for and attract all those manufacturing jobs back to US soil that Houndawg wants.kalm wrote:Or we could not subsidize their business and let them sink or swim on their own. If they can't compete without the help of the government, they can be replaced.bobbythekidd wrote:
You just pointed out the flaw in your own question. Because that is how bottom lines work.
Why do you hate capitalism?
That's, again, a utopic but fair and interesting response. Good on ya Bob.bobbythekidd wrote:We agree actually. I don't think corporations pay taxes in the first place. They have their customers pay taxes for them in the price of the goods they sell. The answer is to make all corporations exempt from taxes. This will attract all the off shore money you have an eye for and attract all those manufacturing jobs back to US soil that Houndawg wants.kalm wrote:
Or we could not subsidize their business and let them sink or swim on their own. If they can't compete without the help of the government, they can be replaced.
Why do you hate capitalism?
The manipulation of tax codes allows congress to pick winners and losers, and I am against the concept because I like capitalism.
Um yeah. The U.S. Navy is funded by the tax payers right? Just like East India Tea Company benefited from the Royal Navy...native wrote:The U.S. Navy is your rationale ?!???kalm wrote:
I didn't say "only" did I? Do you think a business is entitled to profits no matter what?
Does Exxon have a navy that keeps the shipping lanes open in the Persian Gulf? Perhaps they could hire Blackwater.
It's only Utopic because the people that get to manipulate the tax codes are the same ones that pick winners and losers. We have the power to fix that but we would rater vote for the name we know/ the letter behind that name/ or the one with the best haircut. Let's face it; America is stuck in High School with the rest of the world matriculates and moves on.kalm wrote:That's, again, a Utopic but fair and interesting response. Good on ya Bob.bobbythekidd wrote:
We agree actually. I don't think corporations pay taxes in the first place. They have their customers pay taxes for them in the price of the goods they sell. The answer is to make all corporations exempt from taxes. This will attract all the off shore money you have an eye for and attract all those manufacturing jobs back to US soil that Houndawg wants.
The manipulation of tax codes allows congress to pick winners and losers, and I am against the concept because I like capitalism.
Keep on knitting, Madame DeFarge. I bet you were the toast of the economics department at Cheney.kalm wrote:Yeah like this one you welfare queen:Ivytalk wrote:
AlphaGriz busted you with the facts, Mr. Nobel Economics Laureate.
Exxon Paid Zero U.S. Income Tax In 2009, While Big Oil Defends Billions In Senseless Tax Subsidies
Over at ThinkProgress, Ben Armbruster highlighted a Forbes report on the taxes paid by top corporations last year. According to Forbes, General Electric managed to make $10.3 billion in pretax income, but paid nothing into the U.S. Treasury, as it counted its losses in the U.S., while registering its profits overseas. As Forbes put it, “GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. (posting a $6.5 billion loss in 2009), and make lots of money overseas (a $4.3 billion gain).”
And then there’s Exxon-Mobil, which paid more in income taxes than any other U.S. company last year, just none of it to the U.S.:
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.
Instead, the $15 billion was divided among the countries where Exxon has set up one of its hundreds of foreign subsidiaries. In total, Exxon 122 foreign subsidiaries, including 32 in countries that are officially labeled tax havens by the U.S. government. It has 18 subsidiaries in the Bahamas, and 3 each in the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, and Singapore.
In each of the last two years, the Obama administration has proposed eliminating the loopholes and incentives in the tax code that allow companies to set up subsidiaries in these low- or no-tax countries, which help them lower their effective tax rate by 20 points or more. Both times, the administration saw its efforts rebuffed by Congress and the Big Business lobby, which means that a $100 billion annual tax burden will continue to be shifted onto U.S. taxpayers (including corporations) that don’t engage in this sort of tax evasion.
But Exxon is not only avoiding U.S. taxes. As Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein pointed out, the company also has the chutzpah to complain about high taxation, as its website claims that “energy innovation is already on the ropes because of excessive taxes, and it will be forever consigned to the dustbin by any new taxes on windfall profits.” Plus, the Big Oil lobby is currently running ads against what it calls “new energy taxes,” which is actually an effort by the Obama administration to cut $36 billion in senseless tax loopholes and subsidies for the oil industry.
So, to sum up, oil companies complain about high taxation, while paying no taxes and receiving corporate welfare from the federal government. I understand why they’d want to go to great lengths to protect such a sweetheart deal, but there’s no reason for the rest of us to buy it.
I like it better when you reference something a kid from a directional college like me at least has to look up on wiki.Ivytalk wrote:Keep on knitting, Madame DeFarge. I bet you were the toast of the economics department at Cheney.kalm wrote:
Yeah like this one you welfare queen:
Oh, really? And you're a quasi-populist, redistributionist martinet without faith in any market other than the nearest Safeway! So, there!kalm wrote:I like it better when you reference something a kid from a directional college like me at least has to look up on wiki.Ivytalk wrote: Keep on knitting, Madame DeFarge. I bet you were the toast of the economics department at Cheney.
Your're slipping, and you're still a shill for the corporate welfare system.
whore.
I hate Safeway, corporate welfare, and oligarchies, but love regulated free markets.Ivytalk wrote:Oh, really? And you're a quasi-populist, redistributionist martinet without faith in any market other than the nearest Safeway! So, there!kalm wrote:
I like it better when you reference something a kid from a directional college like me at least has to look up on wiki.
Your're slipping, and you're still a shill for the corporate welfare system.
whore.
Wow, a point of agreement!kalm wrote:Or we could not subsidize their business and let them sink or swim on their own. If they can't compete without the help of the government, they can be replaced.bobbythekidd wrote:
You just pointed out the flaw in your own question. Because that is how bottom lines work.
Why do you hate capitalism?
travelinman67 wrote:The sound of America collapsing...
...1/3 of Atlantic City hotel casinos have closed this year...bond rating dropped to junk bond level.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101860762
Other entertainment options? Like you at your sister's wedding reception?Grizalltheway wrote:AC needs to adapt to market forces and start offering other entertainment options, like Vegas did long ago.
Nice try though, Chicken Little.
Bingo!Ivytalk wrote:Other entertainment options? Like you at your sister's wedding reception?Grizalltheway wrote:AC needs to adapt to market forces and start offering other entertainment options, like Vegas did long ago.
Nice try though, Chicken Little.