W T F ?

http://vimeo.com/ondemand/werenotbrokefilm/78013933

Absurd!

It's probably those liberal devils, or those conservative demons...

With all the money they spend on lobbyist's they can't afford to pay taxes.

Besides taxpayers don't live in DC and throw cocktail parties so it's win win.

Can't tax the guy who got you drunk and laid. It's the American way.

But it's for the good of the country! If these global corporations, you know, the job creators, have to pay taxes, well, then, they won't create more jobs. Just like they haven't been doing these past five years.

Check with Hankster, TJ, Rev. Blackmouth, and the other right wing whack jobs on this forum, and they'll verify how it's necessary for the richest companies and individuals to pay less or no taxes. It may not be Econ 101, but I'm sure it's in Econ 401, or 501, or somewhere up in the ether.

Hey, this whole thread, and Salmo and eyeFISH, you're all socialists... Just trying to REDISTRIBUTE wealth.

And destroy jobs.

And ruin the country.

For the self proclaimed smartest guy on PP you sure lack basic comprehension skills. I never once said that corps should not pay taxes. What I have said is tax them as much as you want it all gets passed to the consumer regardless. Same with subsidies remove them all and let's see what things really cost. I could care less either way. If you think corps paying more taxes benefits the little guy you must give back your self awarded smartest guy title.

Right wing whack job, really, can you do no better than to plagiarize your cheerleader?

In times past I would not have expected the PP group to have treated a trailer for a rabble rousing 60 minute "documentary" as something meaningful, but alas time has passed and I suppose desperate times call for desperate measures.

For anyone willing to read and think, consider.

Most firms pay no income taxes - Congress
Study finds that the majority of domestic and foreign corporations in the United States avoid paying federal income taxes.

By David Goldman, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: August 12, 2008: 4:38 PM EDT


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations do not pay federal income taxes, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined samples of corporate tax returns filed between 1998 and 2005. In that time period, an annual average of 1.3 million U.S. companies and 39,000 foreign companies doing business in the United States paid no income taxes - despite having a combined $2.5 trillion in revenue.

The study showed that 28% of foreign companies and 25% of U.S. corporations with more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in sales paid no federal income taxes in 2005. Those companies totaled a combined $372 billion in sales for the largest foreign companies and $1.1 trillion in revenue for the biggest U.S. companies.

The GAO report, which did not name any specific companies, said that some corporations reported zero income before deducting expenses while others said they had zero net income after deducting expenses. Either way, those companies reported no tax liability, the GAO said.

But many of the companies the report found had paid no tax were likely small businesses that pay other taxes. Generally, many small firms, because they do not have shareholders, are able to shift corporate income to individual income.

"Small businesses that are going to be liable for a lot of income tax are likely to use other tax forms so they only pay individual income taxes," said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

The study was requested by Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D, and Carl Levin, D-Mich., in an attempt to determine if corporations are abusing so-called transfer prices.

Transfer prices are charges on transactions between subsidiary companies within a larger corporate group. Companies may try to lessen their U.S. tax hit by improperly transferring income to foreign subsidiaries in countries with lower rates.

The GAO study did not attempt to determine if companies were abusing transfer prices, but it said that potential abuse of transfers could reduce the amount of taxes companies pay in the United States.

"The tax system that allows this wholesale tax avoidance is an embarrassment and unfair to hardworking Americans who pay their fair share of taxes," Dorgan said in a statement.

U.S. politicians disagree about how much income tax the government should levy on corporations. Currently the rate is 35%, but most foreign governments have set their rates below the U.S. level.

"The U.S. corporate tax rate stayed the same while foreign countries have drifted down, which increases the incentive for companies to report income in other countries," said Toder. "If the U.S. drops the rate to 30% but closes other tax loopholes, that may ultimately generate more tax revenue for the government."
Juice economy again? It's a tough call

Now I realize that to read and reason takes more time and effort than watching the piece of puff dramamentary exhibited at the head of this thread, however I consider it to be worth the effort even though many on this board will not, as the ability to reason seems to be in short supply.

So it's your choice. You can attempt to understand the reality's of the economics of worldwide corporate competition, and the effect that those realities have on our country, and then make logical choices to further your goals and proceed accordingly with your situation, or you can just react and occupy Wall Street, or for the truly educated amongst us, well they can simply storm the Bastille. Vive La France

Rev,

That's just lies, damn lies, and statistics...

a) 2/3 pay no taxes. Let's presume that's true, how many of those are LLCs or other structures where -- as is vaguely mentioned in your article -- their taxes are instead paid by the members (partners).

b) oh, and since we're counting businesses by numbers -- those "Fortune 500" companies, they represent a massive percentage of the revenue and profits, but a tiny sliver of the total number of businesses, so once again your C&P is deceptive

c) and finally, let's just ignore the fact that the stats in the video (that you're slamming) appear to be TRUE. Let's instead shift the issue to other bogus stats... Let's call them "dramamenteries" and declare our shoddy statistics to be "the ability to reason"

All political musings aside, I can't understand how anybody not directly benefitting from corporate welfare can be an apologist for the same.

When companies that are "too big to fail" don't pay their taxes, the rest of us pay more, or else stuff like education and healthcare simply don't get funded. They're selling our children (and thereby the future of our nation) down the river. How anyone who does pay income tax can be okay with that is beyond my comprehension. I guess stock dividends made possible by increased debt limits make anything forgivable for some....

Was that intended to be meaningful?

98% correct,--------------------- Gold Star.

Hey, I was proud of that sentence, ya big bully....

I did misspell benefiting, but you obviously understood my intent in using that word, so what was it that made my sentence meaningless? Are you one of those types that can't understand a sentence in which every subject and object isn't a person's name?

See Dick. See Jane. See Dick and Jane. See Dick and Jane pay tax....

So just what the hell is "corporate welfare"? No need for you to answer as I will do it for you. "Corporate welfare" is a buzz phrase, a loaded, but meaningless phrase, conjured up to stir the passions of people that are predisposed to such stirrings, you know the kind of people I speak of occupy Wall Streeters, code pinkers, etc.

I do not claim that the statutes regarding corporations are optimal, but they were all passed by congress and signed into law by a President. They are the rules by which corporations do the business that they do, and when any corporation is successful that corporation is then a benefactor to our country. To think otherwise, is well, not to have thought very deeply.

As for being a bully, well it's hard to be a bully when you're a christian in a stadium full of lions.

Or a circus clown in a tent full of laughing people.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd's back

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

Friedrich Nietzsche




I don't think the Reverend is alone, nor is everyone laughing.


Todd- wouldnt your predjudice here also qualify as bigotry? Reeks of intolerance to me.

Tolerance is only extended to like minded folks.

Tolerance is not extended to those who preach hate and bigotry under the guise of "religion"...they get extra fuckyous for being both bigots and hypocrites.

Fish on...

Todd

Substitute self absorption for religion. Is spewing hate ok under that guise tolerable?

Jtd , love that Nietzsche quote from beyond good and evil That philosophy is what brought most real northwesterners here 100+ years ago. It only hides in cracks and crevices now as the area has been swallowed by homogenous shallowness.

Just a momentary flash of genius and just a sample of things I remember that occasionally come in useful. It happens for someone (not me) here everyday.



Don't be too impressed.

Rev.:

Now that I understand what your meaningless reply to my meaningless post intended, I'm better prepared to discuss our positions, which seem to start out fairly similar but end up in very different places, indeed.

I agree that "corporate welfare" is a buzz phrase, but it's one that I believe serves as a sound metaphor for spending billions of tax dollars, largely withheld from the incomes of the middle class and with the intended purpose of paying for vital government services, on keeping corporations that don't pay taxes and are "too big to fail" in business when their unsustainable, immoral business practices come back around to bite them in the butt. We'll have to agree to disagree on corporate welfare being "meaningless."

With that out of the way, let's talk about your assertions that these corporations are operating within the laws of the land and benefiting our society. I must agree that they are operating according to what the law allows. Where I suspect you and I differ on that point is in our respective assessments of how the laws that allow them to operate the way they do came into being. I'm not sure how you see it, but what I see is that our all-too-easily corrupted Parliament of Whores (that's Congress and the President) has been lobbied (paid off) much more heavily by these corporations than by any other interest group, and therefore, they feel strongly compelled to make laws that keep their wealthy benefactors happy and "contributing to their campaigns." Effectively, this means corporations are making the laws that govern their practices. Were you and I in the same position, I strongly doubt we would structure those laws in ways that would inhibit our ability to increase our profits. Why, then, should we believe they would?

As for the corporate role as benefactors to our society, beyond employing a lot of people and creating stock dividends for those willing (and able) to invest in Wall Street (both of which are, without question, meaningful contributions from the viewpoint of the beneficiaries), I don't see that they are doing much to benefit the majority of U.S. citizens. In fact, I see a lot more harm being done than good. Here are a few negative impacts of allowing companies to become "too big to fail:"

- Lack of competition
- Loss of opportunity for new, small businesses (fewer places to work)
- Lack of incentive to improve products and innovate
- Reduced quality of service
- Loss of incentive for competitive pricing
- Wage stagnation
- Laws that enable large corporations handicap small businesses
- Laws that reduce the corporate tax burden increase the tax burden for others, thereby reducing consumer spending power
- When increasing taxes on the middle class still can't fill the revenue gap, government services get cut.

The list goes on and on.

Just for a moment, let's get back to "too big to fail." Talk about a negative! When several of these corporations absolutely SHOULD have failed, our government was "forced" to dig into our pockets to bail them out. (I personally believe the consequences of allowing those corps to fail would have been significantly less dire than we were led to believe, but I guess that's beside the point.) The men and women who artificially inflated the housing market with their "questionable" lending practices should be in prison, but instead, they got paid bonuses out of our tax dollars. Doesn't that piss you off just a little? Whatever you want to argue about how important these companies might be to our economy, don't you have to agree that it puts us in a bad position? When the inevitable consequences of increasing our debt limit to keep their stocks healthy come around, won't we be forced to bail them out again?

Anyway, I'm tired, so it must be time to stop. I'm sure there are some other benefits associated with being ruled by corporate overlords, but there are also many more negatives. When something does more harm than good, shouldn't we seek to change it?

Is this really how you see yourself or is this an analogy? Either way it says a lot about you because that sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and reflects more on you than anything else.

It shows you think:

1. You are the good guy and the persecuted victim
2. This is a battle royal of which you are merely a pawn
3. You are surrounded by beasts
4. You are few

Reality:

1. This isn't about good guys and bad guys this is about government taxation. Good guys vs bad guys is a massive oversimplification.
2. Nobody is banning you or feeding you to the lions. You have the same right as everyone else to be here.
3. Everyone here is 99% the same yet we argue over the 1% of difference.
4. You are not in the minority (such as Christians in Rome), many people hold similar beliefs to yours in this country.

Clearly, I over analyzed your post but I got to say that there is a lot of meat there. A very curious post to say the least in the context of the dark side. I hope you don't feel like you are partaking in some crusade by coming to the dark side....

Might I suggest growing a pair, accepting the world is the way it is, and tolerating those who bring you no harm with their differing views?

Flikr,

I am a believer in capitalism, I think that free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity for all. I am not a supporter of a "too big to fail" policy. In fact occasional failure is necessary for capitalism to function efficiently. I thought it was wrong for our government to bail out the auto companies and banks, and I don't like the idea of government picking the winners and the losers in business. Evidently our current leadership feels differently.

You said "The men and women who artificially inflated the housing market with their "questionable" lending practices should be in prison, but instead, they got paid bonuses out of our tax dollars." and I ask you what men and women? And just how did they inflate the housing market with their lending practices? And did they really get paid bonuses of our tax dollars? Sure it's easy to get all riled up but I don't really think that things are quite that simple. At the time of the housing bubble many people wanted to participate and felt left out if they could not get a loan. Pressure was put on lenders to make loans that frankly never should have been made.

You also said "When the inevitable consequences of increasing our debt limit to keep their stocks healthy come around, won't we be forced to bail them out again?" To which I ask do you really believe that the debt limit is being raised to keep stock values up?
Well I don't. Stock values are up because of the Feds easy money policy. It was a conscious decision to force people into risk assets with the hope that this would help stimulate the economy. And yes it may very well end poorly, although I sincerely hope it does not.

And lastly you said, "As for the corporate role as benefactors to our society, beyond employing a lot of people and creating stock dividends for those willing (and able) to invest in Wall Street (both of which are, without question, meaningful contributions from the viewpoint of the beneficiaries), I don't see that they are doing much to benefit the majority of U.S. citizens. In fact, I see a lot more harm being done than good." I take issue with your saying that the majority of U.S. do not benefit from corporations, and that they do more harm than good. Every single person who has a job is a benefit to society and contributes to economy. Also while there are many people who do not directly invest in equity's themselves most people are indirectly invested in them either through their own pension plans or are affected because public employees pension funds are invested in equity's.

Jason,

My comment on being a bully was a response to Flickrs Quip, "ya big bully" My post was intended to be a metaphor. I was the conservative/christian and members of the board which is predominantly liberal were the lions. The Dark Side was the stadium, I thought it was funny.

As far as your statement, "Might I suggest growing a pair, accepting the world is the way it is, and tolerating those who bring you no harm with their differing views?"
I'll see what I can do