Toronto Escorts

The Tea Party's First Victory

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,556
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
As long as ignorant stupid US citizens buy the big lie of tax cuts creates jobs, there is no hope in hell solving this problem.

From; http://djangomango.tumblr.com/post/4257505873/ten-giant-u-s-companies-avoiding-income-taxes-sen

WASHINGTON—-With federal income taxes due in a few weeks, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent allied with Democrats, on Sunday released a list of ten big profitable U.S. companies paying little or no taxes. Sanders wants to close the loopholes that make this tax avoidance legal. Some people call the income tax system with generous loopholes for big companies corporate welfare or corporate entitlements. As Congress returns to work this week—after yet another break—to negotiate over big budget cuts—with social safety net programs facing reductions—Sanders is pushing for corporations to pay more of a fair “share.”

The Bernie Sanders Ten, per release….


1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.


BURLINGTON, Vt., March 27 - While hard working Americans fill out their income tax returns this tax season, General Electric and other giant profitable corporations are avoiding U.S. taxes altogether.

With Congress returning to Capitol Hill on Monday to debate steep spending cuts, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations must do their share to help bring down our record-breaking deficit.

Sanders renewed his call for shared sacrifice after it was reported that General Electric and other major corporations paid no U.S. taxes after posting huge profits. Sanders said it is grossly unfair for congressional Republicans to propose major cuts to Head Start, Pell Grants, the Social Security Administration, nutrition grants for pregnant low-income women and the Environmental Protection Agency while ignoring the reality that some of the most profitable corporations pay nothing or almost nothing in federal income taxes.


Sanders has called for closing corporate tax loopholes and eliminating tax breaks for oil and gas companies. He also introduced legislation to impose a 5.4 percent surtax on millionaires that would yield up to $50 billion a year. The senator has said that spending cuts must be paired with new revenue so the federal budget is not balanced solely on the backs of working families.

“We have a deficit problem. It has to be addressed,” Sanders said, “but it cannot be addressed on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the poor, young people, the most vulnerable in this country. The wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country have got to contribute. We’ve got to talk about shared sacrifice.”
I'm all for that, we can start with Ag subsidies, green energy subsidies (that's one GE has taken good advantage of) and oil subsidies. We should also do something about the 48% of US households that pay zero or negative income tax.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,556
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
The difference is so great at this point in time and with the sacred cows of;

869 Billion is military (244B is the Army, 179B the Navy, 171B the air force, 160B is war on terror)
Social Security is 730B
Income Security through the department of labor (wealthfare) 580B
Medicare 491B
Medicaid 297B

that not being touched in any great amount, it a pipe dream that minor changes will makes a difference

Then there's the dead money for interest payments on the national debt at 251B. Everyone has to bare the pain, not like they tried in Wisconsin.

Anything that doesn't touch any or all those areas is just lip service.
I agree, I would attack each of those budgets, I'd also lay off 10% of federal workers (as the budget commission recommended) and I'd issue a 10% pay cut to the 90% who kept their job. For those receiving a public sector pension I'd stop all COLAs from now on.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,556
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Im a center right guy, but looking at all these corporate profits and seeing that no significant hiring is happening, then yes i think these people must be taxed, everyone is sacrificing something at this point, i agree with cutting everything thats not needed, but its not enough, the money has to come from somewhere.

Unless these companies start reinvesting in jobs, not buying back stocks, then Obama does have a point about these reenacted tax cuts.
There are a few points that should be considered.

These companies are playing by the rules that Congress wrote.

Many of the nanny state initiatives that the POTUS talks about (green jobs) are really tax breaks, see GE as an example making wind turbines.

Our corporate tax rates are comparatively high against other countries.

Most job creation (70%) is in small companies that file their taxes as individuals (those rich people that the POTUS and the left want to soak with more tax)

Many global firms (like the one I work for) have piles of cash over seas (billions) that they can't repatriate because they'd have to pay US taxes on it. If you can't move the money here you can't invest here, so you invest overseas.

OTB
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,043
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
We should also do something about the 48% of US households that pay zero or negative income tax.
Most are in that position because you globalist Jackwagons took their jobs away! They are now living in POVERTY and this is part of the 'safety net' that you non-christians want to now eliminate!

