Comments
181 - 200 of 359 Comments Last updated Mar 11, 2013

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#217 Feb 23, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
You're playing word games again and you're WRONG!
"There is certainly a tax break for U.S. companies that move operations or people abroad," said Gary McGill, director of the Fisher School of Accounting at the University of Florida. "It is simply a business expense like any other legitimate expense."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
Notice McGill uses the words "tax break" interchangeable with a legitimate expense. So I'm taking it you're a director of a school of accounting at some university?
They could restrict the "ordinary and necessary to conduct business" expenses to not include closing here and moving operations overseas. It could easily be argued that is not a necessary business expense. It's a choice to want to do business in other countries just to make more profit. NOT a NECESSITY. Would you get a "tax break" for selling everything here to move overseas for a job there when your job is after-all your business? How you make your money. Just like being a business is how they make their money.
But then it's morons like you, seeing as you like calling moron to everyone else, that would scream bloody murder that it prejudices business from making as much profit as they possibly can no matter what it does to our own economy. I mean lets not take any measures to protect our economy like other countries do. But then it's been proven by the evidence you people don't care about the American economy. Just that business makes as much profit as possible and doesn't have to pay proportional taxes.
To be fair, the paragraph above the one you posted in the article you linked to said "There is no clause in the tax code that rewards a company when it relocates production beyond U.S. borders. But if a plant moves at all, whether itís from Ohio to Tennessee or Ohio to Malaysia, it is eligible for deductions." So it is an absolute falsehood to give the impression that businesses get a special tax break for moving overseas.

Yes, many people have gotten a tax break by moving out of high tax states like CA, NY and MI to lower tax states like FL and TX. And have moved overseas, even given up their citizenship to save money on taxes. Why would anyone who does all their work from home live in a high tax state except for emotional/family reasons? I left CA to live in FL because I could work from anywhere. So by moving I got a bigger house, cheaper gas and $0 taxes.

Did you read the part about Google and Apple? Both of them get more than 50% of their sales from outside the US. So why would someone consider them US companies? Just because they are headquarted here? So if Ford moves it's HQ to Mexico, then you have no complaints about their taxes? That makes no sense.

A business exists to satisfy their customers and make a profit. It doesn't exist to pay taxes or hire people. And whether that business has just one employee or 100,000 employees, every business will make decisions that are best for the business. Whether that means shutting down a plant in MI and moving to TX, or moving to Taiwan.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#218 Feb 23, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
To be fair, the paragraph above the one you posted in the article you linked to said "There is no clause in the tax code that rewards a company when it relocates production beyond U.S. borders. But if a plant moves at all, whether itís from Ohio to Tennessee or Ohio to Malaysia, it is eligible for deductions." So it is an absolute falsehood to give the impression that businesses get a special tax break for moving overseas.
Yes, many people have gotten a tax break by moving out of high tax states like CA, NY and MI to lower tax states like FL and TX. And have moved overseas, even given up their citizenship to save money on taxes. Why would anyone who does all their work from home live in a high tax state except for emotional/family reasons? I left CA to live in FL because I could work from anywhere. So by moving I got a bigger house, cheaper gas and $0 taxes.
Did you read the part about Google and Apple? Both of them get more than 50% of their sales from outside the US. So why would someone consider them US companies? Just because they are headquarted here? So if Ford moves it's HQ to Mexico, then you have no complaints about their taxes? That makes no sense.
A business exists to satisfy their customers and make a profit. It doesn't exist to pay taxes or hire people. And whether that business has just one employee or 100,000 employees, every business will make decisions that are best for the business. Whether that means shutting down a plant in MI and moving to TX, or moving to Taiwan.
So at long last we agree companies do get tax breaks, well lets call them tax advantages through deductions, to shut down operations in the U.S. to transfer them overseas. I suppose the validity of such a tax code allowance is a wise move for a nation's fiscal security is of personal perspective. I don't care if it's part of the tax code or not, it's in all ways WRONG.

I disagree with businesses exists to satisfy their customers. All businesses share holder owned exist to satisfy their share holders through profits no matter what measures that means. Look up Dodge v Ford Motor Company. The Dodge brothers were share holders in Henry Ford's car company. When Ford raised the wages of his workers to $5.00 per day and lowered the price of his cars, better satisfying his customers, the Dodge brothers sued him claiming his raising workers wages and lowering the price of his cars degraded the share holders interests. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Dodge brothers saying, without quoting, a share holder owned company's responsibility is to it's share holders above all else.

How I know wikipedia is not a believable source to some but in a nut shell it does spell it out quite accurately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Mo...

Here's another source if you don't want to believe wikipedia: http://www.law.illinois.edu/aviram/Dodge.pdf

And here's a case brief on it: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/corporatio...

So what I am saying, with citation to back it up, to clump all business together with the fallacy that a business' responsibility is to the customers and imply profits less so is, well, a fallacy.

Oh, in historical accuracy the Dodge brothers were suing also so they would have more money to build their own car company competing with Ford.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#219 Feb 23, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, all the dems joined in.
Prove it or ignore my posts, please.....

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#220 Feb 23, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
To be fair, the paragraph above the one you posted in the article you linked to said "There is no clause in the tax code that rewards a company when it relocates production beyond U.S. borders. But if a plant moves at all, whether itís from Ohio to Tennessee or Ohio to Malaysia, it is eligible for deductions." So it is an absolute falsehood to give the impression that businesses get a special tax break for moving overseas.
Yes, many people have gotten a tax break by moving out of high tax states like CA, NY and MI to lower tax states like FL and TX. And have moved overseas, even given up their citizenship to save money on taxes. Why would anyone who does all their work from home live in a high tax state except for emotional/family reasons? I left CA to live in FL because I could work from anywhere. So by moving I got a bigger house, cheaper gas and $0 taxes.
Did you read the part about Google and Apple? Both of them get more than 50% of their sales from outside the US. So why would someone consider them US companies? Just because they are headquarted here? So if Ford moves it's HQ to Mexico, then you have no complaints about their taxes? That makes no sense.
A business exists to satisfy their customers and make a profit. It doesn't exist to pay taxes or hire people. And whether that business has just one employee or 100,000 employees, every business will make decisions that are best for the business. Whether that means shutting down a plant in MI and moving to TX, or moving to Taiwan.
The point of the defeated bill, was to eliminate the deduction for any corporation moving to outside the country.....not internal moves....And, yes here in Florida we have zero state income tax....a virtue, now becoming important it has been reported for sports figures....guess we can only dream?...lol...
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

#221 Feb 23, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Prove it or ignore my posts, please.....
Prove your assertions or stop making them.
OhOhObama

Grand Rapids, MI

#222 Feb 23, 2013
""Why Steelie? Why? Not because they have to by law. Because employers will CHOOSE to eliminate coverage."

Well that proves things once and for all, you definitely have never run a business.

and clueless
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Wixom, MI

#223 Feb 23, 2013
OhOhObama wrote:
""Why Steelie? Why? Not because they have to by law. Because employers will CHOOSE to eliminate coverage."
Well that proves things once and for all, you definitely have never run a business.
and clueless
It is beginning already...... Universal theme park in FLA just made some benefit cuts with more coming
OhOhObama

Grand Rapids, MI

#224 Feb 23, 2013
@SIB

Just so you know I am not specifically picking on you,or not, I go back to the days of the wood TV old forum.(along with Tim Steel)

As bad as I am frustrated and mad with Obama or the liberal (radical) and am compounding worlds affairs in the same manor.

you are like over-excoriating yourself-opinion.

have a beer man.
OhOhObama

Grand Rapids, MI

#225 Feb 23, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>It is beginning already...... Universal theme park in FLA just made some benefit cuts with more coming
All we can think is, it will come out in the wash.

