I would consider lobbying to get those tax breaks qualfies as "evil".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Whatever you say.

So.. Lobbyists are protected? Sorry, the world would be better off if there were no lobbyists.

Corporations have no rights. People have rights.

---

Janice

I support the homeowner deduction(on a first and primary home) UNDER THE CURRENT TAX STRUCTURE. There are (obviously) many other deductions and credits that can be addressed first.

I am still at a loss to how these poor corporations are "overtaxed" while paying 0%.

Paying taxes in the country they are earning the money seems fair.

Furthermore, income tax should tax a companies income. Not what they did not manage to spend.

So, since corporate tax rates are lower in most of the developed OECD countries vice the United States, maybe GE should just sell their windmills and other products to every other country and not to the U.S.? Not to mention, our currency is being devalued by the day which makes it less attractive on sales vice currencies of other developed countries. What is the incentive for GE to do any business here given they're a multinational company? Maybe Boeing will take a cue and move offshore where it can produce jetliners at a lower cost with GE jet engines produced overseas too. Then we can have another couple hundred thousand people on unemployment. Now that's progress!

But, where will we get our windmills for wind energy from then?

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?

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.

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.

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.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Corporations have no rights. People have rights.

Corporations are people, so sayeth SCOTUS!

So you advocating the violent overthrow of the government?

---

Corporations have no rights. People have rights.

Corporations are people, so sayeth SCOTUS!

So you advocating the violent overthrow of the government?

I will agree they are people as soon as one is sentenced to the death penalty for murder.

---

Janice

tightening our belts we have done. Corporations and a select group of individuals have not shared in it. It is their turn.

---

Janice

tightening our belts we have done. Corporations and a select group of individuals have not shared in it. It is their turn.

I will agree they are people as soon as one is sentenced to the death penalty for murder.

Which is it Janice? Are corporations people who have belts to tighten or not?

BTW to a corporation tightening the belt is getting rid of unnecessary human resource units. They have been doing a lot of that.

---

I would consider lobbying to get those tax breaks qualfies as "evil".

I would say if you are paying nothing yet receiving great benefits from a country, that too is "evil".

Dear, sweet, naive soft^spirit,

Lobbying does not make something evil. Lobbying is just presenting a request to legislators and backing it up with reasons it should be enacted. If it is accompanied by a bribe or kickback, that is illegal, but that is a different matter than lobbying. If you have evidence of illegal kickbacks that resulted on GE's tax breaks, contact the US Attorney in your area so they can prosecute.

And yes, the Constitution does protect lobbying legislators as an expression of free speech (in fact, speaking to one's elected officials is a rather important and protected form of speech), as long as no illegal offers are being communicated. Furthermore, tax breaks for GE (or any company) or adoptive parents are voted on in committee and by Congress, and signed onto law by the president; just because you don't like them doesn't make them evil.

As for paying nothing, you have ignored my many posts that explained tax breaks are not free. The project or activity that produces the break typically costs much more than the tax deduction; and the project or activity has been deemed good for the country by people you helped elect to make these kinds of laws.

I would say if you are paying nothing yet receiving great benefits from a country, that too is "evil".

47%+/- of people pay no Federal Income Tax. Are you saying that 47% of the people are evil? At least I think the US provides some great benefits to every person. Just compare to the benefits that Libya gives people.

Now before you blow your top about Income Tax, just remember if you want to count FICA as an income tax then GE has paid income tax as they pay the employer share of that tax. Please don't talk out of both sides of your mouth.

I never expected anyone here to call the Constitution of the United States evil. I never expected anyone to call the Supreme Court of the United States evil. I did expect people to not agree with everything in them or that they do. I don't think you believe them to be evil however. I think someone at some time exploited a gullibility and mislead you as to the true state of facts. I don't know if they did it intentionally or out of ignorance. I suspect you have a couple of core belief that are incompatible. We all do. Time to figure out what they are if you can and see if you can make them fit together and not fight.

My advice is simple, if you want to get to point B and you have a map from point A to point B, make sure you are starting at point A, otherwise you aren't going to get to point B. Examine what is. That is your starting point. Then you can use the map to get where you want.

If you want to know what is evil, it is a fiduciary duty. Most of us never have handled a significant amount of someone else's money. We all have taken a few dollars and bought something for a friend. That is a small scale fiduciary duty. Now imagine yourself in charge of their retirement money. You are expected to make the most you can and not loose any. This is where you begin to sweat. Now if it is a friend you may know he doesn't want to make any money from tobacco. If he is a stranger you won't know that and can't assume it even if it is against everything you believe in. If the best money is to be made in tobacco, that is where you must make the money. This is where the evil lies, the fiduciary duty to a stranger. You have to be am amoral bastard and make money any way you can. If you do think this is evil, then lobby congress to change it. If you get it changed you will change every publicly traded corporation as they are nothing but a fiduciary duty.

It is important to know the starting point, if you want to get somewhere else.

---

Altria Group Inc. (MO) pays about a 6 percent Dividend.

That is an Evil many, many, many, many people on a Fixed Income, or Way Lower Down The Income Ladder than a Super Rich Elite is glad to be a part of.

Smoker or not, that Dividend money pays the bills.

Thank You Corporation for Existing. And keep Pumping Out them Checks.

iWorm 'em.

This is easy to fix. If we just tax the rich, we can solve our budget problems. Here's how:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

The truth always comes out, thanks to the 1st amendment. Now, how can we lengthen people's memory?

I guess negotiated contracts aren't so much contracts as conveniences. I like contracts. Like the Contract with America. BTW I could only watch about a minute of that tripe. It's nice when you can just decide on the fly what laws you want to have and not have. BTW it looks like that Wisconsin law isn't going any where fast. they already have enough signatures for a recall election on every last republican Legislator that voted for that crap and the Governor. This is call the backlash. You might want to rent/buy a copy of Fight Club and fast forward to Tyler's speech to the Police Chief.

BTW this is a better Eat the Rich video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v7GqyeybPo&feature=related

---

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

* * *

BTW it looks like that Wisconsin law isn't going any where fast. they already have enough signatures for a recall election on every last republican Legislator that voted for that crap and the Governor. This is call the backlash. You might want to rent/buy a copy of Fight Club and fast forward to Tyler's speech to the Police Chief.

* * *

Those legislators and the governor were elected just last November to deal with Wisconsin's budget problem, and they did just that. You seem to assume those who supported them last November no longer support them for doing what these politicians said they would do. It takes far fewer names on a petition to start the recall process than these legislators had voting against them last time, so successful recall is hardly a done deal. However, your reference to a speech in a movie that deals with a violent, social backwater activity, while amusing, is hardly relevant or convincing, except that it may reveal something about you.

* * *

BTW it looks like that Wisconsin law isn't going any where fast. they already have enough signatures for a recall election on every last republican Legislator that voted for that crap and the Governor. This is call the backlash. You might want to rent/buy a copy of Fight Club and fast forward to Tyler's speech to the Police Chief.

* * *

Those legislators and the governor were elected just last November to deal with Wisconsin's budget problem, and they did just that. You seem to assume those who supported them last November no longer support them for doing what these politicians said they would do. It takes far fewer names on a petition to start the recall process than these legislators had voting against them last time, so successful recall is hardly a done deal. However, your reference to a speech in a movie that deals with a violent, social backwater activity, while amusing, is hardly relevant or convincing, except that it may reveal something about you.

Here's something you don't read about. The Democratic Governor of Montana had the same problems as Wisconsin. He talked to the Unions aka As his employees. He asked for a few cuts and that members start contributing more to their funds. Funny thing is that they were able to negotiate through the problems and found a common ground to get through the tough times without having to make Draconian cuts to employees or services in his state.

It seems to me that someone failed as a negotiator in Wisconsin. If he had bothered to even ask. Im sure the employees would have met him half way.

BTW the union busting cuts that the Wisconsin Governor insists is going to save his state do little to stop the state from hemorhaging money. The sad fact is that in most of the troubled states, including Texas where I live, the Cov't was living high of the hog when times were great. But find it difficult to make ends meet with even the slightest economic downturn.

Texas has a multi $billion rainy day fund. THe governor and legislature don't want to touch it just in case. I have to wonder how much worse things have to get before its a rainy day in Texas. Heck I thought we were better than the other states because we are business friendly. Apparently we are to business friendly and after all the wonderful tax cuts we allowed to happen in the state in the last decade we find ourselves wondering how we got so low... Perhaps its time to rethink handing tax cuts out willie nillie and just return to a standard tax rate that was instituted prior to the Republican taking charge. I know it won't happen just because it would be seen to be week and an admission that the one party is wrong and ones own policies that work some times do not work at all times. Sometimes change is good.

---

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?

---

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. "

---

Reality Internet Personality

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.
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).
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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

Reality Internet Personality

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.

Did you read the form 10K? Where are those companies incorporated?

Now here is a real question. Did they move it overseas or did they buy a going overseas business?

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.

You are saying that the USA tax rate on corporations is higher than any other country (and you want it higher still). Do you wonder why jobs leave the USA? Of course being Canadian I assume you want some of those jobs to land in Canada.

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.

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.

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.

There is a point where you have to admit you borrowed so much that you have to use all possible resources to pay it back or you go bankrupt. The US has reached the point it has to tax the poor to pay back what it borrowed or declare bankruptcy (which it can't). That point being when a 100% tax rate on the rich won't pay the debt, and we are there.

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.

Did you read the 10K where the tax paid by GE was more than $1billion dollars? Just how much more should have they paid?

[quote][quote]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.

You can't get to point B with a map from point A if you start at point C!

---