Evil Corporations Avoiding Taxes

[Turfgrass]

Well in your example, why don't you use every MOJOR LEAGUE TEAM in any state, in every sport that taxes pay for the stadium?

Why must you limit it?

And yes that is my arguement to the tee.

 

[StevieD]

I am sorry if I offended you by using the poster boy for corporate solcialism in my example. I tried to refrain from calling everyone a crook.
In truth corporations are paying 30 percent less in taxes today than they were 20 years ago. Plus they employ an army of accountants to find loopholes and create tax shelters for what they do owe. These tax shelters are sometimes legal, sometimes not and when they put them in the ones that are not legal they increase the tax burdon on every other corporation as well as the indivisual tax payer.
There will always be some rogue state offering 42 virgins to any company that moves their head quarters to their fair land. But with success comes responsibility.
I agree that the tax laws are unfair and are made more unfair by those who have found a way around them.

 

[djv]

StevieD your question is a very very good one.
At what Dollar amount does it stop being stealing and become a business deal. Dam I wish our states and the Feds would ask that question of them selfs.

 

[StevieD]

Presently corporations pay about 8 percent of our taxes. We build roads for them, clean their pollution and they put a burden on our roads and infrastucture. Why shouldn't they pay taxes? The argument that they only pass the taxes on to us is true. So again I ask why shouldn't they pay taxes as they are only going to pass the expense on to those who use their service. So actually no money is coming out of the pocket of the corporation.

 

[Turfgrass]

In truth corporations are paying 30 percent less in taxes today than they were 20 years ago. Plus they employ an army of accountants to find loopholes and create tax shelters for what they do owe.

I think you just made that up.

 

[StevieD]

Unlike politicians I do not have to lie to make a point. I only come on here for fun. If I am wrong in a fact I will say so. I have no reason to believe that is an incorrect figure. If you want to know where I got it from here is a link.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0723-08.htm

I suppose next the source will be questioned. It is the story you referenced in your post to start this thread in the first place. Some days I just dunno.

 

[Turfgrass]

Well, I see your far left and I'm somewhere in the middle, so lets just agree to disagree.

 

[StevieD]

See here is the problem. I see myself as being somewhat in the middle and you being to the far right!

 

[Turfgrass]

Well here is how I see it.

I'm for small goverment, and individual rights.

You are for big goverment, and group rights.

Let me know if I'm on track.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

What cracks me up the most is these guys who say they are for smaller government yet at the same time support LEGISLATIVE caps on damages. These hypocrites contend that government intrusion into our lives is evil and fits the "democratic mold" unless it supports the corporate "republican" bottom line.

Blitzie, Dogs and Turfman, are you guys DJ's on talk radio? Why is everything black and white to you all. My God the world is grey. Sometimes big government is appropriate and sometimes it aint. Sometimes individual rights have to suffer (a la 9-11) sometimes they need to be resoundingly enforced. Boys, its an ebb and flow not a hard line situation.

You can call yourselves right, middle or left, really doesnt matter. I dont like high taxes and I think theres a lot of waste in government. I also think there are frivolous lawsuits out there. I dont agree with the remedies our current leaders have for the current problems and will express by displeasure at the poles.

Problem is if you listen to Dogs diatribe on frivolous lawsuits and the need for caps you would think the Courts are full of the so-called McDonalds type cases and poor, poor, corporate America suffers. Total crap. Although that wasnt a frivolous lawsuit as discussed in an earlier thread, the media and the repubs spun it so that the truth never got out or if it did wasnt media worthy.

Were in a sound bite world kids. Too much information out there so we cant process it all. Keep it up StevieD. Although I've learned that you cant teach an old dog new tricks. Pun intended.

Ed

 

[Eddie Haskell]

"It is blantantly obvious the left could not survive without the right----and the right would prosper beyond belief without the left.


Would anyone dare to argue that point gentlemen?"

I'm not too good at this quoting thingy but the aformentioned quote was made in this thread by none other than our very own Dogs That Bark.

In response to your query, I have no doubt that the right would prosper beyond belief without the left.

Ford would never have had to recall the Pinto and the exploding gas tank, thereby saving about $11 per car sold, McDonalds would never have had to lower the temperature of there coffee thereby scalding more people, Enron, Tyco, MCI, etc, executives could have escaped criminal and civil liability after stealing from their respective shareholders.

Closer to home for you Wayne, Allstate chief executives could have escaped civil and criminal liability for sending out its employees disguised as engineers to their homeowners insureds homes after they were damaged in a recent California earthquake certifying that there homes were not damaged and thereby avoiding payment of claims. The list goes on and on.

You know Wayne, we do live in two different countries. I live in the United States of America. You live in the United States of Corporate America. I'm glad to be an Eddie Haskell of this world. I'd take it any day over the alternative.............. a two-faced, hypocrite, flag-waving, corporate minion whose beliefs are dictated by whoever writes the premium check.

Slime ball.

Ed

 

[ozball]

The Republic(an's) Flag

 

[Rudy]

Stevie, that Arianna Huffington article is sophistry at its finest. The basic problem with such analysis is twofold: 1. it assumes that all income should first belong to the government and anything it doesn't get is denying it revenue, and 2. it is purposely vague on what "tax shelters" are and she equivocates that with "tax cheats." It is not the same. There are very few tax shelters left, but the ones that these clowns at the Multistate Tax Commission are mainly referring to are: depreciation, operating loss carryforwards, and taxing income of corporations that was earned either in higher-tax states or overseas. A wholly selfish analysis by people with their paws out.

You even fell into their purposely-set verbiage trap when you said, "corporations are paying 30 percent less in taxes today than they were 20 years ago". It really said, "corporations pay 30 percent less OF THEIR INCOME than 20 years ago. Big difference. I haven't looked up the numbers, but undoubtedly corporate taxes paid are far higher than they were 20 years ago. The reason the proportion is lower is the 1986 Reagan administration corporate rate cut from 46% to 34% (a 24% cut) and increased incentives for investment spending. And the money that wasn't paid to the government was spent on something else, like employees or equipment. And that generated more income taxes itself -- that's how "trickle-down" economics that you so villify works.

It's such a shame that so many people are ignorant of these basic concepts or willfully twist them to suit leftist agendas.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Eddie Eddie Eddie

"You know Wayne, we do live in two different countries. I live in the United States of America. You live in the United States of Corporate America. I'm glad to be an Eddie Haskell of this world. I'd take it any day over the alternative.............. a two-faced, hypocrite, flag-waving, corporate minion whose beliefs are dictated by whoever writes the premium check."

Please elaborate:
Two-faced? How So?
Hypocite: Again how so?
Flag waiver Yes 100% correct
Corporate Minion Maybe!
Whether corporation or individual I respect anyone that works and takes initiative to prosper over those ,as I told you before, whose vision of the American dream is winning a lawsuit or hitting the lottery.

--and as far as my profession,it is simply a way for people who have something to lose to pass risks they do not want to absorb themselves to a company that will for a premium. Pretty simple really. I have never had to advertise or get on television and tell
people "we care about you" bullshit I see on PI adds. Nor do I employ people whose primary job when the "afflicted" call is to find out if the potential defendent has any resources before there is consideration on representation. Now Eddie I am not saying or even hinting that all attorneys or you represent this scenario. I prob have more respect for attorneys than most as they are a most definate necessity and I admire give them kudos on initiative and time spent in education. I am only saying class action lawsuits and excessive judgements in general are immense burden on economy in general.--and getting things changed when most politicians are former attorney as well as judges--well lets say they protect there own and that goes double for the bar.
--and while on the subject of the bar I would appreciate your comments on this scenario.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86809,00.html

Stevie: your comment on poor paying taxes and mothers on welfare.
1st I wasn't aware that the poor paid taxes???? ---and the mothers on welfare--Maybe a solution to find "why" certain elements in society have 70% of their children born out of wedlock would be step in right direction in leau of continuing to reward them as it were a job.

At least we evidently all agree on which side would flourish and which would dump without the other--of course Helen Keller could see that.
Now what you need to realize is just how far can you push till they take their ball and go elsewhere. If you think jobs are leaving you would be quite surprised at the recent movement of U.S. money out of U.S. stock market into foreign markets--but that is another story but bout same as why companys here are moving and it is to eliminate something much more detrimental to their botton line than labor cost. Isnt it Eddie

 

[StevieD]

Rudy you are correct the article does say 30 percent less of their earned income. That is mostly due to the Reagan tax cuts and the loopholes created in 1986. But so what?
When did I ever say that all monies earned should belong to the government? You took quite a jump there. All I said was that they should pay their fair share of taxes. They use the commodities of the state and I don't think paying less that 8% of their profits in taxes is too much.
Most excessive profits are paid out to shareholders in the form of dividends or to the Execs as bonuses. The money is not used to create new jobs. If anything the money is used to upgrade equipment and eliminate jobs!
Eddie, nice to hear from you on this subject. Like a breath of fresh air.

 

[djv]

Im not fealing to sorry for the Rich. Even under Clinton and his tax on the wealthy. Well they tribled there money in 7 years. Most folks are happy with the old rule of 72 and double your money. Not to worry there doing very well. I just hope it does not become here like places such as Brazil. They have the Rich 10% of the country. Little or no middle classe estmate was 10% and the rest are just plain poor. And of course it's mostly a chit hole. And there are more like it. One is on our border to the south. Why do you think 1000 a day try to come into our country. There country is a chit hole. If Enough come here and destroy our wage strutcure. Were on the way to either civil war or a chit hole. So its not about just Right and Left. There in bed on many things. For sure there money those in the top brackets. Some day they may find out there money isn't worth much. And it never will buy them any more time on this earth then those in the chit hole. Only way is running the country with a mix. If you just want the right. Will they survive with out the left. Yep in the chit hole they dug for them selfs. It takes most all of us in this country to keep it was it is. Nobody is so much better then anyone else.

 

[ferdville]

I have been trying to figure a way to work this in some thread here for a month. Now I can. The name mentioned - the well known and admired HELEN KELLER. We all know her as the poor, but courageous little blind and deaf girl that prospered from the help of her teacher, Anne Sullivan. What most people don't know is what Helen Keller did as an adult. Helen Keller was a poster child for socialism. She was a flaming socialist. Not only that, she helped organize that bastion of good will, the American Civil Liberties Union. So when someone mentions Helen Keller simply as that famous blind girl, you now know she was a socialist that helped start the ACLU. She joined the Socialist party of Massachutsetts in 1909. She praised the virtues of Communism while at Radcliffe and gradually moved even farther left than the Socialist party. she was a Wobbly, a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, a union later persecuted by Woodrow Wilson. She supported Socialist candidate eugene V. Debs in each of his presidential campaigns.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Ferdville Great quote by Abe Thank you. I will store that in my political logs for future use.

Stevie Aha You have hit on something we can agree on. Flagrant stealing by corporate heads via bonuses ect. If they jailed just a few of these thiefs from Enron ect and put them in general prison population rather than country clubs it would go long way in ending that abuse.

DJV The rule of 72. Haven't seen that in long time. I wonder how many of our youth have a clue what it is.
--I don't think a one class system such as Russia has much merit either.Do you?--and my intention was not to condem Slick for firing up joint but for his intent to think the public would eat up more of his bullshit.

Eddie The reason we view corporate america differently is you see them windfall to be exploited. Most of my work is with businesses that I have long term relations with. It becomes a personal relation with them and their employees so I see both sides. My primary job is covering their risk exposure at most affordable way.--and the biggest drain on assets is covering risk of litigation whether it be workmans comp-product liabilty-discrimination,general liabilty ect. While all these areas need to be kept in check it could be done very economically with an arbitration board.--but we know who will fight that method to the death,don't we.
You have a most unique situation. When an attorney sues for personal injury, the following always occurs, The person sueing has nothing to lose and everything to gain. The person being sued can not win because he will have legal expense even if case is frivolous. At least one attorney will get paid and maybe both.
So regardless of merit at least one attorney will benefit.
Mark Twain said it best. If you have one attorney in town he will starve to death but if you have two each will prosper.
----and I might ask you one other question Why do you think over half of attorneys "IN THE WORLD" practice in the U.S. ?????????

 

[Eddie Haskell]

"The person sueing has nothing to lose and everything to gain."

Wayne, my boy, you couldn't have given me a better example of your phenomenal ability to spin the truth. Historically, throughout your posts, you have thrown out little ditties like the foregoing statement knowing that the average reader would respond with something like...

".... well yeah, duh, thats true plaintiffs got nothing to lose, duh...".

Then of course, your next line is.... shouldn't our legislators (you know, those big government guys) implement the loser pays rule since plaintiffs have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

By the way, in an earlier post you asked for examples of your hypocrisy. Voila!!!

I want you to explain your well-accepted theory of plaintiffs have nothing to lose to one of my malpractice clients. This gentlemen went to an orthopod here in the Queen City to have a bunion removed.

After Dr. Fivecarsinthegarage was through with him, he left the hospital with a mid-dorsal amputation, was fitted with a nice looking prosthesis and lost his dream of dancing with Ginger Rogers.

Well were coming up for trial in January. So far my half-footed client has shelled out approximately $20,000 in costs and expenses to get experts to testify that the good doctor screwed this one up.

By the way, my guy is retired on a fixed income. 20 grand is a lot of money to him. Considering that 80% to 90% of malpractice verdicts are returned in favor of the health care providers in this jurisdiction, perhaps you would like to further explain how my client has nothing to lose.

Since your admittedly a flag waiver, how do you reconcile your position in favor of caps with the following:

"Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

If a jury awards more than the cap in any given state, your republican corporate buddies have ordered the judge to reduce the award to the cap limit. Dont you think that might just a little bit infringe on an individuals right to a trial by jury, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Flag Waiver.

Or do you just waive the flag when the wind is blowing in your direction. Now do you want the definition of hypocrite. Look in the mirror.

Ed

PS: By the way, thanks for that link to Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. Very objective journalism. You know, Wayne, I was really surprised that you follow the liberal media like O'Reilly and Fox. I'll respond to your link when you respond to Allstate, Enron, Tyco, Ford, the Catholic Church, Sears, Watergate, Iran-Contra, ad nauseum and the rest of the citizens of your country.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Hmmm I have read this several times and you have danced around ever issue in question.
The only thing I can gather is you did not take this fellows case on a continjency basis which I was alluding too as a free shot. Nice spin however.
---but I expected as much--- remember long ago when you told us of your admiration for Clinton and I told you people admire people with traits in common.
so far--
Married but try to proposition every girl on Jacks baseball team,
would want your children to head to Canada if drafted,
hide behind computer ie no name-address-phone-email ect.

Model liberal>yes
Model citizen>No

P.S. In doing a log of time on most your of your posts it is odd most are during normal working hours. I hope your not billing your clients for this time---or do you have that light a case load

Some reading you might enjoy
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislat..._congress/legal_reform/frivolous_lawsuits.htm