You can't pay taxes bottie, when you lost your job. Didn't they teach you that in business school???....:rolleyes:
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,043
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
I agree, I would attack each of those budgets, I'd also lay off 10% of federal workers (as the budget commission recommended) and I'd issue a 10% pay cut to the 90% who kept their job. For those receiving a public sector pension I'd stop all COLAs from now on.
Nice! More Fuzzy Math from bottie.....:rolleyes:
So you rob Peter to pay Paul.
All that does is move them to UI and welfare because you sent all the jobs to your commie pals in RED China!
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
The reference says otherwise. As far as food stamps goes, that's peanuts.

see http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/11/04/some-14-of-us-uses-food-stamps/


What was your families food budget last month.

Food stamps account for how much of the US dficit. Any ways since 1994 welfare has dropped a lot

From; http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbenefitprograms/a/welfarereform.htm

According to the independent Brookings Institute, the nationwide welfare caseload declined about 60 percent between 1994 and 2004, and the percentage of U.S. children on welfare is now lower than it has been since at least 1970.

So you would figure that even at minimum wage a person on welfare would do better?

Keep in mind that includes loosing the Medicaid benefit too.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,085
1
0
So you would figure that even at minimum wage a person on welfare would do better?

Keep in mind that includes loosing the Medicaid benefit too.
Welfare is $400 +$133 for food stamps a month by my book is a lot less than minimum wage, so your question doesn't make sense. Your still suggesting taking $100 from someone who lives well below the poverty line; cold PS, very cold.
 

kupall

Member
Nov 4, 2005
380
0
16
OTB you and I agree on many issues, and to a certain extent, i do accept the premise that the POTUS definitely has an agenda when it comes to green jobs and tax breaks to companies that the dems favor, same thing with the repubs. But, I think the corporate elite have become content with the status quo, only way for the economy to get back is if companies, small or big start hiring. Then maybe housing will recover.

I agree that small companies, are the backbone of job creation, but why would they hire when the multi-nationals are still laying off people even with historic profits? What would give them confidence and the moxy to wager the limited amounts of cash they have when the signals they get from the street is to stay put and invest overseas, as you have said.

My point is, whats the point of government lowering corporate tax for companies to reinvest here, when they are already enjoying record profits while the country is experiencing 10% or 9% unemployment. Its not like they aren't profitable already, so why hire? what's the incentive?

What does corporate America have to gain right now to hire more people and help the economy if they are making good money at this point? Right now i think its in their best interest to just have the status quo.

As I said im no lib or left of center person, but after TARP, and all the stabilizing monetary policies that has happend that have led to a more stable market and banking system, where are the jobs? Im getting cynical of it all, would a corporate tax of 0% really lead to more jobs at this point?
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Welfare is $400 +$133 for food stamps a month by my book is a lot less than minimum wage, so your question doesn't make sense. Your still suggesting taking $100 from someone who lives well below the poverty line; cold PS, very cold.
No

I am suggesting cutting federal support of extraneous expenditures.

I would also favor private sector jobs as a way to collect more taxes.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,422
4,813
113
There are a few points that should be considered.

These companies are playing by the rules that Congress wrote.

Many of the nanny state initiatives that the POTUS talks about (green jobs) are really tax breaks, see GE as an example making wind turbines.

Our corporate tax rates are comparatively high against other countries.

Most job creation (70%) is in small companies that file their taxes as individuals (those rich people that the POTUS and the left want to soak with more tax)

Many global firms (like the one I work for) have piles of cash over seas (billions) that they can't repatriate because they'd have to pay US taxes on it. If you can't move the money here you can't invest here, so you invest overseas.

OTB
the real problem here is that the conservatives are not the least interested in balancing the budget. They are simply trying to embarass Obama.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,043
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
the real problem here is that the conservatives are not the least interested in balancing the budget. They are simply trying to embarass Obama.
That plus stall any economic recovery!
GOPers will fark it up, then blame Obama and their weak if mine lemmings will believe it....:rolleyes:
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,556
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
the real problem here is that the conservatives are not the least interested in balancing the budget. They are simply trying to embarass Obama.
I think they're trying to cut spending, embarrassing Obama is just a bonus.

