38 replies to this topic

[scb]

-Farley-

*YOU* made the claim; not I. And there's nothing "loose" about my counter-claim whatsoever; it hasn't escaped my attention that you can't seem to back-up your assertion of "the top thirty" in any way, shape, or form. Your link sure doesn't do it. The bottom line is that you lied....pure and simple.

Beyond that, the only "double-lie I'm aware of here is when you post twice. No, Farley, "people are not property, and property is not a person", etc. But a guy named "Farley" *IS* a liar.

Deal with it.

-scb-

P.S. - When you're willing (or, more to the point, ABLE) to demonstrate that "*THE TOP* 30 corporations also pay NOTHING!", you get back to me. Think we both know how likely that is to happen....smile!

[HAZ]

So..non union, scb, (sociopathic corporate bum), you want to humiliate, a Union Brother, (Farley) on TEAMSTERS.NET! Be glad Brother Phil is a nice guy, or you'd long ago be T-Net history...you may have run off Mud Flap and Bobo, but have a feeling, Farley is too busy for you now, but, lock and load time, is right around the corner!

[scb]

-Haz-

It's not a question of my "wanting" anything; Farley chooses to humiliate himself. Seems you ought to be in a personal position to appreciate his situation.

-scb-

[Farley]

so scabby. what did you not understand about thirty (30) to corporations not paying income tax,,,,,are you trying to parse somethinbg to cover up your ignorance and dishonesty?.......so you are on the run from you own staements of mis-fact.....swcabby....find yourself a tea bagger site where the folks relish dishonesty...your lies are no longer tolerated here!

[scb]

-Farley-

I think I understand quite a lot about "thirty (30) to [sic] corporations not paying income tax". But that's quite a different animal from....

"the top 30 corporations also pay NOTHING"

.... isn't it?

That leaves me trying to "parse" THAT claim. You see, I know it to be a lie. Your own source indicates it to be a lie! Now, obviously you didn't want to be caught in that lie, and, just as obviously, you don't have the ethical fortitude to come out and say "I misspoke", or "I made a mistake in reading the source", or whatever. Nope, you just insisted - and keep on insisting! - on compounding the lie. And, as long as you do, I'll keep pointing out what you're doing.

Think you've "parsed" that situation? [smile]

You are what you are. "Farley". You want to keep demonstrating so obviously just what that is, then you go right on ahead!

-scb-

[dockman]

knew these idiots were commies ... they want to ban private ownership of land and ban ownership of guns

http://occupywallst....of-ows-demands/

you know the nazi's banned guns too in germany ...wait a minute... hmmm the nazi's endorsed the occupy movement ...there you go

[Farley]

scabby, no wonder you are so ignorant, or selectively dishonest....you read only what you want something to say. here is what I posted that twisted your titty:
"by the way the 47% that don't pay any income tax are not just the working poor....the top 30 corporations also pay NOTHING!"...............see scabby, when you actually read what was posted the reference to income tax is quite clear.....or were you just being a dishonest reichwing blow hole yet again?

[scb]

-Farley-

I might be "ignorant". But, as for "selectively dishonest", I'd leave that designation to the individual who STILL claims that "the top 30 corporations also pay NOTHING".

You see, "Farley", I might be "ignorant", but I'm not so out of it that I don't recognize a bald-faced lie when I see it. Nor, I suspect, am I as "ignorant" as the bald-faced liar who moronically continues to push that lie in the face of all evidence to the contrary....including, even, that which he himself provided.

In short, I "read" what you posted. And I "read" your link as well. I I saw what "reference" you made which was "quite clear"; i.e. - that "the top 30 corporations also pay NOTHING".

You are what you are, Farley. Sorry if you find being who and what you are unpleasant.....but, for that, you only have yourself to blame. Deal with it.

-scb-

[xg22]

Farley, on November 16 2011 - 11:17 AM, said:

scabby, no wonder you are so ignorant, or selectively dishonest....you read only what you want something to say. here is what I posted that twisted your titty:
"by the way the 47% that don't pay any income tax are not just the working poor....the top 30 corporations also pay NOTHING!"...............see scabby, when you actually read what was posted the reference to income tax is quite clear.....or were you just being a dishonest reichwing blow hole yet again?

These corps are the most evident ones and as long as the TAX system allows for non domestic earnings to not be taxed, the shuffle of earnings will continue to 'tax havens'.


But sticking with the title of this thread it looks like the 'backlash has started' on the healthcare front.


Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case


http://www.latimes.c...0,7978224.story

[scb]

-xg-

Believe it or not, I at least partially agree with you. I see a couple of things standing in the way, however. Note that, concerning my remarks below, I'll freely admit that I'm far from being an expert on the topic.

First, there's the fundamental assumption that corporations - who's income, eventually, is distributed in dividends and such - should have their income taxed to begin with, in that it's a form of "double taxation"; once on the corporate income itself, then as tax on the distributed dividends individually. That's an assumption which, in itself, could generate a lot of argument.

Second, there's the fact that virtually all developed western countries don't levy tax on foreign earned income, based on that income already being taxed abroad. Whether there are foreign reciprocity agreements in place or not, with the level of competition in the world today, levying such taxes on domestic firms would severely limit their ability to compete in foreign markets.and open up the possibility of a trade war to boot; I don't think anyone wants the complications that resulted with the passage of Smoot-Hawley (sp?) in the Hoover era.

Thirdly, presently the U.S. has what amounts to the highest corporate tax rate in the world. To evade that rate, companies are going to take whatever measures they can to pay tax on earnings in a lower-rated jurisdiction.

That said, companies generally would like nothing better than to repatriate their earnings to the U.S., and I suspect they would do so generally if more reasonable tax rates were implemented. To say it could be done just by legislative fiat ignores the fact that, today, "corporations" can be headquartered anywhere in the world....and the fact that they're currently registered domestically in Delaware or whatever is no indication that they'll continue being domiciled that way in the future.

Lastly, bear in mind that the U.S. also levys taxes on foreign corporations doing business in the U.S.....and things might get a little touchy if the country decided to go it alone...possibly resulting in another trade war.

You just can't avoid competition in the world today, either as an individual, or a corporation (or as a union, for that matter). This country isn't in the position it was in following WWI, when it had gathered-in much of the world's wealth, and could dictate financial terms. Nor is it in the same position as it was in the post WWII years, in which for decades European nations and Japan were still recovering from the devastating effects of the war, and other countries had just started their climb to industrialization and competitiveness.

Bottom line is that we, as a nation, NEED those foreign earnings; no matter how large and diverse our country may be, it can't function at any reasonable economic level behind a "Chinese Wall". We need to trade, and to trade we need to be competitive. Much of our problems today stem from our NOT being competitive anymore, and the last thing we need is to implement laws which further decrease that competitiveness. We don't need to drive corporations (or their offspring) abroad, and we don't need to limit positive economic activity in pursuit of some gigantic "give away the wealth" as is undermining Venezuela now, or Argentina, or as happened in pre-Thatcher Great Britain.

There's a big fear on my part that we've already gone too far toward "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs". Like it or not, corporations are the economic lifeblood of this country and, while they may generate income disparity, it's a market-based disparity which, no matter unattractive at first glance, is immeasurably better than a "parity" in which the result is everyone's level being reduced.

The (granted, troubling) fact is that the U.S. needs the corporations much more than corporations need the U.S. Markets have opened up all over the world, and we're no longer (and likely never will be again) the be-all and end-all on the world economic stage that we essentially were for a few short decades. We need to compete even to hold our present position...and measures which would detract from that competitiveness - like unilaterally imposing taxes on foreign income, while other nations forgo it - seem to me to lead only to a bad end.

-scb-

[Farley]

scabby, read what your diseased brain will allow, but quit pretending you read something that was not said..it is "dishonest" but then, dishonesty is where you must exist to sell your rotten product,
'
People cannot exist without the earth, but the earth will do just fine without people.

[scb]

-Farley-

OK...I'll bite AGAIN! Just what/where did I....

"read something that was not said"

??????

As for "dishonestly"....well, do you want to "speak" again on the topic of corporate income tax and how....

"the top 30 corporations also pay NOTHING"

?????? [grin!]

Sorry, "Farley"...but you are who you are. Not me that made you that way.

-scb-

P.S. - Yes no doubt, "[p]eople cannot exist without the earth, but the earth will do just fine without people". But did you ever stop to consider just how much better off BOTH "the earth" and "the People" might be without the likes of you? Just something you might want to consider the next time you feel compelled to spout another "big one".

[Farley]

scabby you are not that ignorant......so you got caught in another lie,,,,and you look really silly trying to lie and deflect your way out of getting caught........eh scabby?

[scb]

-Farley-

Lest we forget,

"....the top 30 corporations also pay NOTHING"

That what you call being "caught" is it? [grin!]

