If you want to buy windmills then I am quite sure there will be someone who wants to sell them to you. Isn't that what capitalism is all about?

Exactly. Just as someone will always sell the IDF some version of a D9. Rachel "St. Pancake" Corrie, anyone?

These huge corporations are not going to go out of business if they pay more taxes. They will squeal because they are making slightly less huge profits than the huge profits they make.

Actually, what they do is pass the taxes directly onto the consumer, thus making, in general, those who can afford it least pay the taxes. They do this because taxes are just another cost, like the rubber, glass, or metal in cars.

These western countries have not done so well by hosting these corporations with lower taxes. Ireland made a policy of it and loads of corporations relocated there. The end result is that Ireland is now in really deep doo doo.

Meh. It isn't the fact that corporations moved to Ireland that put Ireland where it is today. Ireland put it where it is today because it decided that bailing out private banks was a smart idea in the face of property bubbles.

Hardly a policy that you would wish to follow. The only people that benefit are the corporations. They have overflowing bank accounts with so much money in that they can't even use.

Lower taxes for corporations is good for corporations. It is not good for the countries that host them.

Meh. If you had your choice, would you like 10% of $1000.00 or 90% of $100.00?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

wow 2 years you've been gone. what did you do to get a 2 year prison term

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

wow 2 years you've been gone. what did you do to get a 2 year prison term

Do they let you tweet from prison?

---

Reality Internet Personality

I guess we could call him Rush from limbo

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Actually GE takes its biggest tax break because it headquarters out of the country.

Were you ever going to apologize to GE for this false statement? Or as least admit you were wrong when you made it?

How G.E. made $5.1 billion in the U.S. tax-free

From the above article:

"Over the last decade, G.E. has spent tens of millions of dollars to push for changes in tax law, from more generous depreciation schedules on jet engines to “green energy” credits for its wind turbines. But the most lucrative of these measures allows G.E. to operate a vast leasing and lending business abroad with profits that face little foreign taxes and no American taxes as long as the money remains overseas. "

1) GE is not headquartered overseas, so that claim was wrong. Their foreign leasing company doesn't give GE a tax break on US profits as long as the foreign profits are kept overseas.

My understanding is that they Head-quartered some divisions of their business by moving them over seas..and in some cases in name only. It was a paper exercise.

2) Like any foreign company (or in this case, subsidiary), profits that do not come back to US shareholders and are not being used by a US based company are not subject to US taxes. However, foreign companies that do business in the US are taxed in the US (just as GE's overseas leasing business is taxed where it makes its money).

At a lower tax rate.

The foreign country can tax businesses that operate wholly in their country at any rate they wish, and in fact those lower tax rates probably attract businesses away from the US.

3) Tax deductions and credits are government incentives for taxpayers to do things the government wants them to do, such as: adopting children or building wind farms. GE spent a lot of money and did positive things for the country to get those tax breaks.

The article above suggests that they got some tax breaks from "positive" things, however it clearly states that the majority of the tax breaks are from moving parts of the company overseas.

Foreign companies are not subject to tax in the US. Having a subsidiary do business exclusively overseas is not a tax break at all, it is equivalent to you, as a non US citizen, not being taxed in the US. Now, if you work or do business in the US, then your citizenship (in the case of a business, the country of ownership) does not shield you from tax liability. That's why profits from GE's overseas companies do not come back to the US. The foreign subsidiary is simply an asset (like a power plant or a tractor) unless profits from the subsidiary are brought to the US to benefit American shareholders or US operations.

4) Again, if anyone, including the New York Times, is aware of GE doing anything illegal, it should be reported to authorities, but no company or individual should be prosecuted or even criticized for taking advantage of legal tax deductions or credits, which are, after all, intended to promote good things--so says the US Congress by the tax laws it passes.

I think you've missed the point here. No one has said it is illegal. There is a difference between wrong and illegal. For example, it is wrong that a company that makes billions pays no taxes, while a family struggling on $35K a year or less does. Even you can see this is wrong.