All this crap going on and all the people are doing is watching WWF or Snooky, like trying to talk to an earthworm (not SIB) but the whole web in general.

I guess they think they won and everything is just fine.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#226 Feb 24, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
So at long last we agree companies do get tax breaks, well lets call them tax advantages through deductions, to shut down operations in the U.S. to transfer them overseas. I suppose the validity of such a tax code allowance is a wise move for a nation's fiscal security is of personal perspective. I don't care if it's part of the tax code or not, it's in all ways WRONG.
I disagree with businesses exists to satisfy their customers. All businesses share holder owned exist to satisfy their share holders through profits no matter what measures that means. Look up Dodge v Ford Motor Company. The Dodge brothers were share holders in Henry Ford's car company. When Ford raised the wages of his workers to $5.00 per day and lowered the price of his cars, better satisfying his customers, the Dodge brothers sued him claiming his raising workers wages and lowering the price of his cars degraded the share holders interests. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Dodge brothers saying, without quoting, a share holder owned company's responsibility is to it's share holders above all else.
How I know wikipedia is not a believable source to some but in a nut shell it does spell it out quite accurately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Mo...
Here's another source if you don't want to believe wikipedia: http://www.law.illinois.edu/aviram/Dodge.pdf
And here's a case brief on it: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/corporatio...
So what I am saying, with citation to back it up, to clump all business together with the fallacy that a business' responsibility is to the customers and imply profits less so is, well, a fallacy.
Oh, in historical accuracy the Dodge brothers were suing also so they would have more money to build their own car company competing with Ford.
Itís the ďandĒ that you keep inserting that is wrong. Companies get a tax break for closing a plant. If I have 11 plants and I close one, I get a break. If I have 11 plants and I open a 12th, I get a tax break. I donít have to close AND open one to get a break.
You can disagree about why business exists; it just shows youíve never been in business. If a business doesnít satisfy their customers they cease to exist, whether it is the local dry cleaner or a huge corporation. And when they try to satisfy others, like shareholders or the union, they eventually fail. Look at Eastern Airlines, Woolworth, GM, etc. As far as profits, no customers= no profits. And whether it is Ford or Microsoft, they both started with a handful of people and satisfied customers. Neither one would have gotten big if they didnít have customers. Pretty basic concept.
Oh, and you may want to look up the 100ís of car companies that didnít satisfy their customers and went out of business. It had nothing to do with shareholders.

So what Iím saying is that to believe that while a small business has to focus on customers but a big business doesnít is true ignorance. Big business has more things to concentrate on because of size, but customers and profits are foundational. Shareholders arenít.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Keego Harbor, MI

#227 Feb 24, 2013
Progressives hate the elderly and children...... They also hate minorities as they will be targeted for elimination more frequently with O Care......
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

#228 Feb 24, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Itís the ďandĒ that you keep inserting that is wrong. Companies get a tax break for closing a plant. If I have 11 plants and I close one, I get a break. If I have 11 plants and I open a 12th, I get a tax break. I donít have to close AND open one to get a break.
You can disagree about why business exists; it just shows youíve never been in business. If a business doesnít satisfy their customers they cease to exist, whether it is the local dry cleaner or a huge corporation. And when they try to satisfy others, like shareholders or the union, they eventually fail. Look at Eastern Airlines, Woolworth, GM, etc. As far as profits, no customers= no profits. And whether it is Ford or Microsoft, they both started with a handful of people and satisfied customers. Neither one would have gotten big if they didnít have customers. Pretty basic concept.
Oh, and you may want to look up the 100ís of car companies that didnít satisfy their customers and went out of business. It had nothing to do with shareholders.
So what Iím saying is that to believe that while a small business has to focus on customers but a big business doesnít is true ignorance. Big business has more things to concentrate on because of size, but customers and profits are foundational. Shareholders arenít.
The "tax breaks" are not totally true either. Can't go into here, but know that the state "tax breaks" is actually paying more taxes, only paying them to the "new jobs tax". Yup, I see it every month.
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

