GE make $5 billion in profits (in 2010, in the US alone) and pay no taxes

DarqueKnight

tonyb wrote: »

Never said they only seize property from poor folks.

True. My apologies if I misrepresented or misunderstood you. My use of the term "poor" meant everyone who is not rich (independently wealthy). You seemed to use a similar broad economic grouping when you said:

tonyb wrote: »

The only people that can afford to fight the IRS is rich people. Others just lose their homes, small buisnesses, cars, boats, material things.

You plainly said that only rich people can afford to fight the IRS. This implied to me that, if you are not rich and go up against the IRS, you are going to lose property. Which, of course, is not true.

tonyb wrote: »

If your not in favor of paying any taxes, how does the country run?

Come on Tony, I am a reasonable fellow. I think you know that I know that the government needs money to run. Didn't you see my statement that I receive a lot of benefit for the taxes I pay? I know those benefits and services cost money.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I would love to keep every penny of my hard earned in my pocket. The fact is, I pay a lot of money every year in personal income, business income, sales and property taxes. On the other hand, its not like I am paying taxes and not getting any benefit. I receive a lot of services in return for the taxes I pay.

You also said it yourself:

tonyb wrote: »

Nobody likes to pay taxes, but it is a necessity.

No, I do not like paying taxes. I wish the government would come up with another way to make money. Yes, I realize that taxes are a necessity.

tonyb wrote: »

So whats fair to you in the way of taxation ? A percentage of income ? But with loopholes that the wealthy can only obtain ? Sure there are loopholes for every segment of income earners, even ones who barely have an income, but in your opinion, is it fair ? Just asking is all.

I think the tax system in this country is not perfect, nothing is or ever will be, but I also think it is largely a fair system. It does need some tweaking and optimizing and updating.

Do you know of any person in this country, who is paying their lawful amount of taxes, yet they cannot meet their living expenses because of an oppressive tax burden? Even after paying their tax bills, most US citizens of modest means still have money left over for some discretionary spending on luxuries.

With regard to the tax loopholes that only the wealthy can obtain, I have already addressed this. There are also tax loopholes that only low income people can access. There are also tax loopholes that only people with a bunch of kids can access. I think that our tax code was written to be fair to the complete economic spectrum of this country.

I know it bothers some people to hear of rich people receiving any kind of "break", since they already have so much. I understand the frustration, but it is misplaced hostility. As a previous poster said, many people complain about paying taxes, but no one complains about the economic opportunities and well paying jobs that caused them to have to pay taxes in the first place.

tonyb wrote: »

Personally I can't see anything that isn't as fair as a flat tax based on income. The more you make the more you pay, whats wrong with that in theory ?

Well, I and others have tried to explain the regressive nature of a flat tax in that a disproportionate tax burden falls on lower income people. I gave you the example of two people being taxed at 10%. However, the $40,000 a year person realizes a greater financial burden with a $4000 tax bill than the $10,000,000 a year person realizes with a tax bill of $1,000,000, yet still has $9,000,000 left to spend. The truth is, unless the $10,000,000 person is a fool living way beyond their means, they are not going to even feel the loss of that 1 mill. On the other hand, that $40,000 person, who is grossing $3,333.33 a month, is definitely going to "feel" the loss of $333.33 a month. Unlike the $10,000,000 person, the $40,000 person is most probably living paycheck to paycheck and needs that 10% for day care, groceries, utilities, etc.

If a person earning $10,000,000 a year is living paycheck to paycheck, they should be committed to an insane asylum.

tonyb wrote: »

Just saw a story about corporations posting record profits, One trillion dollars, yet no jobs. Now if they can afford to make those profits, which I am not against btw, then obviously they don't need corporate welfare from taxpayer monies. If your not going to hire or invest in America, then we've lost nothing by taking the welfare away.

Read what you just wrote and think about whether it makes sense. Let us set aside crass emotionalism and use reason and logic to think through this:

1. You said corporations made a trillion dollars in profits, yet there were no jobs. Well, if there were no jobs, who was working at the corporations to cause the insane profits to roll in? Are the corporations operating on autopilot with no employees?

2. If corporations made a trillion dollars in profit, their revenues had to be several multiples over that. If collective revenues were several trillion dollars, A LLLLLLLLLLOT of people must have money to spend. Since, according to you, there are no jobs, where are people getting these trillions and trillions of dollars to spend? Are they stealing it?