No dear, I do not think it is wrong when a couple that adopts five children pays no taxes and gets a $54K credit, because that couple is doing something that tax policy encourages them to do. When GE builds a wind farm or invests in nuclear energy in the US they are also doing what tax policy encourages them to do: providing jobs for Americans and alternate, green energy. As someone else pointed out, if GE didn't do it, perhaps a business from some other country would do those things, if they could make a profit on their investment. Congress sets up tax breaks to encourage businesses to do things they wouldn't otherwise do since, without the tax break, they wouldn't make a profit.

It is also wrong that this state of affairs continues and the government wishes to solve the tax problems by taxing the less well off more. Even you can see that this is backwards.

To quote some guy who lived a couple of thousand years ago:

The Widow’s Offering
Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box, 2and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. And he said, "Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

(I am not religious at all, but when I see corporations getting away with paying no tax as if this is ok and higher taxes being forced on everyone else to subsidise it then I can't help thinking of this story.)

It might not be illegal. But is is most definitely wrong.

Someone, at some time, "lobbied" for every tax credit and deduction that individual American taxpayers hold so dear. Unless you are advocating giving up all deductions (a flat tax is a very controversial concept), it is hypocritical to complain about other people's tax breaks.

Lobbying takes money. The lobbyists therefore by definition work for those with money. Who lobbies for the average man in the street? It should be the unions, but someone has managed to convince you that the very people who can help you are bad. A great smoke and mirrors trick that is.

I know you are not very religious, but you really missed the point of Jesus' statement to the rich. He was complimenting the widow for her generosity, not condemning the rich for their lack of it. Your parable says that poor taxpayers should be proud of their contributions, but mega-businesses should not feel guilty for doing other things to help the country.

Are you suggesting a flat tax? Some percentage, say 12%, would be applied to rich and poor alike, but no more tax policy "breaks"--no more mortgage deduction, no more charitable deduction, no more tax-exempt "non-profit" organizations like Planned Parenthood or religious organizations. How regressive of you!

Actually GE takes its biggest tax break because it headquarters out of the country.

Were you ever going to apologize to GE for this false statement? Or as least admit you were wrong when you made it?

How G.E. made $5.1 billion in the U.S. tax-free

From the above article:

"Over the last decade, G.E. has spent tens of millions of dollars to push for changes in tax law, from more generous depreciation schedules on jet engines to “green energy” credits for its wind turbines. But the most lucrative of these measures allows G.E. to operate a vast leasing and lending business abroad with profits that face little foreign taxes and no American taxes as long as the money remains overseas. "

1) GE is not headquartered overseas, so that claim was wrong. Their foreign leasing company doesn't give GE a tax break on US profits as long as the foreign profits are kept overseas.

My understanding is that they Head-quartered some divisions of their business by moving them over seas..and in some cases in name only. It was a paper exercise.

2) Like any foreign company (or in this case, subsidiary), profits that do not come back to US shareholders and are not being used by a US based company are not subject to US taxes. However, foreign companies that do business in the US are taxed in the US (just as GE's overseas leasing business is taxed where it makes its money).

At a lower tax rate.

The foreign country can tax businesses that operate wholly in their country at any rate they wish, and in fact those lower tax rates probably attract businesses away from the US.

3) Tax deductions and credits are government incentives for taxpayers to do things the government wants them to do, such as: adopting children or building wind farms. GE spent a lot of money and did positive things for the country to get those tax breaks.

The article above suggests that they got some tax breaks from "positive" things, however it clearly states that the majority of the tax breaks are from moving parts of the company overseas.

Foreign companies are not subject to tax in the US. Having a subsidiary do business exclusively overseas is not a tax break at all, it is equivalent to you, as a non US citizen, not being taxed in the US. Now, if you work or do business in the US, then your citizenship (in the case of a business, the country of ownership) does not shield you from tax liability. That's why profits from GE's overseas companies do not come back to the US. The foreign subsidiary is simply an asset (like a power plant or a tractor) unless profits from the subsidiary are brought to the US to benefit American shareholders or US operations.

4) Again, if anyone, including the New York Times, is aware of GE doing anything illegal, it should be reported to authorities, but no company or individual should be prosecuted or even criticized for taking advantage of legal tax deductions or credits, which are, after all, intended to promote good things--so says the US Congress by the tax laws it passes.

