Comments
161 - 180 of 359 Comments Last updated Mar 11, 2013
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#194
Feb 13, 2013
 
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
A tax break is a reduction in the actual tax liability owed after net income is determined. That's why they call it a tax "break" A deduction is used to determine net income.
If you want to refer to deductions as some sort of special tax break, wouldn't that apply to every single expense of the company? I guess using you and the liberal logic I would suggest we start saying companies get tax breaks for _____ fill in the blank for anything under the sun that you want to suit your argument. Don't worry it doesn't make any sense, doesn't really matter the liberal voters are too stupid to look any further anyway.
Look, you're the one that started this nitpicking and name calling. You want to play semantics games? you're not the only one that can play it.

You were the one taking offense and calling names over the factual assertions corporations having been allowed to write-off shutting down U.S. operations and moving them overseas. Blaming on the dems wanting people to think the government is paying companies to do so; "The dems however want you to believe that corporations are getting paid from the government to do business overseas, and that is simply not true."
Another play on wording. Do we now want to call write-offs as something entirely different from deductions, breaks, etc.?

You got caught in your own game. Now bone up to it.
Chip

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#197
Feb 14, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, you're the one that started this nitpicking and name calling. You want to play semantics games? you're not the only one that can play it.
You were the one taking offense and calling names over the factual assertions corporations having been allowed to write-off shutting down U.S. operations and moving them overseas. Blaming on the dems wanting people to think the government is paying companies to do so; "The dems however want you to believe that corporations are getting paid from the government to do business overseas, and that is simply not true."
Another play on wording. Do we now want to call write-offs as something entirely different from deductions, breaks, etc.?
You got caught in your own game. Now bone up to it.
What you still don't get is that the dems wanted you to believe that companies were getting some special tax treatment to ship jobs overseas. They are getting no special treatment, if they were then I guess everything they purchase is now called a tax break.

Face it, you were played for a fool by the democrats and now you are too stupid or stuborn to admit it.

If I use your logic I could say we should get rid of anything I don't like to suit my argument. Companies purchase _______ and deduct it from income and therefore the goverment is giving tax breaks for ________ purchases.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
What you still don't get is that the dems wanted you to believe that companies were getting some special tax treatment to ship jobs overseas. They are getting no special treatment, if they were then I guess everything they purchase is now called a tax break.
Face it, you were played for a fool by the democrats and now you are too stupid or stuborn to admit it.
If I use your logic I could say we should get rid of anything I don't like to suit my argument. Companies purchase _______ and deduct it from income and therefore the goverment is giving tax breaks for ________ purchases.
You have never ever read me saying they are getting some special tax treatment to send jobs overseas except in your own need to twist arguments around to your own agenda. And in all honesty I can say I've never ever read any other saying it. Maybe that's because I know what is going on and know what they mean if it reads like they are.

I have said it very clearly these companies get tax write-offs, deductions, tax breaks, whatever you need to call them...they get to subtract those expenses of moving jobs out of this country off the gross income. They even get tax write-offs for importing foreign workers who will work for less than American workers. The Conservative answer to that is then American workers should just be willing to work for less in order to be "competitive". It's the conservative notion that job competition is a race to the bottom.

As you believe business hasn't been given special treatment in the tax code for decades you really are out of touch. Believing they should be given more tax advantages so they will create more jobs here. You are intentionally blind to that not having worked yet. Or equally just too afraid of the corporatocracy.

You're the one that's been played for the fool by your conservative ideology and listening to those that are out to destroy this country so they can start all over again in THEIR own image.
Elephant Gun

Muskegon, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199
Feb 14, 2013
 
Bawahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text>
told ya so, how's that hope and changy thing working out for ya?
Its working out just great. The company I work at was thinking about taking away health coverage.. Then they realized that they would have to give us the money in the form of a raise and pay the fine or have a whole workforce of disgruntled workers working for less who will do less much less. Of course thats the republicans solution to the recession is to lower wages and send jobs overseas for cheap labor and cheap product quality. So now we are either going to get a raise or keep the health insurance. After the tax break for employee insurance and the better group rates they are leaning toward keeping the insurance. You and steelie are a couple of doofuses who always create negative unintended consequences with your moronic decisions. 7 million disgruntled workers is something you dont want to deal with