3. I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics website and saw that the February 2011 unemployment rate was 8.9%. Therefore, the employment rate is 90.1%. How does an employment rate of 90.1% equate to, as you put it, "no jobs"?

4. These corporations that made the trillion dollar profit, are they not US corporations with US citizen employees and vast property holdings in the US and paying huge amounts of US property and employment taxes? What proof do you have that these corporations are not hiring American citizens and investing in American communities?

5. Are there any US Corporations that have the totality or majority of their workforce composed of non-US citizens?

6. Are you aware that, in order for US companies to do business in some countries, they must establish a business residency in that country and hire local citizens?

BlueFox

DarqueKnight wrote: »

5. Are there any US Corporations that have the totality or majority of their workforce composed of non-US citizens?

Well, maybe not a majority of the total workforce, but in this area many, if not most, computer related engineering jobs are filled by H-1B, or Green card, immigrants. Over the years, as the Indians and Chinese have been promoted into managerial positions they use those positions as a way to provide employment for their country; either through out sourcing jobs, or bringing in more H-1Bs.

If you ever visit an Indian startup in this area you will see it is nearly all Indian employees. Visit a Chinese startup and it will be mostly Chinese employees. Visit a startup run by an American and the employees will be varied as they are interested in hiring the best regardless of nationality.

Granted we cannot talk about this since it is not PC, and your are considered xenophobic if it is even mentioned, but that does not change the facts. Of course, the executives are only interested in their stock options and bonuses so they could care less about the gradual elimination of the middle class due to their policies.

And to stay on-topic, it is all because of our tax code. We need to tax companies at a higher rate if they use non-citizen employees. The only reason they use H-1B employees is to save money. Even if they pay the prevailing rate, the H-1Bs work all the time because they know if they get laid off then they have to return to the 3rd world hellhole they are trying to get away from. So, now it becomes an "Americans are lazy since they will not work 12-15 hours a day 7 days a week. We need more H-1Bs" situation.

It is a vicious cycle and it needs to stop.


While there is certainly nothing wrong with immigration, and many of my co-workers are good people, the current environment is simply out of control. It is purely greed driven by many executives.

Rant off, back to work. :rolleyes:

xj4094dg

Nowhere income:

States can only tax corporations with physical facilities, or a "nexus," within the boundaries of the state. Otherwise, federal law doesn?t let states tax corporations. Just selling goods or services in a state without having a factory or other facilities there translates to no state taxes.

Corporations have leveraged this rule to the point of having "nowhere income" that is not taxable in any state. Example: ""if Nails Inc. has all of its property and payroll in two states, but just 10% of its sales in those states, then it will pay state income taxes on only 70% of its profits: (100 + 100 + 10)/3. The other 30% will go untaxed." Taxes are even easier to avoid in states where sales are more heavily weighted than, say, payroll or property.

Nowhere income becomes more elaborate if you can pull it off internationally. Intel did just this in the early 2000s. The company declared "millions of dollars in profits from selling US-made computer chips as Japanese income for US tax purposes." This exempted it from US taxes. Meanwhile, a US-Japan tax treaty required Japan to "treat the profits as American." That meant Intel didn't have to pay Japanese tax, either.

Income shifting:

This happens when a company transfers or licenses its intellectual property to a subsidiary in a tax shelter. Any foreign profits based on that technology are taxed according to the subsidiary country's tax law.

According to US tax rules, such subsidiaries must pay an "arm's length" amount for those rights, the same mutually-agreed-upon amount any unaffiliated company would pay for them. So parent companies set that amount low to avoid tax burden.

The nature of the loophole means that the feds can't get lost taxes back, either. Bloomberg writes that "multinationals that shift profits overseas are deferring U.S. income taxes, not avoiding them permanently. The deferral lasts until companies decide to bring the earnings back to the U.S. In practice, they rarely repatriate significant portions, thus avoiding the taxes indefinitely."


Tax havens:

Some tourist havens, notably Bermuda and Ireland, also happen to be stellar tax havens. 58% of offshore profits are now recorded in tax havens US operations, for example, have recorded more than $25 billion in profits in tiny Bermuda, which doesn't charge any taxes.