I think you've missed the point here. No one has said it is illegal. There is a difference between wrong and illegal. For example, it is wrong that a company that makes billions pays no taxes, while a family struggling on $35K a year or less does. Even you can see this is wrong.

No dear, I do not think it is wrong when a couple that adopts five children pays no taxes and gets a $54K credit, because that couple is doing something that tax policy encourages them to do. When GE builds a wind farm or invests in nuclear energy in the US they are also doing what tax policy encourages them to do: providing jobs for Americans and alternate, green energy. As someone else pointed out, if GE didn't do it, perhaps a business from some other country would do those things, if they could make a profit on their investment. Congress sets up tax breaks to encourage businesses to do things they wouldn't otherwise do since, without the tax break, they wouldn't make a profit.

It is also wrong that this state of affairs continues and the government wishes to solve the tax problems by taxing the less well off more. Even you can see that this is backwards.

To quote some guy who lived a couple of thousand years ago:

The Widow’s Offering
Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box, 2and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. And he said, "Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

(I am not religious at all, but when I see corporations getting away with paying no tax as if this is ok and higher taxes being forced on everyone else to subsidise it then I can't help thinking of this story.)

It might not be illegal. But is is most definitely wrong.

Someone, at some time, "lobbied" for every tax credit and deduction that individual American taxpayers hold so dear. Unless you are advocating giving up all deductions (a flat tax is a very controversial concept), it is hypocritical to complain about other people's tax breaks.

Lobbying takes money. The lobbyists therefore by definition work for those with money. Who lobbies for the average man in the street? It should be the unions, but someone has managed to convince you that the very people who can help you are bad. A great smoke and mirrors trick that is.

I know you are not very religious, but you really missed the point of Jesus' statement to the rich. He was complimenting the widow for her generosity, not condemning the rich for their lack of it. Your parable says that poor taxpayers should be proud of their contributions, but mega-businesses should not feel guilty for doing other things to help the country.

Are you suggesting a flat tax? Some percentage, say 12%, would be applied to rich and poor alike, but no more tax policy "breaks"--no more mortgage deduction, no more charitable deduction, no more tax-exempt "non-profit" organizations like Planned Parenthood or religious organizations. How regressive of you!

I've just realised that you haven't actually properly read the bible have you? Well there's a revelation.

BTW, you can phrase your posts as patronisingly as you want. It doesn't make you right. It does however make you look bad. You might want to think about that.

I'm also not sure why you keep bring up the couple who got a $54K tax break. You've omitted to explain to the other readers here that firstly this couple did not expect this tax break when they adopted the children. The old tax laws stood that they could roll over the unused tax allowance for the adopted children. It was only recently that the law was changed so that they could actually claim the allowance back as a tax credit. The $54K is a sum they accrued over several years. They won't be getting that amount every year.

They didn't start adopting children to get a tax refund. In fact they are still making a loss because the children they adopted are special needs (hence the tax break) and have very high medical bills.

This is entirely unlike GE.

Then you pull the idea out of the air of a flat tax rate?

You tax the poor enough to make them hurt. What would it take to make the corporations to hurt with taxes? Or is it only ok to tax the powerless that way?

If it is, then there is something wrong with the system. How about we tax each according to their needs and means rather than putting a heavier burden on those that can least bear it?

---

Reality Internet Personality

If a lone nut case swears in the forest, does he make any since?

---

Throughout History, Percieved Nutcases have Wrought New Paradigms, and Brought Humanity to New Levels of Thought.

And Many of these Nutcases paid not one bit of tax. Although their Sponsers may have. Unless their Sponsers were The Kings, etc.

May The Forests of the World provide Santuary for the Nutcases now and to come. For Brilliance, even in The Dark Forests is Seen, eventually, By All.

iWorm 'em.

If you all want to argue religion, please do it in the religion thread(s).

I'd still like to hear about the lower tax rates other countries use to lure business out of the USA, which might at least have something to do with GE.

---

I've just realised that you haven't actually properly read the bible have you? Well there's a revelation.

An atheist accusing someone of not knowing the bible is rather ironic. And your slap at my understanding of the Bible is simply wrong.

