Message boards :
Politics :
GE 0% tax on multi billion profit
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
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. 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... |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
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 |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
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 |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
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 |
Qui-Gon Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 2940 Credit: 19,199,902 RAC: 11 |
Actually GE takes its biggest tax break because it headquarters out of the country. 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. 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. 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. 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! |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Actually GE takes its biggest tax break because it headquarters out of the country. 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 |
celttooth Send message Joined: 21 Nov 99 Posts: 26503 Credit: 28,583,098 RAC: 0 |
If a lone nut case swears in the forest, does he make any since? |
MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes Send message Joined: 16 Jun 02 Posts: 6895 Credit: 6,588,977 RAC: 0 |
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. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30664 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
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. |
Qui-Gon Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 2940 Credit: 19,199,902 RAC: 11 |
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. 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? 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. |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
I've just realised that you haven't actually properly read the bible have you? Well there's a revelation. 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. 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. 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? 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? 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 |
Qui-Gon Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 2940 Credit: 19,199,902 RAC: 11 |
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! |
Qui-Gon Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 2940 Credit: 19,199,902 RAC: 11 |
Th old Marxist slogan, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.", is a sweet idea, but largely discredited. 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. |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
It's easy to say: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 |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30664 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
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! |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
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... |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
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... |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
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? 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? 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 |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Is that so? It must be true because you said so. It was a deliberate homage. :D Reality Internet Personality |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
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 |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.