It doesn't matter that most of those multinationals? sales happened in higher-tax countries like Germany, the US and the UK. Wherever tax rates are low, multinational profits rise, sometimes exponentially. That translates to tens of billions of dollars the US Treasury doesn't get its hands on. US corporations, meanwhile, enjoy enviable tax rates, while the tax havens that house them benefit from the injection of foreign capital.


Manipulating the system in these ways are currently legal. This system was built by people we elected. I guess we F'd ourselves.

DarqueKnight

BlueFox wrote: »

Of course, the executives are only interested in their stock options and bonuses so they could care less about the gradual elimination of the middle class due to their policies.

I wonder who these short-sighted executives think will buy their products if the middle class in this country disappears. Who do they think will be buying the new homes, automobiles, gaming PCs, and $500 cell phones? There will not be enough rich people to go around and the have nots will buy not.

BlueFox wrote: »

Well, maybe not a majority of the total workforce, but in this area many, if not most, computer related engineering jobs are filled by H-1B, or Green card, immigrants. Over the years, as the Indians and Chinese have been promoted into managerial positions they use those positions as a way to provide employment for their country; either through out sourcing jobs, or bringing in more H-1Bs.

If you ever visit an Indian startup in this area you will see it is nearly all Indian employees. Visit a Chinese startup and it will be mostly Chinese employees. Visit a startup run by an American and the employees will be varied as they are interested in hiring the best regardless of nationality.

Do native born Americans even apply in large numbers at the Indian and Chinese firms? I would not think so.

BlueFox wrote: »

And to stay on-topic, it is all because of our tax code. We need to tax companies at a higher rate if they use non-citizen employees. The only reason they use H-1B employees is to save money.

The tax code is not the only reason. In high technology fields, there are not enough Americans going into science and engineering to fill the available jobs. That is why a significant percentage of the university science and engineering faculty in this country is foreign born. The majority of engineering graduate students are foreign born. If we closed our borders tomorrow most graduate engineering programs in this country would be out of business in five years or less.

The situation with a lack of native born science and engineering workers will get critical when the last of the baby boomers retire. This is especially true of military-related classified scientific research.

amulford

This system was built by people we elected. I guess we F'd ourselves.

I think it more correct to say this system was built by those who benefit the most from it. It was then lobbied into law and passed by those we elected at the behest of the creators in exchange for "charitable contributionss" in those lawmakers' districts.

Trust me, there are no "charitable contributions" or "good faith donations" by these business entities. Get that idea out of your head...

inspiredsports

xj4094dg wrote: »

. . . Yes. That's right. These tax breaks are a form of government spending . . .

May I have some of whatever it is you are smoking ???

xj4094dg

What part about tax breaks being spending don't you get? Tax breaks directly lower revenue.

And I don't smoke BTW, but I'm sure you can score locally if that's what you are into.

inspiredsports

DarqueKnight wrote: »

. . . the tax code is not the only reason. In high technology fields, there are not enough Americans going into science and engineering to fill the available jobs . . .

That is because so many of them have learned they can panhandle on the corner and make $50 per hour (tax free), walk down the street to a charitable kitchen for a free meal, ask the local church for some cash and clothing, and collect food stamps and unemployment for years.

inspiredsports

xj4094dg wrote: »

What part about tax breaks being spending don't you get? Tax breaks directly lower revenue.

And I don't smoke BTW, but I'm sure you can score locally if that's what you are into.

. . . except that the real meaning of "revenue" is "income PRODUCED by a given source", and the governmment produces nothing but hot air.

"Revenue" has become bastardized to mean what the government steals from us (Steal; to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice"

You are truly insane if you believe the government has some kind of God given right to take your money.

4406bbl

I would think after this thread most of you guys would go start your own corporation, I have one and wonder why others don't do the same. I do pay plenty of income tax as the sole shareholder and plenty of fees and all kinds of other BS plus a bookeeper but the main thing it did was allow me to use before tax dollars for insurance and employee perks, not pad my wallet. All corporations are not bad is all I am saying.

inspiredsports

4406bbl wrote: »

I would think after this thread most of you guys would go start your own corporation, I have one and wonder why others don't do the same. I do pay plenty of income tax as the sole shareholder and plenty of fees and all kinds of other BS plus a bookeeper but the main thing it did was allow me to use before tax dollars for insurance and employee perks, not pad my wallet. All corporations are not bad is all I am saying.

It sounds like you are describing a subchapter "S" corporation versus the "C"'s which seem to draw more fire. I would venture that few corporations are "evil", but it's easy to villify them based upon just a few that have acted poorly.

