ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 26, 2011 11:47:33 GMT -5
If personal income taxes are raised to make up for the lower coporate taxes,individuals will quit spending money,lowering coporate profits. We need to do away with taxes...
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 26, 2011 11:47:37 GMT -5
They are paying no taxes, still oursourcing, and only paying higher wages to the executives, is that what you like? I'm saying rasing their taxes will not improve that situation, it will make it worse...
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 26, 2011 11:51:37 GMT -5
Wages and benefits are the real problem.They drive up the price of goods more than anything. We all need to work for less.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 26, 2011 11:53:29 GMT -5
It's too bad they don't have so much responsibility to their consumers and lower-end employees. As for the mustache-twirling, yes that part, at least, is a myth.
Their slavish devotion to the shareholders already has them shrinking their workforce. Layoffs drive stock prices upwards, increasing dividends to the shareholders via the extra profit generated by having to pay fewer people. This is why companies can post record profits while simultaneously laying off tens of thousands.
And then you'll turn around and blame the government.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 26, 2011 11:58:39 GMT -5
Correct. So why do you think increasing their taxes, thus driving them to lower costs even more, will alleviate that situation? It won't, it will make it worse. Neither liberals nor the government can legislate "moral" behavior by a corporation. This is something the left keeps trying to do, and it will never, ever work...
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 26, 2011 12:14:06 GMT -5
GE is in bed with the Obama Administration which might have something to do with their ability to avoid taxes ~ but that's not it. The problem is our tax system. Not so much the business tax rate, but more the tax laws which favor certain endeavors over others. GE is big into wind farms which gives them tax breaks so that they get to make a profit based on their ability to avoid taxes and receive subsidies. That's one example. Of course it's cheaper to build the turbines in China while receiving US subsidies. Who can blame them? It isn't either greedy or dishonest ~ it's just doing what the government pays them [or doesn't charge them] to do. Why fight the Federal Government? That, in case you're wondering, is why many are in favor of some form of "Flat" or "Fair" Tax and the elimination of deductions and other "social engineering" aspects of US tax law.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 26, 2011 12:24:08 GMT -5
GE was able to do this because they recorded US losses while indefinally defering large foreign gains. Obama was not in office when these tax codes were written.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 26, 2011 12:29:00 GMT -5
ugonow, Your having quoted only part the sentence I wrote, I can only conclude that your intent was to mislead and, since you also had nothing to contribute to the discussion, your post is a waste of space. For those to lazy to look at the post above, the rest of the sentence was ...."but that's not it."
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 26, 2011 12:32:36 GMT -5
So just what was the intent of ---"GE is in bed with the Obama Administration which might have something to do with their ability to avoid taxes ~"? An attempt to mislead,or a waste of space?
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 26, 2011 12:44:13 GMT -5
On the dubious assumption that you actually want an answer: I placed that at the head of my post in order to dismiss the idea. MY actual statement was: "GE is in bed with the Obama Administration which might have something to do with their ability to avoid taxes ~ but that's not it."
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 26, 2011 12:49:39 GMT -5
Yacouldn't stand the thought of just defending him,huh?
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 26, 2011 13:15:35 GMT -5
There's been a lot in the news about Obama's association with the CEO of GE. Since we're talking about GE, I thought it needed to be gotten out of the way, if for no other reason than to prevent someone assuming that was it. It isn't so much defending or not defending, but just keeping the discussion as on point as possible. I'm not saying that there isn't something going on between Obama and the GE CEO, just that it doesn't apply with the point I was trying to make. Glad we got that straight.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 26, 2011 13:54:25 GMT -5
I guess I don't understand why companies pay tax anyway - or get tax breaks for that matter. Companies have employees who pay taxes. What would be the downfall of eliminating corproate taxes, thereby enticing companies to "invest in America," which would employ Americans instead of taking their factories to other countries? I think you are on to something, we should eliminate all income and payroll taxes and replace it with a national retail sales tax.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 26, 2011 13:57:31 GMT -5
Raising revenue is only one purpose of taxation and not necessarily the primary one. A major purpose of taxation is to control behavior. The natural tendency of government is to control and, if left to its own devices, government would attempt total control. Revenue is only money and the only purpose of money is to get others to do what you want.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,385
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 26, 2011 14:04:14 GMT -5
... the only purpose of money is to get others to do what you want. I would post a musical break like this: but P.I. will accuse me of being a troll again.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 26, 2011 14:04:46 GMT -5
Raising revenue is only one purpose of taxation and not necessarily the primary one. A major purpose of taxation is to control behavior. The natural tendency of government is to control and, if left to its own devices, government would attempt total control. Revenue is only money and the only purpose of money is to get others to do what you want. Which is probably why they will never eliminate our current tax code, and replace it with something line the Fair Tax takes away to much power from the federal government.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 26, 2011 15:33:48 GMT -5
I guess I don't understand why companies pay tax anyway - or get tax breaks for that matter. Companies have employees who pay taxes. What would be the downfall of eliminating corporate taxes, thereby enticing companies to "invest in America," which would employ Americans instead of taking their factories to other countries? I wouldn't have a problem with that- but as long as they want to keep their 'corporate personhood', have 1st amendment rights and pollute elections with their over sized wallets, lobby the government, etc. then their asses need to pay up and pay well. A corporate AMT sounds about right- but I would rather have a massive tax on excessive executive compensation- or at least eliminate the deductibility of any compensation over a reasonable level.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 26, 2011 18:07:18 GMT -5
I guess I don't understand why companies pay tax anyway - or get tax breaks for that matter. Companies have employees who pay taxes. What would be the downfall of eliminating corporate taxes, thereby enticing companies to "invest in America," which would employ Americans instead of taking their factories to other countries? I wouldn't have a problem with that- but as long as they want to keep their 'corporate personhood', have 1st amendment rights and pollute elections with their over sized wallets, lobby the government, etc. then their asses need to pay up and pay well. A corporate AMT sounds about right- but I would rather have a massive tax on excessive executive compensation- or at least eliminate the deductibility of any compensation over a reasonable level. I think you have it backwards...it's BECAUSE they are taxed that they get such rights. Otherwise it's taxation without representation. Take away the taxes and then you can take away their ability to lobby and even bar them from the political circles all together (the business itself, although the people running it still have a voice). But good luck trying to find ANY politician who is willing to kick business dollars out of their campaign funds...
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Mar 26, 2011 19:42:25 GMT -5
Except if a company keeps raising the price, the consumer just won't buy the product, circumventing your "corporations will just jack up the prices." Funny how Conservatives don't think of the consumer going elsewhere unless it suits them.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 26, 2011 19:46:50 GMT -5
Except if a company keeps raising the price, the consumer just won't buy the product, circumventing your "corporations will just jack up the prices." Funny how Conservatives don't think of the consumer going elsewhere unless it suits them. Where will they go? To the other American corporation being taxed out of existence (no), or to a foreign corporation which doesn't pay the crushing taxes (probably yes)? Either way, the outcome is the same, higher prices or lost jobs...
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Mar 26, 2011 19:54:19 GMT -5
I'm curious which foreign corporations people are actually referring to when they cite these really powerful companies that do better in other countries than they do in the US.
Could you name a few and which countries they are from and what their ACTUAL tax rate is (especially when compared to our loophole tax rate)?
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 26, 2011 20:01:43 GMT -5
Well I'm sure CAT fits that bill. Time was that in the Peoria area there was 7500 union jobs at CAT, now there is less than 1500. And thanks to Gov Quinn - Cat is threatening to pull out of Illinois.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Mar 26, 2011 20:13:08 GMT -5
I'm curious which foreign corporations people are actually referring to when they cite these really powerful companies that do better in other countries than they do in the US. Could you name a few and which countries they are from and what their ACTUAL tax rate is (especially when compared to our loophole tax rate)? Well Adidas/rebook is a foriegn company that does great. I know GM, Chrysler and Ford make more profit in foriegn countries than they do here. I would have to look up the tax rates, but I am on my second glass of wine and just to lazy lol. I also wanted to note that the bottom 50% income tax payers only pay 2.7% of total income tax, so I am not sure why people whine and cry that the lower class pays to much. www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlGE started going all green that is why Geithner let them slide on taxes. GE was a huge supporter of Obama and yes they did have huge financial problems in their finance department. They were one of the companies that got some of the TARP.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 26, 2011 21:45:55 GMT -5
Loopdilou, As I recall, when GM had to go for a government bail-out, all its operations except in the US were profitable. Businesses do not leave the US unless they can be [more] profitable where they're going. It isn't a difficult concept, give it a try.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 26, 2011 23:02:00 GMT -5
GE also finagled itself into status as a "bank" and was one of the largest recipients of TARP funds. TARP was expanded by Obama for GE, which did not qualify as a bank. Remember, now, TARP was to bail out banks. TARP was expanded by Obama for GE, which didn't qualify as a bank. GE's "bank" became the top beneficiary of TARP funds. Jeffrey Immelt is involved here. The story from the Washington Post is Monday, June 29th, 2009: "How a Loophole Benefits GE in Bank Rescue -- Industrial Giant Becomes Top Recipient in Debt-Guarantee Program." www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062802955.html?nav=igoogleThey got stimulus money, too. General Electric has been in bed with Obama on this "green energy" bullsh** and let's not forget they own state-run media MSNBC, the NBC networks, with their "go green" graphics and all this other baloney-- and they've used government money to create this green energy division that they have, and they're behind these compact fluorescent lightbulbs. State controlled NBC and MSNBC operate with no audience at a substantial loss loss in order to give Obama his own cheerleading news network, and this CEO ends up on an advisory board now. Wait, what?!? Oh, yes...earlier this year it was announced that GE CEO Jeffery Immelt is heading up the Obama regime's "Jobs and Competitiveness Board". www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/ge-s-immelt-to-head-obama-s-new-jobs-and-competitiveness-board-20110121
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 7:24:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2011 23:16:52 GMT -5
oh my, evil business play on both sides? No, couldn't be.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Mar 26, 2011 23:47:47 GMT -5
I guess they'd go bankrupt, or *sigh* accept lower profits. Survival of the fittest, eh?
No, the First Amendment would give such rights anyways, whether or not they're taxed. Can you cite where such a right comes from being taxed?
Links work much better than recollections.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 26, 2011 23:49:33 GMT -5
yes ;D and go after outsourcers...
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 27, 2011 22:14:47 GMT -5
OK
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Mar 28, 2011 8:04:43 GMT -5
|
|