-scb-

[xg22]

The issue is that these Corps (and high earners) are utilizing entitilements they have had made legal via lobbyists. The average person does not have access to these types of entitlements or dosen't earn enough income to qualify for them. The average person needs a better lobbyist.




Billionaires Use Tax Loophole To Lower Their Tax Rates To 1 Percent


http://thinkprogress...ne-percent-tax/




GE paid no taxes on $14B in profits


"GE was able to utilize all of these various loopholes, all of these various deductions--it's legal,". Nine billion dollars of GE's profits came overseas, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. tax law. GE wasn't taxed on $5 billion in U.S. profits because it utilized numerous deductions and tax credits, including tax breaks for investments in low-income housing, green energy, research and development, as well as depreciation of property.

Ken Kies, a tax lawyer who represents GE, confirmed to the tax return would have been 57,000 pages had it been filed on paper. The size of GE's tax return has more than doubled in the last five years.

[scb]

-xg22-

Understand where you're coming from, but the fact is that GE did pay foreign taxes on foreign income....just like foreign companies pay U.S. taxes on earnings achieved here. Pretty much all the western industrialized countries function with basically the same law in that respect. If we (the U.S.) were to change it to essentially "double tax" (abroad and domestically), we'd put our export trade at an even greater competitive disadvantage. Not sure we - especially labor! - is interested in doing that.

Beyond that, with the U.S. having what is essentially the highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world, companies have every incentive to achieve their profits overseas and not repatriate them back into the U.S. That "incentive" (a "dis-incentive", actually) needs to be done away with. While few corporations actually pay the full rate today (they have to be rather un-business-savy to do so), it DOES channel their economic efforts.....to the point that it wouldn't surprise me to see corporations move off-shore completely. Remember a while back when Farley went ga-ga claiming that Halliburton had moved it's headquarters overseas in an effort to avoid taxation? While the claim - in typical "Farley" fashion - turned out to not be quite accurate (it was only an operational headquarters that was moved), such a situation *IS* possible. Heck, I as a shareholder don't care if the company I've invested in is incorporated in Delaware or San Marino....I, as all investors, just want it to provide the best possible return on my investment. If they have to be domiciled someplace where the taxes are more reasonable, then so be.

Like it or not the United States needs corporations (and the employment and economic resources they provide) much more than the corporations need the United States. Capital and production can alight anywhere today, and the world's markets are changing rapidly. In a sense, we're going to have to "sweet talk" them if we want to keep their attention on the U.S.....because, in truth, there's no way in Hell to FORCE them to perform the services they provide for us. It's just too easy for them to "pick up their bags and go elsewhere", where corporate life might not be so difficult.

From my perspective, the last thing this country needs to do is alienate the one large economic entity that's globally competitive. Nor do I think can we keep choosing to bleed dry the goose that lays the golden eggs.

-scb-

[Farley]

scabby....do you really think that if you state a lie often enough it becomes believable???? Of course you do since that is a common reichwing tactic....and scabby if there was ever an adjective to describe you it is "common".....yes the thirty corps pay NO, ZERO, NON , NIL income tax while sucking at the taxpayer's ***.

[scb]

-Farley-

Your claim wasn't "thirty", or "the thirty", but rather "the TOP 30".....which, as you're well aware by this time, is patently false.

Try to spin it any way you want, "Farley". The fact is, you are what you are. Deal with it.

-scb-

P.S. - Just LOVE the sophisticated elegance of your responses. You know, the "reichwing" sputtering and such. Very substantive..... and rational! [smile]. A technique you picked-up in 5th period study hall perhaps? What will have to look forward to in your junior year?!

[xg22]

France Steps Forward With Robin Hood Tax


The decision by French President Nicolas Sarkozy to push ahead with a financial transactions tax (FTT) may be a political ploy ahead of elections, but it has the approval of many non-governmental organisations, even as support lags elsewhere.

"If France is setting an example, we support this as a principle," said Matt Davies, head of international policy and advocacy for international movement ATD Fourth World, a French-based organisation that works to eradicate extreme poverty.

"I think there’s a consensus in society that there should be a far greater accountability by the financial sector," he told IPS in an interview. "What’s important is that the money that’s brought in by the FTT should go towards combating poverty, but we’re slightly sceptical in some ways because we often see that money destined for development doesn’t reach the poorest people."

Sarkozy said this week that the French government may implement the tax without waiting for its European or G20 partners to come on board. "If France waits for others to tax finance, then finance will never be taxed," the President said in a speech.


http://ipsnews.net/n...p?idnews=106445