Tour2ma

inspiredsports wrote: »

That is because so many of them have learned they can panhandle on the corner and make $50 per hour (tax free), walk down the street to a charitable kitchen for a free meal, ask the local church for some cash and clothing, and collect food stamps and unemployment for years.

That's it! You've cracked the whole issue wide open. Given this fact it has to be High School Guidance Councilors that are to blame.

Good God...

xj4094dg

inspiredsports wrote: »

. . . except that the real meaning of "revenue" is "income PRODUCED by a given source", and the governmment produces nothing but hot air.

"Revenue" has become bastardized to mean what the government steals from us (Steal; to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice"

You are truly insane if you believe the government has some kind of God given right to take your money.

God has nothing to do with it. The government, elected by the people, has given itself the right, legally, to tax you, and you are powerless to change it without the help of a huge voting block that agrees with you.

When something is paid for, spending is involved. Crazy huh?

That being said, I happen to be quite insane in many ways, so what?

If gifting people who don't need tax breaks is not spending, then why do proponents of said tax breaks offer plans to "pay" for them by gutting programs they disagree with. Spending cuts should be executed across the board. Cut everything, all programs, including excessive tax breaks for big business and the super-wealthy. Sacrifice should apply to all during tough times like these. IM(insane)O.

inspiredsports

xj4094dg wrote: »

God has nothing to do with it. The government, elected by the people, has given itself the right, legally, to tax you, and you are powerless to change it without the help of a huge voting block that agrees with you.

When something is paid for, spending is involved. Crazy huh?

That being said, I happen to be quite insane in many ways, so what?

If gifting people who don't need tax breaks is not spending, then why do proponents of said tax breaks offer plans to "pay" for them by gutting programs they disagree with. Spending cuts should be executed across the board. Cut everything, all programs, including excessive tax breaks for big business and the super-wealthy. Sacrifice should apply to all during tough times like these. IM(insane)O.

It's just a hunch, but I'll bet you're one of those whose refund check is bigger than their withholdings, and your idea of "sacrifice" is voting for whomever you feel will try to take as much from those "evil" corporations and "rich" folks as possible so as not to diminish your refund amount.

I love the way you write that the government "gifts" those who don't need it with tax breaks.

I'm just so thankful I was given a "gift" this year because the government didn't confiscate my extra set of Polks.

inspiredsports

Tour2ma wrote: »

That's it! You've cracked the whole issue wide open. Given this fact it has to be High School Guidance Councilors that are to blame.

Good God...

"Counselors", Tex.

Good God . . .

mrbigbluelight

inspiredsports wrote: »

That is because so many of them have learned they can panhandle on the corner and make $50 per hour (tax free), walk down the street to a charitable kitchen for a free meal, ask the local church for some cash and clothing, and collect food stamps and unemployment for years.

My kids attempted to get into that field, but there were no openings available.
There are, to be sure, "loafers".
But even "loafers" have to get up in the morning, dress appropriately, get out there in all kinds of weather, develop proper social skills to obtain free meals, etc and learn the intricacies of the gov't system regarding food stamps (EBT cards) and unemployment.
Not unlike prostitutes, "loafers" as described actually have a strong work ethic.
Not unlike prostitutes, it's just misdirected.


But we are heading off-topic here. Back to tax discussion.

warren

That's Johnny Bonners' plan. Give it to them and stick it in the middle class..
We pay they play... SOB's..

warren

A flat tax, say .02% to every one, and every company... No exceptions..

xj4094dg

inspiredsports wrote: »

It's just a hunch, but I'll bet you're one of those whose refund check is bigger than their withholdings, and your idea of "sacrifice" is voting for whomever you feel will try to take as much from those "evil" corporations and "rich" folks as possible so as not to diminish your refund amount.

I love the way you write that the government "gifts" those who don't need it with tax breaks.

I'm just so thankful I was given a "gift" this year because the government didn't confiscate my extra set of Polks.

For the record, I haven't had a refund check in over 20 years. Your hunch is as empty as your head.

Also for the record, the tax breaks benefit me more than most, I'd just like to see those nice folks that are profiting even more than me pay their equal share of taxes too.

warren

I'am retired.... No tax breaks... No refund check...

warren

I don't think Mrs. Becks' pride and joy Glenn will be giving his views on Fox much longer..

tonyb

Beck has nothing to do with this thread guys, leave well enough alone.

DK,
First, let me say I appreciate the civil debate, love it, thank you. Secondly, I know it's the internet and all, so some of my comments and yours don't translate well,leading to somewhat of a misunderstanding in certain area's on both our parts. Maybe someday if we ever hook up, we'll thrash it around some more beyond this thread.
That said, I must admit I'm having a hard time deciding which side your on, more taxes on the rich, or less. I have a feeling, just a hunch mind you, that if G.E. paid 300 million more in taxes, it wouldn't hurt them an inch. Considering the example you threw out, the guy who would pay 333 bucks more, how about if you could lower his tax burden by the same ? Would you be cool with that? Seeing that part of that guys income goes towards tax breaks for G.E., maybe if GE paid more, he'd pay less. In theory of coarse, because once that extra coin hits Washington, it's spent. I'm still having a rough time with the logic that a big corp offers society other benefits and wealth is deserving of certain priveledges, as you say. Does wealth give you the priveledge to stick your hand in the taxpayer cookie jar ? Or are you breaking it down into a class warfare type of thing ? Not sure how to interpret some of your replys so just asking for some clarity.
Again, I appreciate the debate, along with others who can keep it on the up and up.

tonyb

On a general note, I see some of you guys are tax the rich types, and others are the leave them alone types.
Just to clarify where I stand, I'm neither. You can't tax the rich to the point that it has an adverse effect, yet you can't also let them get away with paying nothing. There has to be a balance in the tax code. How we do that is the nuts and bolts of the matter.
Even if we could get a good balance in the tax code, that does zip to solve our problems without talking about spending cuts to go along with it.

lasdaguy

LOL, that is all.

EDIT: DK, very well written @ Post #97

Tour2ma

inspiredsports wrote: »

"Counselors", Tex.

Good God . . .

Nailed me... I chose the wrong synonym... I made a mistake.

Pales in comparison to deliberately making a case for panhandling as a competitive career path to high tech.

amulford

I know I might come off like "stick it to the rich", but that is not my position. I pay mine, and definitely use what I can to offset my burden. But the breaks and shelters available to me are NOTHING as compared to those available and used by the entities I am talking about.

And YES, by God, our elected government needs to be gutted. This spending needs to be pruned on a scale never seen before, as it is WAY out of hand. But that is subject matter for another discussion.

Would a flat tax work? While sounding good, no it won't. It will place a disproportionate burden on the lower incomes. Bracketed rates proportionate to earnings are fair, as the higher the earnings the easier it is to absorb the burden. However the rates need to be lessened, and enforcement need to have real teeth.

But the shelters, loopholes and breaks need to go. A company can appeal their taxes, and most do. They will then settle for a percentage. And this goes on across the board, ie property taxes, etc.

As far as taxing the profits, yes. But that is it. Once the dividends are paid they can't be touched. This BS of capital gains is ridiculous in and of itself.

A board of Senators to deal with these issues? No. First of all, unless the are PH'd Doctor's of Economic's they would not have, IMHO, the background to understand what needs to happen. Plus the fact they are politicians and as such have aleady been tainted by the system.

No, there needs to be a commitee comprised of and proportionately representing the constituency. I mean proprtionate numbers of lower income, middle income, and higher income. Of course educational background should come into play as well (as interpretations will be needed), but in numbers proportionate to societal representation. No influence from any outside entity, be it government, business, education, labor, etc. et al... Everyone is John Q. Public when they walk through the door.

This commitee will make the recommendations. Those recommendations will be put to ballot and approve by popular vote, not by electoral college. EVERYONE has a say. Any further changes will ONLY be enacted by GENERAL POPULAR APPROVAL. Any attempts to influence the outcomes of those votes will be severely punishable.

This country was founded on great principles. Some of those have been lost along the way and need to be found again. Now and again a little revolution is a good thing...

DarqueKnight

lasdaguy wrote: »

DK, very well written @ Post #97

Thank you for your appreciation of fair and responsible news reporting.

tonyb wrote: »

DK, I must admit I'm having a hard time deciding which side your on, more taxes on the rich, or less.