BTW, you can phrase your posts as patronisingly as you want. It doesn't make you right. It does however make you look bad. You might want to think about that.

Your comments that I "haven't actually properly read the bible [sic]", and "Well there's a revelation." are also quite patronizing. Apparently, it takes one to know one.

I'm also not sure why you keep bring up the couple who got a $54K tax break. You've omitted to explain to the other readers here that firstly this couple did not expect this tax break when they adopted the children. The old tax laws stood that they could roll over the unused tax allowance for the adopted children. It was only recently that the law was changed so that they could actually claim the allowance back as a tax credit. The $54K is a sum they accrued over several years. They won't be getting that amount every year.

They didn't start adopting children to get a tax refund. In fact they are still making a loss because the children they adopted are special needs (hence the tax break) and have very high medical bills.

This is entirely unlike GE.

I brought it up, as most people would recognize, to show that both corporations and individuals get tax breaks for doing what Congress encourages them to do. I have pointed this out more than once but I am sorry that, "[You're] also not sure why [I] keep bring [sic] up the couple . . ." I have also said I am in favor of that tax break, as I am also in favor of tax breaks to corporations for building, e.g. wind farms.

Then you pull the idea out of the air of a flat tax rate?

Then what would you suggest as an alternative to the US tax policy (certain parts) that you seem so much against? What do you think would be more fair? Our elected representatives put tax breaks for individuals and corporations in place to aid the country's economy and further societal goals. Just because you don't like the ones GE claims is no reason to dump them, when you seem fine with others that help your personal favorite causes. (I am aware you are not a US citizen, but since you have taken up this argument I am answering you as if you were.)

You tax the poor enough to make them hurt. What would it take to make the corporations to hurt with taxes? Or is it only ok to tax the powerless that way?

If it is, then there is something wrong with the system. How about we tax each according to their needs and means rather than putting a heavier burden on those that can least bear it?

Your assumption is wrong: the "poor" are taxed at a much lower rate than the rich. What you see is that the "rich" have the means to shelter some of their income, and this is important, by using some of their money to support worthy projects, like solar heating and charitable institutions. This may reduce their tax bill but the outlay to get the tax break is larger than their tax savings. If the poor can't afford these tax deductions, at least they get a tax break just for having low income.

Th old Marxist slogan, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.", is a sweet idea, but largely discredited.

I've just realised that you haven't actually properly read the bible have you? Well there's a revelation.

An atheist accusing someone of not knowing the bible is rather ironic. And your slap at my understanding of the Bible is simply wrong.

There's a difference between knowing about something and believing it.

Your understanding of the Bible is wrong.

BTW, you can phrase your posts as patronisingly as you want. It doesn't make you right. It does however make you look bad. You might want to think about that.

Your comments that I "haven't actually properly read the bible [sic]", and "Well there's a revelation." are also quite patronizing. Apparently, it takes one to know one.

You can dish it out but you can't take it?

It's not "patronising" dear, it's called a "pun".

I'm also not sure why you keep bring up the couple who got a $54K tax break. You've omitted to explain to the other readers here that firstly this couple did not expect this tax break when they adopted the children. The old tax laws stood that they could roll over the unused tax allowance for the adopted children. It was only recently that the law was changed so that they could actually claim the allowance back as a tax credit. The $54K is a sum they accrued over several years. They won't be getting that amount every year.

They didn't start adopting children to get a tax refund. In fact they are still making a loss because the children they adopted are special needs (hence the tax break) and have very high medical bills.

This is entirely unlike GE.

I brought it up, as most people would recognize, to show that both corporations and individuals get tax breaks for doing what Congress encourages them to do. I have pointed this out more than once but I am sorry that, "[You're] also not sure why keep bring [sic] up the couple . . ." I have also said I am in favor of that tax break, as I am also in favor of tax breaks to corporations for building, e.g. wind farms.

That's nice.

However, as already discussed, most of the tax breaks GE got weren't from building a few windmills, so it's mostly irrelevant in the context of this discussion. Billions of dollars in tax breaks is a hell of a lot of windmills. I'm not seeing that many windmills built anywhere.

