Kudos to Obama for Cleaning up Washington

[BDKJMU]

If you don't understand fair share, then you need to get off the interwebs and into some remedial courses. Fair share is NOT overtaxing one group while giving breaks to others. Fair Share is NOT one group paying little to nothing in taxes then being "refunded" more than they could have ever possibly put in. Fair Share will not be a perfect measurement due to various income levels however we can make sure that companies are paying a tax and not using loopholes. We can make sure that subsidies end for oil companies and agricultural areas (like celebrities getting tax breaks for farms).

Pfffft. Whatever commie.

By "subsidies" you mean tax write offs. You can't just say oil companies, because oil companies are operating under the same tax laws that thousands of other companies are operating under.

[Ibanez]

If you don't understand fair share, then you need to get off the interwebs and into some remedial courses. Fair share is NOT overtaxing one group while giving breaks to others. Fair Share is NOT one group paying little to nothing in taxes then being "refunded" more than they could have ever possibly put in. Fair Share will not be a perfect measurement due to various income levels however we can make sure that companies are paying a tax and not using loopholes. We can make sure that subsidies end for oil companies and agricultural areas (like celebrities getting tax breaks for farms).

And what company(s) would that be that has negative income tax liability? We have the (debunked) claim of GE paying zero, but even those who claimed they payed zero never claimed they paid zero and got $$ back on top of that.

There are companies have had low effective income taxes, but what companies have paid less than zero income taxes (MORE income taxes back than they paid in)?

The only people being "refunded" more than they paid in are those in the (about) 47% who have zero income tax liability who get the EITC, which is a form of welfare.

I didn't say anything about companies paying less than zero. Don't put words in my mouth.

[BDKJMU]

And what company(s) would that be that has negative income tax liability? We have the (debunked) claim of GE paying zero, but even those who claimed they payed zero never claimed they paid zero and got $$ back on top of that.

There are companies have had low effective income taxes, but what companies have paid less than zero income taxes (MORE income taxes back than they paid in)?

The only people being "refunded" more than they paid in are those in the (about) 47% who have zero income tax liability who get the EITC, which is a form of welfare.

I didn't say anything about companies paying less than zero. Don't put words in my mouth.

Houndog and I were talking about GE. He said something about fair share in regards to GE. I replied WTF is fair share vis a vi GE. Then you chimed in about fair share where we were clearly talking about companies. So that IMPLIES you were referring to companies. If you were referring to individuals, you should have said so.

[ASUMountaineer]

GE doesn't operate without paying taxes.

Here's factcheck.org (that leans left) for you:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren ... -no-taxes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you, I will amend the question: Do you think GE should be able to operate without paying their fair share of taxes?

Who determines a companies' "fair share?"

[Ibanez]

I didn't say anything about companies paying less than zero. Don't put words in my mouth.

Houndog and I were talking about GE. He said something about fair share in regards to GE. I replied WTF is fair share vis a vi GE. Then you chimed in about fair share where we were clearly talking about companies. So that IMPLIES you were referring to companies. If you were referring to individuals, you should have said so.

It didn't imply that. You assumed that.

What's Glenn Beck saying about all of this?

[Ibanez]

Thank you, I will amend the question: Do you think GE should be able to operate without paying their fair share of taxes?

Who determines a companies' "fair share?"

Good question. The people?

[kalm]

Thank you, I will amend the question: Do you think GE should be able to operate without paying their fair share of taxes?

Who determines a companies' "fair share?"

The congressmen they donate to.

[Ibanez]

Who determines a companies' "fair share?"

The congressmen they donate to.

[BDKJMU]

Houndog and I were talking about GE. He said something about fair share in regards to GE. I replied WTF is fair share vis a vi GE. Then you chimed in about fair share where we were clearly talking about companies. So that IMPLIES you were referring to companies. If you were referring to individuals, you should have said so.

It didn't imply that. You assumed that.

What's Glenn Beck saying about all of this?

It did imply that. You just assumed people would know what you weren't implying that.

Just like on that other thread where the way you typed it & the way it read to others on here, implied that you thought Huffpo was in the middle. After a few people had jumped on you for saying Huffpo was in the middle, you came back on and said that is not what you meant, you meant they were far left, but you had to read them along with Fox to find out where the middle was.

It occasionally happens to lots of us on here- typing/meaning one thing, and the way it reads people think we're implying something else.

[BDKJMU]

Houndog and I were talking about GE. He said something about fair share in regards to GE. I replied WTF is fair share vis a vi GE. Then you chimed in about fair share where we were clearly talking about companies. So that IMPLIES you were referring to companies. If you were referring to individuals, you should have said so.

It didn't imply that. You assumed that.

What's Glenn Beck saying about all of this?

As far as what Beck has said, I've only listened to tidbits of him in the last week+. Same with Rush, Hannity, Levin, and Savage.
http://www.iq1069.com/#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

It didn't imply that. You assumed that.

What's Glenn Beck saying about all of this?

As far as what Beck has said, I've only listened to tidbits of him in the last week+. Same with Rush, Hannity, Levin, and Savage.
http://www.iq1069.com/#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You quoted The Blaze in another thread. I figure you listen to his rants.

[ASUMountaineer]

Who determines a companies' "fair share?"

The congressmen they donate to.

Isn't that the point? The people who are pissed that Congress does the bidding of lobbyists are the same people that want Congress to make other people (it's almost always other people) pay their "fair share." The tax code and system is broken, and politicians know that keeping the sheeple pissed at rich folk is going to keep the scheme alive and rest the power with the politicians. It's a ploy to keep them in office, and we fall for it everytime.

[Ibanez]

It didn't imply that. You assumed that.

What's Glenn Beck saying about all of this?

It did imply that. You just assumed people would know what you weren't implying that.

Just like on that other thread where the way you typed it & the way it read to others on here, implied that you thought Huffpo was in the middle. After a few people had jumped on you for saying Huffpo was in the middle, you came back on and said that is not what you meant, you meant they were far left, but you had to read them along with Fox to find out where the middle was.

It occasionally happens to lots of us on here- typing/meaning one thing, and the way it reads people think we're implying something else.

I owned up to that mistake in not being clear. You have to read multiple sources and angles of a story to find the truth. There is so much bias out there (and on here.)

[Baldy]

The congressmen they donate to.

Isn't that the point? The people who are pissed that Congress does the bidding of lobbyists are the same people that want Congress to make other people (it's almost always other people) pay their "fair share." The tax code and system is broken, and politicians know that keeping the sheeple pissed at rich folk is going to keep the scheme alive and rest the power with the politicians. It's a ploy to keep them in office, and we fall for it everytime.

[Ibanez]

Isn't that the point? The people who are pissed that Congress does the bidding of lobbyists are the same people that want Congress to make other people (it's almost always other people) pay their "fair share." The tax code and system is broken, and politicians know that keeping the sheeple pissed at rich folk is going to keep the scheme alive and rest the power with the politicians. It's a ploy to keep them in office, and we fall for it everytime.

I have no poll to back this up, but I believe that a majority of us on CS, that understand this are in the minority in America. I know people give me blank stares when Is say this stuff to them and call them out for saying on thing but voting another. How does that change? Are groups like No Labels going to be effective?

[Baldy]

I have no poll to back this up, but I believe that a majority of us on CS, that understand this are in the minority in America. I know people give me blank stares when Is say this stuff to them and call them out for saying on thing but voting another. How does that change? Are groups like No Labels going to be effective?

Sadly...no and no.

Unfortunately, and generally speaking, Americans are too fat, dumb, and lazy to give a shit, and will vote for the people who promises to give them the most of other people's stuff.

[kalm]

I have no poll to back this up, but I believe that a majority of us on CS, that understand this are in the minority in America. I know people give me blank stares when Is say this stuff to them and call them out for saying on thing but voting another. How does that change? Are groups like No Labels going to be effective?

Sadly...no and no.

Unfortunately, and generally speaking, Americans are too fat, dumb, and lazy to give a shit, and will vote for the people who promises to give them the most of other people's stuff.

Like less energy efficient cars sold by middle men.

[Ibanez]

I have no poll to back this up, but I believe that a majority of us on CS, that understand this are in the minority in America. I know people give me blank stares when Is say this stuff to them and call them out for saying on thing but voting another. How does that change? Are groups like No Labels going to be effective?

Sadly...no and no.

Unfortunately, and generally speaking, Americans are too fat, dumb, and lazy to give a shit, and will vote for the people who promises to give them the most of other people's stuff.

Well..yeah.

[Baldy]

Sadly...no and no.

Unfortunately, and generally speaking, Americans are too fat, dumb, and lazy to give a shit, and will vote for the people who promises to give them the most of other people's stuff.

Like less energy efficient cars sold by middle men.

[Grizalltheway]

Who determines a companies' "fair share?"

Good question. The people?

Apparently the companies themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/busin ... d=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ASUMountaineer]

Good question. The people?

Apparently the companies themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/busin ... d=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That wasn't the questions. Don't be obtuse.

[Grizalltheway]

Apparently the companies themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/busin ... d=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That wasn't the questions. Don't be obtuse.

The point is, whatever the 'fair share' ends up being, companies like Apple, Google, GE etc will find a way not to pay it.

[Ibanez]

That wasn't the questions. Don't be obtuse.

The point is, whatever the 'fair share' ends up being, companies like Apple, Google, GE etc will find a way not to pay it.