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#200
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
What you still don't get is that the dems wanted you to believe that companies were getting some special tax treatment to ship jobs overseas. They are getting no special treatment, if they were then I guess everything they purchase is now called a tax break.
Face it, you were played for a fool by the democrats and now you are too stupid or stuborn to admit it.
If I use your logic I could say we should get rid of anything I don't like to suit my argument. Companies purchase _______ and deduct it from income and therefore the goverment is giving tax breaks for ________ purchases.
Seem's i recall this topic as part of the election conversations...there is a taxbreak for companies that outsource, and i believe i also cover's their moving costs....it was to be ended by Congress, but House republicans defeated it.....it was connected to the Romney campaign in some threads, and his company outsourcing a business in Illinois.........
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Owosso, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Seem's i recall this topic as part of the election conversations...there is a taxbreak for companies that outsource, and i believe i also cover's their moving costs....it was to be ended by Congress, but House republicans defeated it.....it was connected to the Romney campaign in some threads, and his company outsourcing a business in Illinois.........
Over regulation and High taxes.... why would they move....
Chip

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
You have never ever read me saying they are getting some special tax treatment to send jobs overseas except in your own need to twist arguments around to your own agenda. And in all honesty I can say I've never ever read any other saying it. Maybe that's because I know what is going on and know what they mean if it reads like they are.
I have said it very clearly these companies get tax write-offs, deductions, tax breaks, whatever you need to call them...they get to subtract those expenses of moving jobs out of this country off the gross income. They even get tax write-offs for importing foreign workers who will work for less than American workers. The Conservative answer to that is then American workers should just be willing to work for less in order to be "competitive". It's the conservative notion that job competition is a race to the bottom.
As you believe business hasn't been given special treatment in the tax code for decades you really are out of touch. Believing they should be given more tax advantages so they will create more jobs here. You are intentionally blind to that not having worked yet. Or equally just too afraid of the corporatocracy.
You're the one that's been played for the fool by your conservative ideology and listening to those that are out to destroy this country so they can start all over again in THEIR own image.
Well I guess I will use your logic. I can't believe that companies are getting tax breaks for purchasing toilet paper. Must be a conspiracy from the companies that sell toilet paper. Sounds a little stupid don't you think?

You want to point to a handful of large corporations that pay to lobby congress for special tax breaks and lump them in with every other company. I've said it before these companies should not be getting an special treatment, however you want to take a small sample and insinuate that all companies are doing this. You just flat out wrong.
Chip

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203
Feb 14, 2013
 
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Seem's i recall this topic as part of the election conversations...there is a taxbreak for companies that outsource, and i believe i also cover's their moving costs....it was to be ended by Congress, but House republicans defeated it.....it was connected to the Romney campaign in some threads, and his company outsourcing a business in Illinois.........
How could congress end a tax break if there is no specific tax break for companies that outsource? There is nothing mentioned in the IRS code about it.

You and your moron friend SIB think every expense possible is in the code? Expenses are referred to in the code as "ordinary and necessary to conduct business." No mention of anything about the cost of moving jobs overseas. So how could there be a tax break that congress wants to end.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I guess I will use your logic. I can't believe that companies are getting tax breaks for purchasing toilet paper. Must be a conspiracy from the companies that sell toilet paper. Sounds a little stupid don't you think?
You want to point to a handful of large corporations that pay to lobby congress for special tax breaks and lump them in with every other company. I've said it before these companies should not be getting an special treatment, however you want to take a small sample and insinuate that all companies are doing this. You just flat out wrong.
Nnooooo. It's the conservatives that have been lumping small business in with the large corporate interests saying "it will destroy business". Regularly I have made the distinction between the true small businesses and the corpratocracy. Trying unsuccessfully to point out that what the large corporations purchase advantages from the government have thresh holds the true small businesses don't have the finances for.

For just one example. The truly small business doesn't have the financing to be able to move their operations overseas much less be able to write the costs of off. They don't have the financial size even to open an off-shore subsidiary for the profit diversions. They don't have the financial clout or profit liquidity to participate in the offshore tax havens. And if you think for the minutest of time the largest of corporations both domestic and foreign don't lobby for these advantages they alone can afford to hamstring the smaller companies that could grow up enough to be a threat, you're kidding no one but yourself and the other dolts that want to follow that train of business fairness thought.

And a "hand full of large corporations"? You mean like the top 1% not having a distinct advantage over the remaining 99%?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#205
Feb 14, 2013
 
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
How could congress end a tax break if there is no specific tax break for companies that outsource? There is nothing mentioned in the IRS code about it.
You and your moron friend SIB think every expense possible is in the code? Expenses are referred to in the code as "ordinary and necessary to conduct business." No mention of anything about the cost of moving jobs overseas. So how could there be a tax break that congress wants to end.
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.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Chesaning, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Teaching doesn't necessarily access to real world practices.... Most learned how to jump through the political hoops at University to get in......
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#207
Feb 14, 2013
 
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
Teaching doesn't necessarily access to real world practices.... Most learned how to jump through the political hoops at University to get in......
We can pretty much figure out where you didn't get your education from then.
Linda

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#208
Feb 14, 2013
 
Swap meet Louie said Jason said Obama was gay but he said he wouldn't play so I couldn't do it either and I told you that I don't like the black because days come and all the work in a retard people.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#209
Feb 14, 2013
 
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
How could congress end a tax break if there is no specific tax break for companies that outsource? There is nothing mentioned in the IRS code about it.
You and your moron friend SIB think every expense possible is in the code? Expenses are referred to in the code as "ordinary and necessary to conduct business." No mention of anything about the cost of moving jobs overseas. So how could there be a tax break that congress wants to end.
Post #205..........
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#210
Feb 14, 2013
 
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Post #205..........
I'm taking it from the expert that as long a "tax break" isn't listed in the tax code those shouldn't be deducted from the gross income. Let the audits begin and prosecutions begin. None too soon.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Chesaning, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#211
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm taking it from the expert that as long a "tax break" isn't listed in the tax code those shouldn't be deducted from the gross income. Let the audits begin and prosecutions begin. None too soon.
You using EZ 1040?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm taking it from the expert that as long a "tax break" isn't listed in the tax code those shouldn't be deducted from the gross income. Let the audits begin and prosecutions begin. None too soon.
It was discussed at length prior to the election....seem's the reich members in Congress voted down a bill to end them, as their multinational corporate masters would have been upset.....
Chip

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#213
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
Well I guess that settles it. It's absolutely nowhere in the law, but someone said it so it must be true.

When are we going to go after all those toilet paper manufacturers, can you believe there are tax breaks for toilet paper?

I'm sure the professor was talking in the legal sense and not using his words for political motivated reasons.

I hope you aren't sitting around wondering why a politician would use the term "tax break" instead of just saying deducting expenses. We both know the motivation is to make people think there is something special in the code to give companies money. I guess they found a few suckers to repeat it as well. I hope you enjoy being played for a fool.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#214
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I guess that settles it. It's absolutely nowhere in the law, but someone said it so it must be true.
When are we going to go after all those toilet paper manufacturers, can you believe there are tax breaks for toilet paper?
I'm sure the professor was talking in the legal sense and not using his words for political motivated reasons.
I hope you aren't sitting around wondering why a politician would use the term "tax break" instead of just saying deducting expenses. We both know the motivation is to make people think there is something special in the code to give companies money. I guess they found a few suckers to repeat it as well. I hope you enjoy being played for a fool.
And you're the one accusing others of "talking in the legal sense and not using his words for political motivated reasons"? Well at least you do have some degree of a self deprecating sense of humor.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#215
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>It was discussed at length prior to the election....seem's the reich members in Congress voted down a bill to end them, as their multinational corporate masters would have been upset.....
Yeah, all the dems joined in.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

16 Users are viewing the Grand Rapids Forum right now

Search the Grand Rapids Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
So what's the inside story on Lamar Construction? 2 hr Disaster 7
Juneteenth - " celebrating the end of slavery 5 hr pipedream 743
Why do people act ghetto? I am talking about al... (Dec '12) 10 hr The Illuminati 37
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) Fri Torch14th 931
Grand Rapids Police Close The Books On An Unsol... Fri Go Blue Forever 1
Is Terri Lynn Land a slumlord? (Jan '12) Thu Arthur 78
More Lois Lerner Email Shenanigans Thu Oneal 4
•••
•••
•••
Grand Rapids Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••