#229 Feb 24, 2013
One more point, every employer that pays for employee health insurance in this state is paying more taxes to the state. It's called, "Michigan State Claims Tax". THAT tax was instituted by Mrs. Granholm.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Southfield, MI

#230 Feb 24, 2013
Really wrote:
One more point, every employer that pays for employee health insurance in this state is paying more taxes to the state. It's called, "Michigan State Claims Tax". THAT tax was instituted by Mrs. Granholm.
The Progressive judges didn't like that truthful fact did they..........
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#231 Feb 24, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>The "tax breaks" are not totally true either. Can't go into here, but know that the state "tax breaks" is actually paying more taxes, only paying them to the "new jobs tax". Yup, I see it every month.
Just keep your eyes on Michigan and it's Snyder/Republican strategy of eliminating the taxes on business and transferring that burden directly onto the people.

To be fair we should make sure he has another term to complete his re-invention and see how it all works out. It should be an eye opener.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Mount Morris, MI

#232 Feb 24, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Just keep your eyes on Michigan and it's Snyder/Republican strategy of eliminating the taxes on business and transferring that burden directly onto the people.
To be fair we should make sure he has another term to complete his re-invention and see how it all works out. It should be an eye opener.
Jenny did destroy Michigan with the help of the Unions and Dems.....
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#233 Feb 24, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Just keep your eyes on Michigan and it's Snyder/Republican strategy of eliminating the taxes on business and transferring that burden directly onto the people.
To be fair we should make sure he has another term to complete his re-invention and see how it all works out. It should be an eye opener.
And Snyder and his cronies' justification for their "reinventing Michigan" scheme was that GOP policies and giveaways to business would lead to a more friendly place for business and jobs would result. So far the only jobs I'm aware of are auto industry jobs which were the result of government loans.

Anyone who is still believing Snyder's giveaways to his and corporate business cronies and takeaways from everyone else probably ought to start asking for some answers.

And lets not forget Synder's not done "reinventing Michigan". He's coming after more tax dollars and other revenue from increased fees.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Mount Morris, MI

#234 Feb 24, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
And Snyder and his cronies' justification for their "reinventing Michigan" scheme was that GOP policies and giveaways to business would lead to a more friendly place for business and jobs would result. So far the only jobs I'm aware of are auto industry jobs which were the result of government loans.
Anyone who is still believing Snyder's giveaways to his and corporate business cronies and takeaways from everyone else probably ought to start asking for some answers.
And lets not forget Synder's not done "reinventing Michigan". He's coming after more tax dollars and other revenue from increased fees.
But, but, but, I thought you liked high taxes, fees, and regulations..... You do want "skin in the game" don't you? I like Snyder because he is bringing everyone along to fix this and not just the productive few......
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#235 Feb 24, 2013
I have plenty of skin in the game punk.
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

#236 Feb 24, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Just keep your eyes on Michigan and it's Snyder/Republican strategy of eliminating the taxes on business and transferring that burden directly onto the people.
To be fair we should make sure he has another term to complete his re-invention and see how it all works out. It should be an eye opener.
Good! Sounds fair to me. You gave Obama a second term so he could try to complete is reinvention. It's only fair to allow Rick Snyder the same opportunity. Glad you feel that way.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'We Don't Have a Strategy' to Fight ISIS t 11 hr Phil 1
The cheerleaders with their tight skirts are v... 11 hr Phil 1
why war with isis? 12 hr Phil 17
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 13 hr Buffalo Bull 1,326
Liberty University Law School Dean: Gay Marriag... 18 hr Batch 37 Pain Is ... 314
Plafkin Brothers-McDonalds, Home of the Famous ... (Jun '13) Wed Kelly Hadd 8
Cousins hope to open Grand Rapids' first hostel... Wed Faith 3
•••
•••
•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••