If Health Law Is Overturned, What Will Liberals Do?

[Churmudgeon]

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sorry man but you've got to be the undisputed world champ of asshats and then some! Corporations have tax departments with thousands of employees, a corporate tax return includes thousands of pages, it would actually be unusual for a corporation not to be in a dispute with the IRS and yes, Berkshire Hathaway is no exception!

It depends on the size of the corporation. I am the owner or a partner in a half dozen LLC,s and we have a family member who does the tax,s and files the quarterly reports. You can start a LLC for a $50 filing fee.

[Philliproy]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Warren Buffet? The same Warren Buffet now fighting the IRS because he feels he was overtaxed?
Do tell: how many of these liberal successes have written a check to the IRS for money they believed they were not property taxed on? Did they take every available deduction? What was their contribution to the federal government that they didn't have to pay?
Once you are on top, it's instinct to keep others from reaching your level of success. While these people were working their way to the top, how many of them were complaining (at the time) that they were not being taxed enough?
Want to see these pigs squeal? Tell them that we are proposing to tax the wealth they currently have instead of income. If they are worth 100 billion, we are going to take away 33.3 billion from them. See how fast they become Republicans. Hypocrites. Every last one of them.

The self-proclaimed "Compassionate Liberals" want higher and higher taxes, despite the FACT that America already has the "highest corporate income tax on Earth."

But, "Compassionate Liberals" don't let facts get in the way of irrational prejudices, do they?

"Just one month from today, Japan will lower their corporate income tax rate from 39.5 to 35 percent. When they do so, the United States will officially have the dubious distinction of possessing the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, a federal/state integrated rate of 39.2 percent."
Source: http://www.atr.org/one-month-worlds-highest-c...

[Philliproy]

inbred Genius wrote:

<quoted text>
silly liberal....don't you realize that rich folks would just pay cash, and avoid 'buying' obamas high priced nonsense? Lots of doctors, fed up with obamacare and the low payments, would be glad to accept cash from rich folks, and the smart ones would not even report it on their income taxes.

Oh, but the Obamabot Commissars are watching the "Evil Rich."

"Big Brother Is Watching You!"

[frank]

Churmudgeon wrote:

<quoted text> It depends on the size of the corporation. I am the owner or a partner in a half dozen LLC,s and we have a family member who does the tax,s and files the quarterly reports. You can start a LLC for a $50 filing fee.

You are nit exactly in the same league with Berkshire Hathaway which what are talking about

[frank]

Philliproy wrote:

<quoted text>
The self-proclaimed "Compassionate Liberals" want higher and higher taxes, despite the FACT that America already has the "highest corporate income tax on Earth."
But, "Compassionate Liberals" don't let facts get in the way of irrational prejudices, do they?
"Just one month from today, Japan will lower their corporate income tax rate from 39.5 to 35 percent. When they do so, the United States will officially have the dubious distinction of possessing the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, a federal/state integrated rate of 39.2 percent."
Source: http://www.atr.org/one-month-worlds-highest-c...

You're repeating wingnuz-noise like a friggen parrot, the few corporations that actually pay taxes pay less on average 15%.
If you have 'one dollar' in your wallet, you’re paying more than the 'combined income tax of GE, ExxonMobil, Citibank, Bank of America or Microsoft!
But it wasn’t teachers, fire fighters, policemen, and college students that caused the economic recession that has devastated government budgets — it was Wall Street.
Meanwhile, middle class workers are being asked to sacrifice, the rich continue to rig the system, dodging taxes and avoiding paying their fair share.
In contrast, corporations are contributing $1billion to each one of the two political parties for the presidential campaigns!

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

[inbred Genius]

Hey Frank....whether you are correct or not, i don't know, but lemme axe you this, do the hundreds of thousands of employees of those companies you named pay IRS taxes on the salaries they earn?

If so, is that good or bad?

[frank]

inbred Genius wrote:

Hey Frank....whether you are correct or not, i don't know, but lemme axe you this, do the hundreds of thousands of employees of those companies you named pay IRS taxes on the salaries they earn?
If so, is that good or bad?

We heard all before don't even start with that pathetic circular rightwing argument "the birds are hungry we must be sure to feed the horses" trickle down BS! In fact, why not turn the argument around – why not inject some the billions of dollars in compensation going to CEOs into the worker’s salaries increasing the purchasing power of the middle class! You friggen wingnuz morons just don’t get it - spread the money instead of manure!

[Churmudgeon]

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
We heard all before don't even start with that pathetic circular rightwing argument "the birds are hungry we must be sure to feed the horses" trickle down BS! In fact, why not turn the argument around – why not inject some the billions of dollars in compensation going to CEOs into the worker’s salaries increasing the purchasing power of the middle class! You friggen wingnuz morons just don’t get it - spread the money instead of manure!

If you want more wages thats OK. Thats what greed is wanting more than you already have. There isnt anything wrong with greed.Without greed nothing would be invented & manufactured. Greed is the driving force for commerce. But why should or would some one else provide the work place take all the risk and then inject more of the profit into workers salaries? where is the incentive? The law,s of supply & demand applys to the labor cost. If your labor cost are higher than your competetion you will be under bid and undersold and soon be out of buisness. Labor is one of the highest aspects of the total cost of production of most buisnesses. In order to survive a rule of thumb is you need to make 60% on your labor cost.

