#occupy<insertlocalehere>

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I dont' understand the problem. How much do you propose exxon pays? why? What about BOA?

If you seriously have mo problem with 19 billion in revenues and no income tax? Or are you just being difficult? If you have no problem with paying no income tax then we all should stop.


All companies should pay the correct percentage for income generated. And back taxes.

[Stay Golden]

w/p

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

If you seriously have mo problem with 19 billion in revenues and no income tax? Or are you just being difficult? If you have no problem with paying no income tax then we all should stop.


All companies should pay the correct percentage for income generated. And back taxes.

My point is you don't understand the complexity of the tax system to understand why they aren't paying any taxes so to simply say "well they made all this money so they should pay" isn't a sophisticated answer. How much should they pay? Why? 40%? why not 80%? Are you going to randomly pick a number?


Saying "pay your fair share" is meaningless if you don't understand why they aren't paying their fair share.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

If you seriously have mo problem with 19 billion in revenues and no income tax? Or are you just being difficult? If you have no problem with paying no income tax then we all should stop.


All companies should pay the correct percentage for income generated. And back taxes.

There's your first problem.

[To Be Quite Honest]

lol.

0 is 0 is 0. Everyone has the problem.

Love the fact that you turn to you don't understand the complexity. How much is zero? Your statement is is worth the same amount those companies paid in income tax...

Cowboy can just be ignored...

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

lol.

0 is 0 is 0. Everyone has the problem.

Love the fact that you turn to you don't understand the complexity. How much is zero? Your statement is is worth the same amount those companies paid in income tax...

Cowboy can just be ignored...

Except for the fact that they have paid $4.6 Billion to the US Federal government specifically from 2008-2010. Look at their 10-K. Maybe this complexity part about corporate taxes is in fact above your head. Page 109 of their 10-K filing for 2010.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Except for the fact that they have paid $4.6 Billion to the US Federal government specifically from 2008-2010. Look at their 10-K. Maybe this complexity part about corporate taxes is in fact above your head. Page 109 of their 10-K filing for 2010.

Bank Of America also repaid taxpayers all of the $45 billion forwarded it by taxpayers in 2009, including $193 million in dividends.

The US Treasury earlier this year said taxpayers would make a $23.4 billion profit on TARP, the bailout program which helped BAC and Citigroup among others. In truth, most didn't want the loans and had them forced upon them and some were prevented from paying them back until recently. You are seeing the same circumstances developing in Europe right now.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...ograms-1-.html

It would be more proper to say the chaos stemming from the circumstances of 2008, including the lead-in, ultimately cost taxpayers and for that a slackening of regulatory oversight begun under Clinton and continued by Bush was to blame.

Companies reporting net zero profits using losses accumulated in a recession is pretty normal.

And again, if you've got an argument against current tax law, the proper place to effect change is at the political level. Whining about corporations who pay no more than legally required is letting politicians off the hook.

A gallup poll a few days ago had twice as many Americans blaming politicians for the economic malaise than financial institutions, although Americans are cheezed at both.

Cowperson

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Bank Of America also repaid taxpayers all of the $45 billion forwarded it by taxpayers in 2009, including $193 million in dividends.

The US Treasury earlier this year said taxpayers would make a $23.4 billion profit on TARP, the bailout program which helped BAC and Citigroup among others. In truth, most didn't want the loans and had them forced upon them and some were prevented from paying them back until recently. You are seeing the same circumstances developing in Europe right now.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...ograms-1-.html

It would be more proper to say the chaos stemming from the circumstances of 2008, including the lead-in, ultimately cost taxpayers and for that a slackening of regulatory oversight begun under Clinton and continued by Bush was to blame.

Companies reporting net zero profits using losses accumulated in a recession is pretty normal.

And again, if you've got an argument against current tax law, the proper place to effect change is at the political level. Whining about corporations who pay no more than legally required is letting politicians off the hook.

A gallup poll a few days ago had twice as many Americans blaming politicians for the economic malaise than financial institutions, although Americans are cheezed at both.

Cowperson

If you look at my posts through this whole thread, I have been calling for better policy change for both sides because both are responsible. Costco is a fine responsible example of a company that pays their taxes and makes HUGE profit (As well as great pay/benefits in comparable jobs). Just because a corporation can be irresponsible doesn't mean it should.

