It's not about winning or losing. It's about being right or wrong.kalm wrote:The funny part here is you once again, somehow think you've won.Baldy wrote: Obviously.
I'm sure you can go to your local bookstore and pick up a copy of "Analogies for Dummies" or something.
You might have been right if Buffett had never acknowledged his own tax rate or the inequities in the system. He's not hypocritical, he's walking and chewing gum. Oops...there I go again.Baldy wrote:It's not about winning or losing. It's about being right or wrong.kalm wrote:
The funny part here is you once again, somehow think you've won.
As usual, you've shown you're very good at the latter and not so much the former.
Nice try.kalm wrote:You might have been right if Buffett had never acknowledged his own tax rate or the inequities in the system. He's not hypocritical, he's walking and chewing gum. Oops...there I go again.Baldy wrote: It's not about winning or losing. It's about being right or wrong.
As usual, you've shown you're very good at the latter and not so much the former.
I've always felt Gore was a dufous. Buffett is playing the same game everyone else is while advocating for something better. It's how our system works right now. The best government money can buy. As insinuated earlier, you'd love him if he was a conk.Baldy wrote:Nice try.kalm wrote:
You might have been right if Buffett had never acknowledged his own tax rate or the inequities in the system. He's not hypocritical, he's walking and chewing gum. Oops...there I go again.
He is trying to avoid paying what he believes everyone else in his similar position should be paying. He's also lobbying for tax breaks for his enterprises while advocating the elimination of similar tax breaks for others.
Warren and Algore...two peas in a pod, but I'm sure you believe Albert isn't a hypocrite, either.
In other words, a hypocrite for the right reasons.kalm wrote: Buffett is playing the same game everyone else is while advocating for something better.
I don't dislike the guy, just don't care for his dubious tactics.As insinuated earlier, you'd love him if he was a conk.
Yes...something like that.Baldy wrote:In other words, a hypocrite for the right reasons.kalm wrote: Buffett is playing the same game everyone else is while advocating for something better.
I don't dislike the guy, just don't care for his dubious tactics.As insinuated earlier, you'd love him if he was a conk.
No, but I recognize that both sides play it in politics and business.SuperHornet wrote:I take it that kalm subscibes to the Machiavellian school of government.
If he were a republican he wouldn't have lobbied for tax increases.Ibanez wrote:If here were a Republican, you'd label him a shrewd business man.SuperHornet wrote:
How about that douche Al Gore who tried to sell his failed cable network before the tax increases he lobbied for went into effect?
In the wake of this week's last-minute deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, executives at some of the nation's largest corporations have denounced the compromise, arguing that it does little to solve the nation's long-term debt woes.
"It's a missed opportunity to revive our economy," said Honeywell International chief executive David Cote, one of the leading corporate voices urging a congressional accord, in a statement Wednesday.
"I think it's a joke," said Dick Kovacevich, former chief executive and chairman emeritus of Wells Fargo, in an interview with Reuters.
Yet many of the same executives calling for federal spending cuts and comprehensive tax reform are benefiting from billions of dollars in tax exemptions and carve-outs provided to major corporations. Executives who have banded together in recent months as part of the Campaign to Fix the Debt, a coalition of current and former politicians and business leaders, have at the same time been lobbying to preserve the tax perks their companies have enjoyed for years...
Honeywell's Cote said any real debt proposal needs to include "meaningful entitlement and tax reform." He urged leaders in Congress to "put politics aside and work out a plan that will truly help to expand the U.S. economy over the long term."
Over the past two years, industrial conglomerate Honeywell International has spent more than $14 million lobbying in Washington, including on "international taxation and repatriation...
Many multinational corporations, including those whose executives have come together as part of the Campaign to Fix the Debt, enjoy a benefit that allows them to indefinitely put off paying U.S. taxes on interest income earned overseas. They have lobbied for more than 15 years to preserve the so-called active-financing exemption, and Congress has repeatedly extended it...
From 2008 to 2010, Honeywell paid an effective federal tax rate of minus 0.7 percent, according to an analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy. A Honeywell spokesman did not respond to questions about corporate tax exemptions...
General Electric, also part of the Fix the Debt coalition, has relied extensively on the overseas investment exemption through the years -- a factor that contributed to its famously low federal tax rate in 2010, the subject of a New York Times investigation. The exemption is important enough that G.E. identifies failure to extend the benefit as a "risk factor" in its annual securities filings. The company told investors that its tax rate would "increase significantly" if the exemption weren't extended by Congress.
A spokesman for G.E., Seth Martin, wrote in an e-mail that the company's tax rate was low in 2010 because of losses in its finance wing during the economic crisis, but that rates have since increased. In the company's most recent annual filing, G.E. said its tax rate was minus 11.6 percent in 2009, 7.3 percent in 2010 and 28.5 percent in 2011. Those rates reflect income taxes paid in all countries, not just the United States...
The chief executives of major banks with international investments, including JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon and Morgan Stanley's James Gorman, publicly pushed for a sensible resolution to the fiscal cliff. In November, Gorman sent an email to employees, urging them to contact members of Congress. "No issue is more critical right now for the U.S. economy, the global financial markets and the financial well-being of our clients," he wrote.
Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan have lobbied for extensions of overseas tax benefits in recent years. Representatives from both banks did not respond to requests for comment on Friday...
Verizon Wireless Communications, another Fix the Debt member, has spent more than $30 million lobbying over the past two years. The company lists bonus depreciation as a lobbying priority, along with taxation on foreign earnings.
A spokesman for the Campaign to Fix the Debt, Jon Romano, said the group is not making specific recommendations to the White House and Congress on how to structure a long-term deficit reduction plan. He did not say whether coalition members would be willing to give up corporate tax exemptions, but he said the group believes in "reining in spending, raising revenues and real entitlement reform."
They're advocating for debt reduction and entitlement "reform" while lobbying for tax breaks. I'm sure they were pleased with SS tax cut retiring while many of theirs remained. It's all a game.Baldy wrote:
Hmmmm...even with all the "creative accounting", I still don't see where those companies are advocating for higher tax rates on everyone else besides themselves.
I don't get the idea though that companies should be doing something other than what they are doing. They are in business to make money and pass that along to their employees and shareholders so they are acting very logical. What they are arguing for in that article is the same treatment by the US that most other countries do for repatriated money that is made and taxed overseas. We're somewhat unique in that we want to tax that repatriated money when is comes back to the US and then we're shocked when companies choose to keep those profits abroad rather than reinvest here. So we have a high corporate tax rate and we make it difficult to bring that money back, yet we're angry that companies don't just suck it up and give us their money. Shocking.kalm wrote:They're advocating for debt reduction and entitlement "reform" while lobbying for tax breaks. I'm sure they were pleased with SS tax cut retiring while many of theirs remained. It's all a game.Baldy wrote:
Hmmmm...even with all the "creative accounting", I still don't see where those companies are advocating for higher tax rates on everyone else besides themselves.
I don't blame companies for taking advantage of the system. I'd do the same thing in their shoes. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone like a Lloyd Blankfein publicly suggesting that the lower classes are going to have to take a hit for debt reduction.GannonFan wrote:I don't get the idea though that companies should be doing something other than what they are doing. They are in business to make money and pass that along to their employees and shareholders so they are acting very logical. What they are arguing for in that article is the same treatment by the US that most other countries do for repatriated money that is made and taxed overseas. We're somewhat unique in that we want to tax that repatriated money when is comes back to the US and then we're shocked when companies choose to keep those profits abroad rather than reinvest here. So we have a high corporate tax rate and we make it difficult to bring that money back, yet we're angry that companies don't just suck it up and give us their money. Shocking.kalm wrote:
They're advocating for debt reduction and entitlement "reform" while lobbying for tax breaks. I'm sure they were pleased with SS tax cut retiring while many of theirs remained. It's all a game.
It's not hypocrisy, it's fact. You can't expect to be able to tax corporations to the extent we want to to address the debt issue. Corporations, as an entity, just aren't going to pay a lot of taxes in this world because countries want the jobs that corporations bring and the taxes will come from everyone who has a skin in the corporation (shareholders, executives, other employees, etc). The people that work for and own the corporation are the ones who pay the taxes - the corporation itself just doesn't.kalm wrote:I don't blame companies for taking advantage of the system. I'd do the same thing in their shoes. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone like a Lloyd Blankfein publicly suggesting that the lower classes are going to have to take a hit for debt reduction.GannonFan wrote:
I don't get the idea though that companies should be doing something other than what they are doing. They are in business to make money and pass that along to their employees and shareholders so they are acting very logical. What they are arguing for in that article is the same treatment by the US that most other countries do for repatriated money that is made and taxed overseas. We're somewhat unique in that we want to tax that repatriated money when is comes back to the US and then we're shocked when companies choose to keep those profits abroad rather than reinvest here. So we have a high corporate tax rate and we make it difficult to bring that money back, yet we're angry that companies don't just suck it up and give us their money. Shocking.
And for the 1000th time, our corporate tax rate is high, the EFFECTIVE rate is not compared with other OECD countries.
The hypocrisy lies in giving a shit about the national debt and forming concerned business groups to wax philosophical about it. It's an ongoing wealth grab and they are very good at it. You can hide it behind the banner of corporations aren't really people but corporations are people all you want but that's just obfuscation.GannonFan wrote:It's not hypocrisy, it's fact. You can't expect to be able to tax corporations to the extent we want to to address the debt issue. Corporations, as an entity, just aren't going to pay a lot of taxes in this world because countries want the jobs that corporations bring and the taxes will come from everyone who has a skin in the corporation (shareholders, executives, other employees, etc). The people that work for and own the corporation are the ones who pay the taxes - the corporation itself just doesn't.kalm wrote:
I don't blame companies for taking advantage of the system. I'd do the same thing in their shoes. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone like a Lloyd Blankfein publicly suggesting that the lower classes are going to have to take a hit for debt reduction.
And for the 1000th time, our corporate tax rate is high, the EFFECTIVE rate is not compared with other OECD countries.
And yes, the effective rate is not high compared to other countries. Of course, the effective rate is meaningless since companies do keep profits away from the US because if they did bring the money back the calculated effective rate would end up higher based on how we handle those profits here. You're arguing that the rate is lower based on the outcome as it stands today. If companies acted differently and brought the money home they'd be paying much more than they do today and the effective rate would jump.
AZGrizFan wrote:GF, it's all the Fed and Wall Streets money anyway...they're just letting the rest of us borrow it.
Fact: you can't get tax "revenues" from a company that no longer exits.kalm wrote: Fact: spending needs to be cut. Fact: you can't expect to fund government when corporations now cover less than 10% of tax revenues vs. 30% a few decades ago and top marginal rates and taxes on investments have also been kept low.
No and that's part of the reason why you and I both voted for Johnson.AZGrizFan wrote:Fact: you can't get tax "revenues" from a company that no longer exits.kalm wrote: Fact: spending needs to be cut. Fact: you can't expect to fund government when corporations now cover less than 10% of tax revenues vs. 30% a few decades ago and top marginal rates and taxes on investments have also been kept low.
Fact: Any increase in tax rates is born by the CONSUMER, not the company.
Fact: Government spending in 2012 was 200% of government spending in 2002. Do we REALLY need twice as much "government" as we did just 10 years ago?
Then lets stop worrying about solving a SYMPTOM and start solving the actual problem. And the cliff "solution" wasn't it.kalm wrote:No and that's part of the reason why you and I both voted for Johnson.AZGrizFan wrote:
Fact: you can't get tax "revenues" from a company that no longer exits.
Fact: Any increase in tax rates is born by the CONSUMER, not the company.
Fact: Government spending in 2012 was 200% of government spending in 2002. Do we REALLY need twice as much "government" as we did just 10 years ago?
Corporations and business groups do care about the national debt, but not for the reasons why you and I would. I worry about the national debt because it could affect my lifetime earnings or my children's earnings. Corporations worry about it because a country saddled with massive debt tends to be a place where it's hard to do business and make money. But that's not hypocrisy, it's just logical.kalm wrote:The hypocrisy lies in giving a **** about the national debt and forming concerned business groups to wax philosophical about it. It's an ongoing wealth grab and they are very good at it. You can hide it behind the banner of corporations aren't really people but corporations are people all you want but that's just obfuscation.GannonFan wrote:
It's not hypocrisy, it's fact. You can't expect to be able to tax corporations to the extent we want to to address the debt issue. Corporations, as an entity, just aren't going to pay a lot of taxes in this world because countries want the jobs that corporations bring and the taxes will come from everyone who has a skin in the corporation (shareholders, executives, other employees, etc). The people that work for and own the corporation are the ones who pay the taxes - the corporation itself just doesn't.
And yes, the effective rate is not high compared to other countries. Of course, the effective rate is meaningless since companies do keep profits away from the US because if they did bring the money back the calculated effective rate would end up higher based on how we handle those profits here. You're arguing that the rate is lower based on the outcome as it stands today. If companies acted differently and brought the money home they'd be paying much more than they do today and the effective rate would jump.
Fact: spending needs to be cut. Fact: you can't expect to fund government when corporations now cover less than 10% of tax revenues vs. 30% a few decades ago and top marginal rates and taxes on investments have also been kept low.
Trickle down does not work but no one including people like Blankfein want to pay for government at any level.
Well said GF.GannonFan wrote:Corporations and business groups do care about the national debt, but not for the reasons why you and I would. I worry about the national debt because it could affect my lifetime earnings or my children's earnings. Corporations worry about it because a country saddled with massive debt tends to be a place where it's hard to do business and make money. But that's not hypocrisy, it's just logical.kalm wrote:
The hypocrisy lies in giving a **** about the national debt and forming concerned business groups to wax philosophical about it. It's an ongoing wealth grab and they are very good at it. You can hide it behind the banner of corporations aren't really people but corporations are people all you want but that's just obfuscation.
Fact: spending needs to be cut. Fact: you can't expect to fund government when corporations now cover less than 10% of tax revenues vs. 30% a few decades ago and top marginal rates and taxes on investments have also been kept low.
Trickle down does not work but no one including people like Blankfein want to pay for government at any level.
As for the ways to fund government, you have to stop living in the past - you're oddly conservative in that way of always looking to the past. The way we funded things decades ago was fine when half the world was living in abject poverty and was more concerned about where the next meal was coming from. Now that the whole world is a competitor it's just not possible to expect that corporate tax revenues are going to fund 30% of government, especially when government is, like AZ said, something like 200% bigger than ten years ago.
As I said before, pretending that the rest of the world doesn't exist and we can run things like we ran then after WWII is just naivete. It's a tough world out there and if we don't try to compete in it we'll continue to slug along.