I articulated very well in post #97 exactly which side I am on: the side of fair and responsible news reporting. I know you saw it because you responded to it. Perhaps you have forgotten what I wrote. Here is a direct link:

Always two sides to every story

The subject of this thread is a news article which misrepresents the circumstances pertaining to the fact that the General Electric corporation paid no US income taxes in 2010. It took all of three seconds to google "GE no taxes" and find a GE rebuttal statement and a copy of their 2010 10-K financial statement which described in detail that they had business losses which totally released them from any 2010 US income tax liability. I imagine that there were also many people of modest income whose loses from business, medical bills, natural disasters, etc. totally wiped out their 2010 income tax liability.

As far as "which side I am on", I am on two sides:

Side 1: The side of fair and responsible reporting.
Side 2: The side of fair taxation.

As far as more or less taxes for the rich, I believe that the rich, just everyone else, should pay their lawful amount of taxes, whatever that may be.

I also believe that the US tax code is not perfect, but it is not oppressive either. As I asked you before, do you know of anyone, who is paying their lawful amount of taxes, who cannot meet their living expenses because their tax bill is too high? I do not.

tonyb wrote: »

I'm still having a rough time with the logic that a big corp offers society other benefits and wealth is deserving of certain priveledges, as you say. Does wealth give you the priveledge to stick your hand in the taxpayer cookie jar ? Or are you breaking it down into a class warfare type of thing ? Not sure how to interpret some of your replys so just asking for some clarity.

Some things will not become clear to you until you take the time for careful consideration. However, some of your previous comments lead me to believe that you prefer oversimplification and sweeping generalizations to careful consideration.

I think a lot of people do not understand that, in a capitalistic economic system, it is fair that those who bring more capital should get more economic benefits and privileges because of the benefit that they bring to society. It is not a matter of wealthy people sticking their hand in the taxpayer cookie jar. It is a matter of tax liability being offset by other economic factors.

Is it fair for me to pay property taxes every year but then the city gives a 10 year property tax abatement to a major corporation's new factory? In the strictest sense, I could complain that the new factory is receiving an "unfair" tax advantage and everyone should be treated equally under the property tax laws. On the real, and prudent, side of things, the new factory will be bringing new jobs, paying payroll taxes, paying SALES TAXES, providing benefits packages, etc. Not only will the new factory be paying a lot of money to their direct employees in salary and benefits, but they will be paying a lot of money to the people that provide the factory with insurance services, raw materials, transportation services, communications services, and basic utilities. Perhaps a lot of people who could not afford a home will be able to do so through their employment at the factory. This represents more property tax revenue. If things go well for the new factory, there is a high likelihood that other companies will be attracted to the area, bringing more economic development. Therefore, the positive economic impact of the new factory will greatly offset the loss of property taxes for 10 years.

Make sense?

cnh

All Government is 'bad'. All Private Sector transactions and business are 'good'. I get it!

But it all sounds a little too Utopian to me? In fact, just as Utopian as the most radical redistributionist proposals of the most oppressive Socialist States. Honestly, can one be that naive? If so don't look back...'just keep believing'! And, don't mind me, I'm just tiptoeing through 'reality' and don't wish to disturb those who are still dreaming. We all need our rest. Goodnight for now.


cnh

tonyb

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Thank you for your appreciation of fair and responsible news reporting.



I articulated very well in post #97 exactly which side I am on: the side of fair and responsible news reporting. I know you saw it because you responded to it. Perhaps you have forgotten what I wrote. Here is a direct link:

Always two sides to every story

The subject of this thread is a news article which misrepresents the circumstances pertaining to the fact that the General Electric corporation paid no US income taxes in 2010. It took all of three seconds to google "GE no taxes" and find a GE rebuttal statement and a copy of their 2010 10-K financial statement which described in detail that they had business losses which totally released them from any 2010 US income tax liability. I imagine that there were also many people of modest income whose loses from business, medical bills, natural disasters, etc. totally wiped out their 2010 income tax liability.

As far as "which side I am on", I am on two sides:

Side 1: The side of fair and responsible reporting.
Side 2: The side of fair taxation.

As far as more or less taxes for the rich, I believe that the rich, just everyone else, should pay their lawful amount of taxes, whatever that may be.

I also believe that the US tax code is not perfect, but it is not oppressive either. As I asked you before, do you know of anyone, who is paying their lawful amount of taxes, who cannot meet their living expenses because their tax bill is too high? I do not.



Some things will not become clear to you until you take the time for careful consideration. However, some of your previous comments lead me to believe that you prefer oversimplification and sweeping generalizations to careful consideration.

I think a lot of people do not understand that, in a capitalistic economic system, it is fair that those who bring more capital should get more economic benefits and privileges because of the benefit that they bring to society. It is not a matter of wealthy people sticking their hand in the taxpayer cookie jar. It is a matter of tax liability being offset by other economic factors.

Is it fair for me to pay property taxes every year but then the city gives a 10 year property tax abatement to a major corporation's new factory? In the strictest sense, I could complain that the new factory is receiving an "unfair" tax advantage and everyone should be treated equally under the property tax laws. On the real, and prudent, side of things, the new factory will be bringing new jobs, paying payroll taxes, paying SALES TAXES, providing benefits packages, etc. Not only will the new factory be paying a lot of money to their direct employees in salary and benefits, but they will be paying a lot of money to the people that provide the factory with insurance services, raw materials, transportation services, communications services, and basic utilities. Perhaps a lot of people who could not afford a home will be able to do so through their employment at the factory. This represents more property tax revenue. If things go well for the new factory, there is a high likelihood that other companies will be attracted to the area, bringing more economic development. Therefore, the positive economic impact of the new factory will greatly offset the loss of property taxes for 10 years.

Make sense?

Of coarse it makes sense, and over simplification is not what I seek. The problem with your example is that is to bring buisness in the door, your offer of tax incentives expires after a company becomes established over x amount of time. I would safely say G.E. is established. You fail to differentiate between good buisness and the public cookie jar. I beleive I said a balance is in order. Paying next to nothing does zip for balance, especialy at the numbers of a G.E.
Please inform me of where it is written of these priveledges wealth is so deserving of ? The tax code ? Who writes that ? Hmmm, let me guess.

Your in a roundabout way telling me it's a class warfare thing. The ones not deserving of these special benefits are just jeolous they don't have them. That may be true to some extent for some people. Some will even argue that the rules are written by rich people for rich people.
I'm with ya on the fair reporting thing.
I'm also with ya on the fair tax thing.
So whats fair ? The way the tax code is written now ? Leave it alone ?
Since a good portion of the tax revenue comes from the top 5% wage earners, one can argue they get taxed enough. But if I use your example, asking the guy for $333 a month is a heavy burden for that guy. A dude makeing 10 million spends that on tips, would never miss it. Yes, but there are alot more of those 40g a year guys than 10 mill. dudes walking around. So if you took $1000 bucks more a month from that 10 mill. dude, think he'd still care ?
BTW- the tax code isn't perfect and I do agree, it is not oppressive, never said it was.
This hits a nerve with most because not only of the original story, but of our dire financials as a country right now. We have a revenue problem coupled with a spending problem. When revenue decreases, they seek to raise taxes or cut benefits, or both, usually on the back of SS, medicare, medicaid, obviously some of the biggest expenditures we have. The people using these programs are not the wealthy, not deserving of the special priveledges that I guess you say, is only reserved for those in the upper brackets of life. Yet they pay into the system, just like the rich do.
If I understand you correctly, the wealthy are entitled in part, to a pool of taxpayer money, who for the most part are middle class, but when things go south, the wealthy don't have to cough up anymore of their coin, go to the shlubs in the middle class,raise their taxes, cut their benefits. Is that what I'm hearing ?
G.E. has been around long enough, corporate welfare was never intended to be a life long benefit, just like personal welfare.

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

No! corporate welfare or crony capitalism does not make sense in the long term.

Despite all the rationale you want to provide, socialism for the rich doesn't work any better than socialism for the poor or socialism for anyone else!

The following definition of socialism comes from Vol. 2 p. 1964 of the 1973 edition of the World Book Dictionary:

Socialism - a theory or system of social organization by which the means of production and distribution are owned, managed, or controlled by the government (state socialism) or by associations of workers (guild socialism)."

The following definition of capitalism comes from Vol. 1 p. 300 of the 1973 edition of the World Book Dictionary:

Capitalism - an economic system based on the ownership of land, factories, and other means of production by private individuals who compete with one another using the hired labor of other persons, to produce goods and services for a free market for whatever profit may be obtainable.

OK now, based on the definitions above, what is socialistic about a local or state government providing business incentives for economic development? Perhaps you don't understand that the differences between socialism and capitalism are in who owns the means of production. There is nothing in capitalist theory that precludes a government from offering assistance under certain circumstances.

I would say that, if a corporation walks in with half a billion dollars in business development for a community and asks for a relatively modest incentive package, that is a good investment for the community. Mind you, the community, nor the government is going into an ownership agreement with the corporation.

xcapri79 wrote: »

The rationale above creates a false economies and economic bubbles that will turn into a busts. It opens the door for all sorts of corruption and abuse.

Corruption and abuse? Name one social or economic system devised by man that has not had elements of corruption or abuse.

xcapri79 wrote: »

The business tax rate, be it income or property should be low and consistent for all businesses, and not just to "favored" businesses. The government should not be trying to pick winners and losers. It should not be rewarding one type of business with a lower tax rate while at the same time punishing another with a higher tax rate. It should stay out of the private sector, because it only creates a mess.

Whooooooooa....slow your roll now...I never said anything about picking winners and losers. I never advocated a lockout of small businesses getting economic incentives. I advocate a company or individual getting business incentives based on the economic value they bring to a community. Help for small businesses is available from federal, state and local government agencies. This is a good thing...for capitalism.

tonyb wrote: »

Of coarse it makes sense, and over simplification is not what I seek. The problem with your example is that is to bring buisness in the door, your offer of tax incentives expires after a company becomes established over x amount of time. I would safely say G.E. is established. You fail to differentiate between good buisness and the public cookie jar. I beleive I said a balance is in order.

tonyb wrote: »

Paying next to nothing does zip for balance, especialy at the numbers of a G.E.

tonyb wrote: »

G.E. has been around long enough, corporate welfare was never intended to be a life long benefit, just like personal welfare.

Come on mannnnnnnnnnn...stop beating up on GE. I have repeatedly said (with supporting documentation) that GE had a one-time release from US income tax liability in 2010 due to business losses. They paid $2.7 billion in 2010 income outside of the US. You act like they haven't paid any US income tax ever and that they never will.

tonyb wrote: »

Your in a roundabout way telling me it's a class warfare thing. The ones not deserving of these special benefits are just jeolous they don't have them. That may be true to some extent for some people. Some will even argue that the rules are written by rich people for rich people.

I am not a "roundabout" type of person. I have articulated my points rather well and rather directly. You seem to be hung up on this "class warfare" thing. Business incentives based on a company's economic value and taxation treatment based on income and personal circumstance are not elements of class warfare, they are elements of a flexible governmental system that is willing to help its citizens succeed economically.

Since you seem to be so hung up on the perception of class warfare. You should understand that true class warfare typically occurs in social and economic systems were people are locked into the social and economic circumstances of their birth. There is no rigid caste system in this country. Therefore, there is no driving factor for class warfare in this country because most rational and informed people know that US citizens can move freely, up or down, from one social and economic class to another. If you examine the family histories of most millionaires or billionaires in this country and go back far just one, or a few generations, you will find poor immigrants...or worse. Most corporate executives don't come from wealth. Most of them still remember what it is like to be a person of modest means.

Do you really think you can have class warfare in a nation where its possible for a family to go from poor immigrants, or worse, to multi-millionaires or billionaires in just one or a few generations?

tonyb wrote: »

I'm also with ya on the fair tax thing. So whats fair ? The way the tax code is written now ? Leave it alone?

I have already answered this. I am tired of repeating myself.

tonyb wrote: »

Since a good portion of the tax revenue comes from the top 5% wage earners, one can argue they get taxed enough. But if I use your example, asking the guy for $333 a month is a heavy burden for that guy. A dude makeing 10 million spends that on tips, would never miss it. Yes, but there are alot more of those 40g a year guys than 10 mill. dudes walking around. So if you took $1000 bucks more a month from that 10 mill. dude, think he'd still care ?

Unlike the flat tax you advocate, the current tax system has provisions for taxpayers on an individual basis. Therefore, every person making $40,000 will not be treated the same under the current tax code. A 10% flat tax would be a burden for some people and negligible for others.

The other points you mention I have already addressed, so I will not rehash them. You either get it or you don't. I realize you have a burning desire to discuss class warfare, so-called corporate welfare and the angst of those adversely affected by the current economic conditions in the US. However, I came to this thread because I wanted to provide another, balanced perspective on the slanted (mis)information provided by the New York Times article linked to by the OP. In that, I have succeeded very well.

Good night.