"With great profit comes great responsibility." to quote Uncle Ben.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

If you look at my posts through this whole thread, I have been calling for better policy change for both sides because both are responsible. Costco is a fine responsible example of a company that pays their taxes and makes HUGE profit (As well as great pay/benefits in comparable jobs). Just because a corporation can be irresponsible doesn't mean it should.

"With great profit comes great responsibility." to quote Uncle Ben.

Uncle Ben never said that.

There are no "both sides" in this context. There is tax law and what is owed under the law of the land. Change the law if you've got a problem with it. You've got to be out of your mind if you think Costco is voluntarily paying a nickel more than it has to or would act any differently than anyone else in zeroing out if it had the legal writeoffs to do so.

"The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether to avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.".
GEORGE SUTHERLAND, Gregory v. Helvering, 1934

And I hope you're not going to refute that with some inanity about morality.

Take it to the bank.

Nice homer by the Rangers.

Cowperson
T

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Uncle Ben never said that.

There are no "both sides" in this context. There is tax law and what is owed under the law of the land. Change the law if you've got a problem with it. You've got to be out of your mind if you think Costco is voluntarily paying a nickel more than it has to or would act any differently than anyone else in zeroing out if it had the legal writeoffs to do so.

"The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether to avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.".
GEORGE SUTHERLAND, Gregory v. Helvering, 1934

And I hope you're not going to refute that with some inanity about morality.

Take it to the bank.

Nice homer by the Rangers.

Cowperson
T

Of course he didn't, but I played with the words... But you already know that.

Last year there was an article on Costco's payment of tax and community and it left me surprised as heck to see what they payed. By your post here you would be as well.

Here is an article from this year. I'll try to find last years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-g..._b_869744.html

"We're constantly bombarded by rhetoric about how businesses are "obligated" by their shareholders to avoid taxes at all costs. Talking heads on TV constantly deride America's corporate tax rate, calling for it to be lowered so we can be more "competitive." Yet, the aforementioned corporations paid close to, and in some cases more than America's marginal 35% corporate tax rate. And each year, they continue to be extremely profitable without dodging taxes through offshore accounts."

If I had my way I wouldn't pay tax but donate to what I support in my community, schools, arts for example. It's off topic but that's what I'd do. Unfortunately some essentials would die off if everybody did that.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Of course he didn't, but I played with the words... But you already know that.

Last year there was an article on Costco's payment of tax and community and it left me surprised as heck to see what they payed. By your post here you would be as well.

Here is an article from this year. I'll try to find last years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-g..._b_869744.html

"We're constantly bombarded by rhetoric about how businesses are "obligated" by their shareholders to avoid taxes at all costs. Talking heads on TV constantly deride America's corporate tax rate, calling for it to be lowered so we can be more "competitive." Yet, the aforementioned corporations paid close to, and in some cases more than America's marginal 35% corporate tax rate. And each year, they continue to be extremely profitable without dodging taxes through offshore accounts."

If I had my way I wouldn't pay tax but donate to what I support in my community, schools, arts for example. It's off topic but that's what I'd do. Unfortunately some essentials would die off if everybody did that.

Well, a good many people, including myself, pay tax AND contribute time and funds back into the community already.

You would not find a single corporation of this size - including multi-nationals and including Bank of America - that does not already "donate to what I support in my community, schools, arts, etc, etc."

Bank of America gave out $200 million in philanthropic cash donations in 2010, the second largest donor in America, and that would be only only one aspect of its charitable giving programs.

General Electric contributed more than $250 million in philanthropic value - including cash - to charitable activities on a worldwide basis in 2010.

You could pick any company in this class and I could probably demonstrate within five minutes that they have these kinds of programs, which would include paid time off for employees to donate skills to the community as well. This is a normal business activity.

And they pay taxes when they are legally obliged to do it.

Costco, by the way, is what we would call a "recession-proof" business with fairly stable earnings in both good times and bad times, meaning they are more likely than most to generate a tax bill through all years. As I said before, its not unusual, within the laws of the land, for corporations with cyclical earnings to have a zero tax bill one year and larger ones in subsequent years. Like any individual, they should not be paying more tax than they are legally obligated to do.

Minimum tax laws are fine if you want to go that way . . . . . but banging on the doors of BAC isn't going to get it done. It's a symbolic waste of time. Its an argument about law, even the moral aspect.