OTB
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,043
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
I think they're trying to cut spending, embarrassing Obama is just a bonus.

OTB
JOBS are the problem!!!!
Where are all them JOBS your corporate clowns promised?....:rolleyes:

This 'trying to cut spending' is all GOPer 'smoke & mirrors'....
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,556
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
OTB you and I agree on many issues, and to a certain extent, i do accept the premise that the POTUS definitely has an agenda when it comes to green jobs and tax breaks to companies that the dems favor, same thing with the repubs. But, I think the corporate elite have become content with the status quo, only way for the economy to get back is if companies, small or big start hiring. Then maybe housing will recover.

I agree that small companies, are the backbone of job creation, but why would they hire when the multi-nationals are still laying off people even with historic profits? What would give them confidence and the moxy to wager the limited amounts of cash they have when the signals they get from the street is to stay put and invest overseas, as you have said.

My point is, whats the point of government lowering corporate tax for companies to reinvest here, when they are already enjoying record profits while the country is experiencing 10% or 9% unemployment. Its not like they aren't profitable already, so why hire? what's the incentive?

What does corporate America have to gain right now to hire more people and help the economy if they are making good money at this point? Right now i think its in their best interest to just have the status quo.

As I said im no lib or left of center person, but after TARP, and all the stabilizing monetary policies that has happend that have led to a more stable market and banking system, where are the jobs? Im getting cynical of it all, would a corporate tax of 0% really lead to more jobs at this point?
What drives a business to hire workers:

Expanded demand (there isn't much of that, but it's starting)
Known costs (there isn't much of that given the healthcare law and all the talk of tax policy changes)

Businesses are risk adverse, if they are making money now (and they are) they are going to be careful about picking up more expense. Many firms have become much more productive using technology and need less workers, they also have the option of hiring part time workers or outsource functions to other firms / countries to keep the fixed costs down.

OTB
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,043
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Gee bottie you really make the 'Race to the Bottom' look nice the way you polish that turd!....:rolleyes:

Whatever happened to what we were taught in school about making things better for the next generations??? You are going backwards....
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,422
4,813
113

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,085
1
0
No

I am suggesting cutting federal support of extraneous expenditures.

I would also favor private sector jobs as a way to collect more taxes.
Yet you were the one that said a $100 off Welfare payment was a consideration back in post #16, albeit from a household. Although, that means only 10 million households x100 x12=peanuts. So you're going to claw back $1200/yr from a family/person is living below the poverty. Not good.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Yet you were the one that said a $100 off Welfare payment was a consideration back in post #16, albeit from a household. Although, that means only 10 million households x100 x12=peanuts. So you're going to claw back $1200/yr from a family/person is living below the poverty. Not good.
That 1200 a year you are talking about is being spent on cable and internet access.

I would not be affecting their income at all.

Remember I said limit to those with cable and internet.

Cable only would be about 60 bucks a month

IPHONE is close to 100 a month

Taking that money away would not affect income, in that the money spent goes to unnecessary things
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
That 1200 a year you are talking about is being spent on cable and internet access.

I would not be affecting their income at all.

Remember I said limit to those with cable and internet.

Cable only would be about 60 bucks a month

IPHONE is close to 100 a month

Taking that money away would not affect income, in that the money spent goes to unnecessary things
And how many people below the poverty line and receivng meager welfare checks and food stamps do you suppose have IPHONES?
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,085
1
0
That 1200 a year you are talking about is being spent on cable and internet access.

I would not be affecting their income at all.

Remember I said limit to those with cable and internet.

Cable only would be about 60 bucks a month

IPHONE is close to 100 a month

Taking that money away would not affect income, in that the money spent goes to unnecessary things
Are you trying to tell me that someone who's living under the poverty line has internet and cable service in their shack. Reality check time PS. I

I'll bet the farm you can't live on 12G's a year. If you say yes, I'll call BS and I bet I'm not alone.

Maybe in the US but up here my cable is $65 for more channels than I can watch and my IPhin( yes wodrow I have an iPhone) cost $60.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts