That was what I was thinking but I was trying to make sure I understood what was being said correctly (since that seems to make very little sense).

"take more money from the corps"

Take? You mean reward the corps less don't you? Show me a corporation that bottom line is paying at the corporate tax rate.

That second paragraph wasn't addressed to you Aunty, it was a general comment to those who think that those 47% are freeloaders.

The Commons.

The commons were traditionally defined as the elements of the environment - forests, atmosphere, fisheries or grazing land - that we all share. These are the tangible and intangible aspects of the environment that no-one owns but everybody enjoys. There are other conceptions of the commons. Today, the commons need to be understood within the cultural sphere as well. The commons within this sphere include literature, music, performing arts, visual arts, design, film, video, television, radio, community arts and sites of heritage. The commons can also include ‘public goods’ such as public space, public education, health and the infrastructure that allows our society to function (such as electricity or water delivery systems). There also exists the ‘life commons’ – the human genome that makes us a unique species. Though a central government may ‘manage’ these, realistically we have inherited them and any governing body only holds them in trust for the public as well as future generations. The commons can also include the areas of human relationships such as the need for safety, trust, cooperation, shared intellect and so on. These are aspects of culture that our society shares and promotes a more functioning community.

My earlier point being that people with more money tend to use more of the things included within "The Commons" and therefore should pay more in taxes.

A progressive system of taxation is the most fair, IMO and I'm in good company with other prominent people throughout American history that share this view.

If we closed a few loopholes and actually enforced the corporate tax laws we have now... we could get our national debt back under control and we wouldn't need to raise taxes on any private citizens, even rich ones.

That is what I was thinking but (maybe I am wrong) don't those that have the least use the commons the most (as said above)? Public Schools, Libraries, Health Systems, etc?

That is why it would seem a flat tax would be a better solution, those that have little pay little, etc.

Sure middle class families would miss out on some deductions but so would those that have the financial power to negate almost all of their taxes through various channels of legal sidestepping.

Maybe not, but that's how it looks to me.

I believe a corporation is actually considered an individual in the eyes of finance isnt it?

Tell me 'bout the rabbits, George.

I like Steinbeck.

I like how you managed to use "Corporations" and "responsibilities" in the same sentence, KK. That, in and of itself, is impressive writing. Anyone who can take that a step further and answer your question honestly, without using a dollar sign somewhere in the equation, would be worthy of a Pulitzer Prize.

Money may not buy happiness (boy, is that a questionable cliche), but it sure can buy just about anything else, including, tragically, votes in Congress. Corporations have plenty of money. Should they hit a bump in the road, their friends in Washington will have plenty to lend to ensure that every executive gets his Christmas bonus (or stock options).

On the topic of the bailouts, I knew the American Way had officially died when I heard the phrase "too big to fail" being used as the justification for bailing out giant corporations. Last time, it took the Carnegies and Rockefellers owning virtually the whole country to get Congress to finally put a stop to corporate domination. What will it take this time around? Pretty scary to think we aren't there yet, and sad to see that we didn't learn anything the first time around.

Maybe they are not freeloaders, they just have acquired enough money and power to manipulate the system to maximize gain...

even then, is it ethical? Is it fair? is it right?

As much as people complain about tax increases on the rich being a penalty for success, should sidestepping taxes like that be condoned?

Should we reward cheating and getting away with it?

A baseball player that used steroids to hit home runs becomes a pariah and a company that manipulates the system for monetary gain is championed... thank god we have Kate Gosslin to distract us.

Re: individuals/responosibilities -- I'm pretty sure KK was referencing the (imho brain-dead) recent Supreme Court decision allowing them to fund campaigns.

Re: Too Big To Fail -- Anyone considered using the Justice Department/Anti-Trust statutes against this problem? I mean I'm a "Who is John Galt" dude, but I believe TBTF is a big issue, wonder how else to tackle?

Outstanding! Thanks for the much needed chuckle on an otherwise rough day.

When I collect sales tax, it is not my money...I pay no taxes on it as income, and I hold it in my business accounts until it becomes payable...quarterly, on my business.

It's the taxing entity's money from the get go...I just hold onto it until they want it from me.

It NEVER goes on the books as my money...so paying it is not really "paying" it...it's just giving it to the owner.

Kinda like if I held a fishing rod for you that you lent to KK...he gave it to me to give to you when I see you next. It's never mine, it's yours the whole time, and I just have it on my rack until I see you next.

Fish on...

Todd

Slab Happy is OK with corporations paying no Income taxes I'm sure.

Unless of course that corporation happens to be a minority family of 5 with 3 small children making less than $40,000 a year...

The "ride for free" comment is not very explainatory, but neither is it totally inaccurate. What it says is that if you don't pay federal taxes, and you still use federally paid for amenities (which is impossible to NOT use), then you are using something you contributed zero dollars towards. You may, in fact, have been paid to create the amenity, but paid nothing for it by years end.......hence, free ride.

My situation is much more traditional....we both work, pay taxes, work pay taxes,.......end of year.....may get a portion back, or may pay an additional amount in.....this year I'm writing a check. We own nothing fancy...have one car and one truck (which today turned 200,000 miles), a small home with a modest mortage.....NO debts owed on credit cards.....living a life that most folks today would consider below their worthiness.

I work with a guy...nice guy....who has 3 kids and one on the way, two cars and a truck, lives in one of the parents' rentals, single income family......will get all he paid in returned, with an additional amount thrown in. So who's supporting this nice family?.....You and I (the ones who pay in, that is)

Different problem...same solution...

Publicly funded campaigns.

Fish on...

Todd

Hank just went Rory Bellows on us.

Sorry Hank...........that was uncalled for.

I'd go dig up some of his posts, but they weren't worth reading even then.

Damn, Hank, just let the corner throw in the towel before this one is a career ender.

We hire a ton of folks out of CA, and a major bargaining point is that even if I pay them the same salary here as they get currently in CA, it's like getting a 10% raise if they come up to WA on the income tax savings.

So you can thank me for taking a bunch of skilled folks out of your tax base