Most would already agree USA tax law needs a susbstantial overhaul on both the personal and corporate level and, if they really wanted to help themselves, they'd introduce the equivalent of ultimate fairness, a GST tax.

Again, the place to be taking this argument is the campaign trails, running Occupy candidates, arguing in legislatures and at the White House where you can effect change.

Cowperson

[woob]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Again, the place to be taking this argument is the campaign trails, running Occupy candidates, arguing in legislatures and at the White House where you can effect change.

Cowperson

[HOZ]

Life is harder. Housing is skyrocketing quickly and you certainly can’t buy it on just Daddy’s salary anymore. Mommy has to work as well, which means there’s even less chance she’s having kids. You can forget about assets, investments, savings and vacations.


The thing is..... while the Occupy Wall Street kids are out there protesting about how bad life sucks, hard-working immigrants and their children who have come from countries with real problems are busy taking their place in the job market. These kids who don’t realize they’re putting themselves behind the rat race needlessly, which will only lead to greater difficulties in their thirties. I know this from experience.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

lol.

0 is 0 is 0. Everyone has the problem.

Love the fact that you turn to you don't understand the complexity. How much is zero? Your statement is is worth the same amount those companies paid in income tax...

Cowboy can just be ignored...

I turn to the "you don't understand the complexity" part because you don't. You get write-offs and tax credits for a plethora of things, not just charity but R&D, exploration, investment into certain enterprises and businesses so it's hard for me to just say "they should pay their fair share".

You do realize that it's possible for human persons to do the same right? Assume you go to university and incur a tremendous amount of tax deductions (assume its a deduction not a credit for the sake of this argument) for your education and you never use them. Then you come out of university with $100,000 in tax credits. You get a job that pays $100,000 year. You aren't paying tax that year. Should the guy who made 6 figures pay "his fair share"?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

lol.

0 is 0 is 0. Everyone has the problem.

Love the fact that you turn to you don't understand the complexity. How much is zero? Your statement is is worth the same amount those companies paid in income tax...

Cowboy can just be ignored...

This is maybe the stupidest post yet on this topic. Just willful ignorance.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Of course he didn't, but I played with the words... But you already know that.

Last year there was an article on Costco's payment of tax and community and it left me surprised as heck to see what they payed. By your post here you would be as well.

Here is an article from this year. I'll try to find last years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-g..._b_869744.html

"We're constantly bombarded by rhetoric about how businesses are "obligated" by their shareholders to avoid taxes at all costs. Talking heads on TV constantly deride America's corporate tax rate, calling for it to be lowered so we can be more "competitive." Yet, the aforementioned corporations paid close to, and in some cases more than America's marginal 35% corporate tax rate. And each year, they continue to be extremely profitable without dodging taxes through offshore accounts."

If I had my way I wouldn't pay tax but donate to what I support in my community, schools, arts for example. It's off topic but that's what I'd do. Unfortunately some essentials would die off if everybody did that.

Hmm, do you think that maybe, just maybe, that's a strategy that these evil corporations have employed?

Honestly, you don't understand tax laws or the accounting used so you resort to the old morality card. Just admit that.

[Muta]

I don't care if the targeted companies have paid back their loans; these bailouts should never have happened in the first place. Proper regulatory systems would have prevented such companies from such wanton financial predation.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

I don't care if the targeted companies have paid back their loans; these bailouts should never have happened in the first place. Proper regulatory systems would have prevented such companies from such wanton financial predation.

That's great if you have a Delorean with a flux capacitor, but absent that the bailouts were necessary to prevent a total economic collapse.

[woob]

[Calgaryborn]

I have a very low standard for what I expect from big business. I see them like brute beasts that are needed in our capitalist society. We don't expect an animal to do what is right. We expect it to behave according to its instincts and we manipulate that behaviour in order to make them useful to society.

The instinct of any successful business is to make money. Government uses environmental regulations, labour regulations, business regulations, ect. to reign in business. The trick for government is to balance those considerations while maximizing business' benefits to society which include jobs, tax revenue, innovation, services, ect.

In my mind a company's only moral responsibility is to follow the letter of the law. It is the government's job to manipulate business for good. Having said that, I do acknowledge companies often go beyond the law in exercising moral conscience. I just don't think we should expect it.

If you don't like the behaviour of business the blame should fall squarely on the government. They are our elected zoo keepers.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...-technicality/