Not Apple and Google. They are beacons of hope and humanity in this world.

Spoiler: show

Amiright, BindDrownKill?

[BDKJMU]

That wasn't the questions. Don't be obtuse.

The point is, whatever the 'fair share' ends up being, companies like Apple, Google, GE etc will find a way not to pay it.

I guess $14.2 billion/25% isn't good enough for you. Thank goodness for "Big Oil" and "Big Banks". 2012 taxes:

1. ExxonMobil
Income tax expense: $31 billion
Net income: $45 billion
Effective tax rate: 39%

2. Chevron
The oil giant pay among the highest tax rates because of overseas royalties that float with the price of oil.
Income tax expense: $20 billion
Net income: $26 billion
Effective tax rate: 43%

3. Apple
Income tax expense: $14.2 billion
Net income: $41.7 billion
Effective tax rate: 25%

4. Wells Fargo
Income tax expense: $9.2 billion
Net income: $19.8 billion
Effective tax rate: 31.2%

5. JPMorgan Chase
Income tax expense: $8.1 billion
Net income: $22.9 billion
Effective tax rate: 26%

6. Walmart
Income tax expense: $8 billion
Net income: $17 billion
Effective tax rate: 31%

7. ConocoPhillips
Conoco paid the highest effective tax rate of any company on the list.
Income tax expense: $7.9 billion
Net income: $8.4 billion
Effective tax rate: 51.5%

8. Berkshire Hathaway
Still complaining about paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, Buffett could just do us all a favor and pay double to the U.S. Treasury.
Income tax expense: $6.9 billion
Net income: $14.8 billion
Effective tax rate: 28%

9. IBM
Big Blue has in recent years shifted tens of thousands of jobs from the U.S. to lower-cost (and lower-taxed) India.
Income tax expense: $5.3 billion
Net income: $16.6 billion
Effective tax rate: 24%

10. Microsoft
Microsoft saves on taxes by routing revenues through the likes of low-tax Ireland, Singapore and Puerto Rico.
Income tax expense: $4.6 billion
Net income: $15.5 billion
Effective tax rate: 22.8%

11. Philip Morris International
Philip Morris sells smokes outside the U.S. and is triple the size of sister company Altria.
Income tax expense: $3.8 billion
Net income: $8.8 billion
Effective tax rate: 29.5%

12. Goldman Sachs
Income tax expense: $3.7 billion
Net income: $7.6 billion
Effective tax rate: 33%

13. Comcast
Income tax expense: $3.7 billion
Net income: $6.2 billion
Effective tax rate: 32%

14. Procter & Gamble
Tide, Gillette, Pampers, Duracell, Crest, Braun, Pantene, and on and on.
Income tax expense: $3.6 billion
Net income: $12.9 billion
Effective tax rate: 23.5%

15. Johnson & Johnson
Band-Aids, Listerine, Tylenol, Neutrogena, Rolaids, Visine, etc.
Income tax expense: $3.3 billion
Net income: $10.9 billion
Effective tax rate: 23.7%

16. Intel
Income tax expense: $3.2 billion
Net income: $10.3 billion
Effective tax rate: 23.6%

17. Occidental Petroleum
Income tax expense: $3.1 billion
Net income: $4.6 billion
Effective tax rate: 42%

18. UnitedHealth Group
Biggest health insurer is bracing for Obamacare, which will set profit margins.
Income tax expense: $3.1 billion
Net income: $5.5 billion
Effective tax rate: 35.9%

19. Walt Disney
Income tax expense: $3 billion
Net income: $5.6 billion
Effective tax rate: 32.7%

20. AT&T
Income tax expense: $2.9 billion
Net income: $7.3 billion
Effective tax rate: 27.8%

21. Oracle
Larry Ellison plans a winter sailing base on his recently purchased Hawaiian island of Lanai.
Income tax expense: $2.9 billion
Net income: $10.6 billion
Effective tax rate: 21.4%

22. Coca-Cola Company
Income tax expense: $2.7 billion
Net income: $9 billion
Effective tax rate: 23.1%

23. Home Depot
Home Depot has the highest tax rate of any non-oil company on this list.
Income tax expense: $2.7 billion
Net income: $4.5 billion
Effective tax rate: 37.2%

24. McDonald's
CEO Jeff Skinner has been outspoken about the need to cut U.S. corporate taxes.
Income tax expense: $2.6 billion
Net income: $5.5 billion
Effective tax rate: 32.4%

25. Google
Google is under fire in the U.K. for paying just $9 million in taxes on $3.8 billion in revenues there.
Income tax expense: $2.6 billion
Net income: $10.7 billion
Effective tax rate: 19.4%
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopher ... ost-taxes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ASUMountaineer]

That wasn't the questions. Don't be obtuse.

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?