[OzRitz]

Churmudgeon wrote:

<quoted text> If you want more wages thats OK. Thats what greed is wanting more than you already have. There isnt anything wrong with greed.Without greed nothing would be invented & manufactured. Greed is the driving force for commerce. But why should or would some one else provide the work place take all the risk and then inject more of the profit into workers salaries? where is the incentive? The law,s of supply & demand applys to the labor cost. If your labor cost are higher than your competetion you will be under bid and undersold and soon be out of buisness. Labor is one of the highest aspects of the total cost of production of most buisnesses. In order to survive a rule of thumb is you need to make 60% on your labor cost.

Churm, you are starting to sound like Gordon Gekko and while there is nothing wrong with ambition to be successful. There is something wrong about being successful when you deny others a decent wage. Some companies value their labor as much as their stock holders. Dupoint use to be one of them, but I don't know how they are today. This is the point I was alluding too in last post, in a globalised world your competition is some 50c an hour dude elsewhere in the world. Now are you saying that after years of hard slog to win certain conditions that a workforce should be paid less so they can now compete. But at the same time you want your profit margin to remain the same. Now that is what I describe as greed. No Government either Republican or Democrat can change the circumstances you are dealing with now. If you want to sell products to other countries then you can't isolate with import taxes and expect them to not respond likewise. So it's a fact of life that the 50c an hr countries will have the advantage all you can do is invent things that they cannot and create a demand for it.

[xxxrayted]

OzRitz wrote:

<quoted text>
We are doing exactly that right now, a super profits tax here on mining. If a company makes excess profits from commodity price rises the government hits them with an extra tax.(This is why we are not broke as a country, we collect tax) Those mining companies are squealing one of which is own by a woman. She is the richest woman in the world and still wants more, so go figure. But the country owns the resources, so the country should benefit from extra profits made.
The other thing that came out on the news here today was a leak about a deal done with the Chinese to buy huge farming land up north to feed China. Now I assume this is going on in the USA as well. Australia only has a population of 30 mill so not everyone is a billionare to buy huge acres of land to develop into farming. Now this is where your idealogy hits the wall again being from the right. I object to foreign ownerships of our food bowls but if no one is cashed up enough in the country to buy should the government step in to fund this to protect those resources. From the right's point of view this is a NO NO, but if logic prevailed then it should not be allowed at all. If they want food then let them buy it, even if a farm ends up a co-operative. No one from the right ever figured any commies would beat them at their own game. Yet your philosphy cannot change and it will keep going on, buying American business & Banks all in the name of capitalism which you want to believe will always save the day. Yeah right!!

Your response drifts from one thing to another. But let me address the first:

You are talking about additional income taxes on profits. I was talking about taxing people on the money they already have including non-liquid assets.

The point I was trying to make is that yes, we have these liberal billionaires who support additional taxation--on those who are not earning money they way they do. These billionaires have foreign investments in their foreign companies and capital gains income over here which is taxed at 12%. Increase capital gains taxes and you decrease financial activity. Lower capital gains taxes (which Buffet and others primarily have) influence investment in the market. This is what helped Reagan and Clinton to have some great years during their presidencies; they lowered capital gains taxes.

[xxxrayted]

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sorry man but you've got to be the undisputed world champ of asshats and then some! Corporations have tax departments with thousands of employees, a corporate tax return includes thousands of pages, it would actually be unusual for a corporation not to be in a dispute with the IRS and yes, Berkshire Hathaway is no exception!

Really? And who leads Burkshire Hathaway?

[xxxrayted]

Churmudgeon wrote:

<quoted text> I agree If the goverment put on VAT taxes and taxes enough to cover all the excessive goverment spending. The black market would expand and boom.

That's what's happening in New York with cigarettes I understand. The new boom is black market cigarettes because they tax tobacco so high in NY that it costs ten bucks to buy a pack of cigarettes.

[xxxrayted]

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
You are nit exactly in the same league with Berkshire Hathaway which what are talking about

Except for the fact that Chum is not advocating for higher taxation while trying to escape taxation himself. He's against high taxation for everybody. Pretty consistent if you ask me.

[xxxrayted]

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
You're repeating wingnuz-noise like a friggen parrot, the few corporations that actually pay taxes pay less on average 15%.
If you have 'one dollar' in your wallet, you’re paying more than the 'combined income tax of GE, ExxonMobil, Citibank, Bank of America or Microsoft!
But it wasn’t teachers, fire fighters, policemen, and college students that caused the economic recession that has devastated government budgets — it was Wall Street.
Meanwhile, middle class workers are being asked to sacrifice, the rich continue to rig the system, dodging taxes and avoiding paying their fair share.
In contrast, corporations are contributing $1billion to each one of the two political parties for the presidential campaigns!
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Interesting. Most of the culprits you site were getting these tax refunds while DumBama was in office.

[xxxrayted]

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
We heard all before don't even start with that pathetic circular rightwing argument "the birds are hungry we must be sure to feed the horses" trickle down BS! In fact, why not turn the argument around – why not inject some the billions of dollars in compensation going to CEOs into the worker’s salaries increasing the purchasing power of the middle class! You friggen wingnuz morons just don’t get it - spread the money instead of manure!

And just how do we get companies to spread this money around in their very own private business? Government? That's what we do in a free country?

Did it ever cross your mind that the reason some of these companies have as many employees as they do is because of these high paid CEO's?

[Spocko]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
And just how do we get companies to spread this money around in their very own private business? Government? That's what we do in a free country?
Did it ever cross your mind that the reason some of these companies have as many employees as they do is because of these high paid CEO's?

If would discusst his with a five year old you might just come up with a somewhat more intelligent post

[xxxrayted]

Spocko wrote:

<quoted text>
If would discusst his with a five year old you might just come up with a somewhat more intelligent post

You create a response like this and question the intelligence of others? Your spelling and punctuation is deplorable. Five year olds write better than you do.

[OzRitz]

Xray it is always a circular argument, so i'll spell out objectives for a successful economy in today's world as opposed to the past.

TAX: It has to be consistant, by percentage regardless of how much you earn. That way the country benefits from any driving force in any economic growth not just an elite few.
TAX has to be lower for investments, so yes money invested has off set tax rates until it shows a return on that money.
Wages: Wages cannot go lower in order to compete with a third world country. So this is a real problem if growth is to continue. In my view the only tool to counter this is green tech or doing something they cannot do as well.
Education: Your Universities are rated as some of the best in the world so not much to fix there.
However the public school systems feeding into those universities have got real problems that need to be adressed. The Teachers union is too powerful and they need the cleaners put through that profession so the best excel not who has been there longest.
Wall St: This needs to be regulated much more than it ever has. Especially with computerised trading these days and lighting fast communications world wide. Much tighter rules on banking and loans.

Now in my view with those 3 things fixed every other problem will just go away. The obession of low tax as being a reason for economic failure is absolute BS. It is never the factor no matter what you hear on Fox news, it's all about being viable or not. I mean don't ever try and tell me someone won't make an investment on what they believe will be a success just because they might lose 30c in the dollar on the profits. It is what everyone else expects to pay as a reason for having services and roads to drive on, schools to educate , medical, defence, and essential services. Those are your privileges as a taxpayer so stop whining about those who can't earn enough to pay.

[Churmudgeon]

OzRitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Churm, you are starting to sound like Gordon Gekko and while there is nothing wrong with ambition to be successful. There is something wrong about being successful when you deny others a decent wage. Some companies value their labor as much as their stock holders. Dupoint use to be one of them, but I don't know how they are today. This is the point I was alluding too in last post, in a globalised world your competition is some 50c an hour dude elsewhere in the world. Now are you saying that after years of hard slog to win certain conditions that a workforce should be paid less so they can now compete. But at the same time you want your profit margin to remain the same. Now that is what I describe as greed. No Government either Republican or Democrat can change the circumstances you are dealing with now. If you want to sell products to other countries then you can't isolate with import taxes and expect them to not respond likewise. So it's a fact of life that the 50c an hr countries will have the advantage all you can do is invent things that they cannot and create a demand for it.

You are starting to understand and see the big picture. Yes some how the labor force in the USA has to compete with the glowbalized worlds 50 cents per hour. If the workforce cannott make up the difference in wage disparity in some manner like increased productivity or a superior product. Then robotics and third world countries will continue to lessen demand for the relatively exorbant paid USA workers labor. Its a globallized world products services & labor will be done where its cheapest the least regulated and most profitable. No president or political solution can change that fact. The USA will continue to decline until the playing field is leveled. We will not have a level playing field until the third world comes up or we go down. Just what do you suppose will happen first. Our only hope is to become a more isolationist country With tarriffs etc, We need to scale back and ouit trying to be the worlds police. Or make those who are benifiting from the USA presense pay for it. Its not that the workforce should be paid less it that if the workforce isnt competieve the jobs & tax revenue they produce will continue to go away. The USA has one bright spot. We grow the most food & fiber. everyone has got to eat. We need to process all of our commodites here and make the rest of the world pay us for it.

[Contributions]

Churmudgeon wrote:

<quoted text> yes you can buy food without goverment regulation. I can buy home grown and processed food & vegtables from my mennonite neighbors. We dont have any zoning laws where I live only rule is the septic it must be 200 ft from the property line and you must have ten acres. my home isnt built to any code whatsoever. Of course the market value of it is greatly diminished because it wouldnt every meet the goverment criteria to secure a goverment guatnteed loan. And your way off subject This thread is about the goverment forcing a person to purchase goods and services that they didnt personally order.

You are so utterly clueless that it's amazing.

Civilization itself runs on government regulations moron.

Police, roads, military, indoor plumbing, even god damn toilet paper.

Unless you live like the Uni-bomber in a hole in the ground out in the woods and wipe your ass with tree leafs you are benefiting from government regulations you ignorant child.