Then you pull the idea out of the air of a flat tax rate?

Then what would you suggest as an alternative to the US tax policy (certain parts) that you seem so much against? What do you think would be more fair? Our elected representatives put tax breaks for individuals and corporations in place to aid the country's economy and further societal goals.

I dispute that. I don't think the majority of those tax breaks were put in for societies gains. Not at all.

Just because you don't like the ones GE claims is no reason to dump them, when you seem fine with others that help your personal favorite causes. (I am aware you are not a US citizen, but since you have taken up this argument I am answering you as if you were.)

Break it down for me then. Show me how much they saved on each tax break and what that tax break is for. Prove to me that it was all done with windmills. Don Quixote has nothing on this.

You tax the poor enough to make them hurt. What would it take to make the corporations to hurt with taxes? Or is it only ok to tax the powerless that way?

If it is, then there is something wrong with the system. How about we tax each according to their needs and means rather than putting a heavier burden on those that can least bear it?

Your assumption is wrong: the "poor" are taxed at a much lower rate than the rich. What you see is that the "rich" have the means to shelter some of their income, and this is important, by using some of their money to support worthy projects, like solar heating and charitable institutions. This may reduce their tax bill but the outlay to get the tax break is larger than their tax savings. If the poor can't afford these tax deductions, at least they get a tax break just for having low income.

Again, these tax loopholes are not all on charity and windmills.

Th old Marxist slogan, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.", is a sweet idea, but largely discredited.

Is that so? It must be true because you said so.

---

Reality Internet Personality

It's easy to say:

However, as already discussed, most of the tax breaks GE got weren't from building a few windmills, so it's mostly irrelevant in the context of this discussion. Billions of dollars in tax breaks is a hell of a lot of windmills. I'm not seeing that many windmills built anywhere.

and

I dispute that. I don't think the majority of those tax breaks were put in for societies gains. Not at all.

So give one example of a tax break GE got that did not benefit society (I'm not talking about GE's stockholders, I mean society in general), and I'll concede. One point: corporate profits earned by a foreign subsidiary overseas that remain overseas are not taxable in the US, so those are not tax breaks for GE.

PS: I'm happy to hear that you are an expert on the Bible these days. That's rich: an atheist Biblical scholar!

Th old Marxist slogan, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.", is a sweet idea, but largely discredited.

Is that so? It must be true because you said so.

It's not true because I said so, it's true because history has shown it to be true. Communism failed in the USSR, it is all but gone in China and Viet Nam, and Cuba has been an economic disaster from the beginning--propped up by the Soviets and tossed into chaos when that support failed. Sorry sweetie, but capitalism won that contest hands down.

It's easy to say:

However, as already discussed, most of the tax breaks GE got weren't from building a few windmills, so it's mostly irrelevant in the context of this discussion. Billions of dollars in tax breaks is a hell of a lot of windmills. I'm not seeing that many windmills built anywhere.

and

I dispute that. I don't think the majority of those tax breaks were put in for societies gains. Not at all.

So give one example of a tax break GE got that did not benefit society (I'm not talking about GE's stockholders, I mean society in general), and I'll concede. One point: corporate profits earned by a foreign subsidiary overseas that remain overseas are not taxable in the US, so those are not tax breaks for GE.

PS: I'm happy to hear that you are an expert on the Bible these days. That's rich: an atheist Biblical scholar!

a tax break that didn't benefit society? perhaps their very first one. You may not remember it but its the one where they were able to buy NBC. I don't see this benefiting me or anyone else other than the corporate heads of GE

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

However, as already discussed, most of the tax breaks GE got weren't from building a few windmills, so it's mostly irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

So where it GE's 2010 tax return(s) online? I want to see what tax breaks they got! I don't want ass-u-me-ed deductions, I want real hard data. It all BS until then. Here is a hint, they haven't filed their 2010 tax return yet.

BTW if GE pays US Income Tax are you willing to eat crow?

NY Times, as accurate as Faux News!

---

You tax the poor enough to make them hurt. What would it take to make the corporations to hurt with taxes? Or is it only ok to tax the powerless that way?

You can't hurt corporations with taxes, because 100% of every single tax they pay is passed directly onto the consumer. All that does is drive prices up.

When you drive prices up, that hurts the powerless and the poor, the most. It erodes their purchasing power, and puts a drag the economy as people can afford less.

If it is, then there is something wrong with the system. How about we tax each according to their needs and means rather than putting a heavier burden on those that can least bear it?

Interesting that you understand that the poor can least bear the heavier burden, and yet you advocate a policy that directly and instantly makes their burden worse.

The problem with income taxes are that they are a disincentive to earn. I'll ask you again, if you had your choice, would you like 10% of $1000.00 or 90% of $100.00?

Under Kennedy, the highest marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 90%. So, with extra work you can earn an additional $1000 income. With a 90% tax rate, how hard are you going to work if you only get to keep $100? With a 10% tax rate, how hard are you going to work if you get to keep $900? Who in their right mind works all that hard to keep only 10% of what they earn?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Is that so? It must be true because you said so.

That, my dear, sounds strangely familiar... 8^]

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You tax the poor enough to make them hurt. What would it take to make the corporations to hurt with taxes? Or is it only ok to tax the powerless that way?

You can't hurt corporations with taxes, because 100% of every single tax they pay is passed directly onto the consumer. All that does is drive prices up.

So what of all that talk about only being able to charge what the market can bear? What you've said seems to contradict that.

When you drive prices up, that hurts the powerless and the poor, the most. It erodes their purchasing power, and puts a drag the economy as people can afford less.

Again, I understood that business charge as much "as the market can bear". I think that it's hogwash that they can drive prices up indefinitely.

If it is, then there is something wrong with the system. How about we tax each according to their needs and means rather than putting a heavier burden on those that can least bear it?

Interesting that you understand that the poor can least bear the heavier burden, and yet you advocate a policy that directly and instantly makes their burden worse.

That is the constant cry of the corporations, yet what evidence is there that it's actually true?

The problem with income taxes are that they are a disincentive to earn. I'll ask you again, if you had your choice, would you like 10% of $1000.00 or 90% of $100.00?

I don't think anyone has advocated a 90% tax level. However, you've left out the part that most taxes are graduated. You do not pay the 90% rate (assuming we were going to charge a 90% rate) on the whole amount.

Under Kennedy, the highest marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 90%. So, with extra work you can earn an additional $1000 income. With a 90% tax rate, how hard are you going to work if you only get to keep $100? With a 10% tax rate, how hard are you going to work if you get to keep $900? Who in their right mind works all that hard to keep only 10% of what they earn?

I think you need to examine what they are working so hard at to get into that bracket. Where is that money coming from? How are they externalising their costs (eg cleaning up the toxic waste they dump?). These profits aren't just coming from 'working harder'. In fact companies such as Walmart have benefited from terrible employment practices that put up their profits, but don't make life better for the people that end up working for them. They are all 'sound' economic practices, but they are absolutely not to the benefit of society.

My point being that these mega profits are not made through 'working harder' When we discuss companies such as GE we aren't talking about you or I working harder to make more money. They are simply not comparable. For example a single mother who works 3 jobs to support her children because wages are so low and has no benefits from companies such as Walmart simply because they can get away with keeping her hours below the threshold for benefits. A person such as this works very very hard I'd say. I'd also say you'd help her better by cutting her taxes and making sure that companies such as GE pay more taxes. Cutting Walmart's taxes are in no way going to help her. Giving her better employment rights so that she can get her benefits no matter how many hours Walmart schedule her for would directly help her.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Is that so? It must be true because you said so.

That, my dear, sounds strangely familiar... 8^]

It was a deliberate homage. :D

---

Reality Internet Personality

I am gonna post this without tunneling down through the whole thread, so pardon me please if it has already been covered.

But I read that...

Along with not paying taxes by taking the breaks the our Obamination supports...
They also took millions in payouts by sucking up a program meant to bolster companies keeping or rehiring workers.

Never meant for companies making millions in profits, but the loopholes were there, and the corporate lawyer skanks took every dime they could.

You can look it up, I am out for the night.

If you can't find it, I'll provide the documentation tomorrow.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster