Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• stlouiedipalma

  I understand that these companies (GE being the one mentioned in the article) claim to be losing money, but it's only in their US-based operations. Their foreign operations are showing enormous profits, and the taxes due on these are deferred indefinitely. Even though the company is headquartered in the USA, they pay zero US taxes. If that's what gets you all feeling warm and fuzzy, then I won't be able to change your minds.
• believer

  

  stlouiedipalma;697803 wrote:...but it's only in their US-based operations. Their foreign operations are showing enormous profits,.....

  Ya have to wonder why that is. No wait....we all know why.
• QuakerOats

  Writerbuckeye;697596 wrote:Why do people complain when businesses don't pay income-related taxes? Do they not realize that taxing business is nothing but a PASS THROUGH tax to the American people that we all end up paying in the form of higher costs for goods and services?
  
  Funny how the people arguing these companies need to pay more don't realize that these kinds of pass through taxes end up hurting the people they (liberals) PRETEND to protect the most: the poor.

  Exactly ......... I guess these companies should just layoff another 10,000 people so they have can have enough money to pay 'their fair share' in taxes.
  
  Somebody .... BEAM ME UP.
• stlouiedipalma

  QuakerOats;697996 wrote:Exactly ......... I guess these companies should just layoff another 10,000 people so they have can have enough money to pay 'their fair share' in taxes.
  
  Somebody .... BEAM ME UP.

  
  Quaker,
  
  I don't give a shit about their "fair share". These folks are paying ZERO and making huge profits. Hell, GE pays less in federal taxes than I do.
  
  And you all want to give them even more tax breaks.
• believer

  

  stlouiedipalma;698105 wrote:And you all want to give them even more tax breaks.

  True. I say let's tax 'em real good so these companies will layoff thousands more American workers and further encourage these businesses to produce their products offshore. After all they can make even more obscene p-p-p-p-profits in foreign countries.
  
  Meantime, those of us lucky enough to still have jobs will easily absorb the higher taxes in the form of higher prices as well as pony-up more of our "fair share" to help the newly unemployed put food on their tables.
  
  Problem solved.
• BGFalcons82

  

  believer;698174 wrote:True. I say let's tax 'em real good so these companies will layoff thousands more American workers and further encourage these businesses to produce their products offshore. After all they can make even more obscene p-p-p-p-profits in foreign countries.
  
  Meantime, those of us lucky enough to still have jobs will easily absorb the higher taxes in the form of higher prices as well as pony-up more of our "fair share" to help the newly unemployed put food on their tables.
  
  Problem solved.

  
  believer....the man of solutions!! Good post.
  
  I haven't read all of the details, but I would like to remind those on the witchhunt for tax cheats that Chapter S corporations pay NO INCOME TAXES. None. Nada. Zippo. Doesn't matter if they've made obscene profits or lost their shirts...they pay "the man" absolutely nothing for their toils. The folks lucky enough to be share holders in S corporations pay the income taxes from their business on their personal income taxes. So, unless you have their social security numbers, you won't find out how much they pay in taxes. By the way....the companies typically give the tax money to the share holders to pay their "fair share" taxes. Guess where it comes from???? It's so easy, even a caveman can understand it.
• wkfan

  stlouiedipalma;698105 wrote:And you all want to give them even more tax breaks.

  
  You mean like the $14,000,000,000.00 tax break that BHO just gave to Governmental Motors???
  
  Many on this site who are having an orgasm that SB 5 passed in Ohio see no problem with this tax break.
• QuakerOats

  stlouiedipalma;698105 wrote:Quaker,
  
  I don't give a shit about their "fair share". These folks are paying ZERO and making huge profits. Hell, GE pays less in federal taxes than I do.
  
  And you all want to give them even more tax breaks.

  For God's sake, they pay tens of billions in taxes; you are nit-picking over a year because they had a net loss and not a net income TO tax. I don't want to give anyone a 'tax break', I want everyone to pay a LOW rate across the board so the playing field is leveled and we might be able to bring back some jobs to this country. I also want the regulators off our ass - immediately. But that won't happen with the jackass in the whitte house and his appointed marxists and communists running every GD cabinet department. How's that for ya!!!!!!!!!!!
• majorspark

  

  wkfan;698243 wrote:You mean like the $14,000,000,000.00 tax break that BHO just gave to Governmental Motors???
  
  Many on this site who are having an orgasm that SB 5 passed in Ohio see no problem with this tax break.

  I would say just the opposite is true. Most on this site having the orgasms over SB5 were likely against the GM bail out. After all it did keep those union dues flowing. Most of those dissapointed with SB5 passing I'll bet had no problem with GM bailout.
• wkfan

  majorspark;698318 wrote:I would say just the opposite is true. Most on this site having the orgasms over SB5 were likely against the GM bail out. After all it did keep those union dues flowing. Most of those dissapointed with SB5 passing I'll bet had no problem with GM bailout.

  
  Not from the replies that I got when I brought this up juxtaposed to SB5.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  wkfan;698243 wrote:You mean like the $14,000,000,000.00 tax break that BHO just gave to Governmental Motors???
  
  Many on this site who are having an orgasm that SB 5 passed in Ohio see no problem with this tax break.

  
  You are dead wrong.
  
  Those of us happy about SB5 passing HATED the bailout of GM. All it did was give big bucks to the union; there were almost no concessions made in exchange for that money, which was disgusting. I can think of very few people on this site who supported the bailout -- and almost all of them tend to be more liberal than conservative.
• Belly35

  

  Nobody bailout my two companies .... nobody cared for the small business guys
  Hell! The Feds, State and Local Politician are clueless of the needs of today small business. After two years of Obama Fraud and Economic Failure we don’t need equipment (we fixed, repaired and ungraded old if it not running at 100% now no need to buy new) , building (any expansion of building would add more cost to a already bad situation)or employees (can’t hire if you can produce or sell what you have now)…. Small business need Working Capital. To market their goods, research and development of new produces and take those new produce to the market this cost money. Money many small companies don’t have. We don’t have it because the federal government and bank have taken small business life line away .. Line of Credit.
  
  I'm all for BS5 and happy it passed ... kinda like &#8220ay to Play” glad those of you in the Public Sector Unions are joining the team. Welcome to the real world ….
• stlouiedipalma

  believer;698174 wrote:True. I say let's tax 'em real good so these companies will layoff thousands more American workers and further encourage these businesses to produce their products offshore. After all they can make even more obscene p-p-p-p-profits in foreign countries.
  
  Meantime, those of us lucky enough to still have jobs will easily absorb the higher taxes in the form of higher prices as well as pony-up more of our "fair share" to help the newly unemployed put food on their tables.
  
  Problem solved.

  
  My point is this:
  
  Why should we even be talking about lowering tax rates for corporations when they don't pay taxes now? Leave 'em where they are instead of lowering them.
• Ty Webb

  

  QuakerOats;698288 wrote:For God's sake, they pay tens of billions in taxes; you are nit-picking over a year because they had a net loss and not a net income TO tax. I don't want to give anyone a 'tax break', I want everyone to pay a LOW rate across the board so the playing field is leveled and we might be able to bring back some jobs to this country. I also want the regulators off our ass - immediately. But that won't happen with the jackass in the whitte house and his appointed marxists and communists running every GD cabinet department. How's that for ya!!!!!!!!!!!

  
  
  Do you even honestly know what a marxist or communist really is?
  
  Because if you did,you would not make the statement you just did
• believer

  

  Ty Webb;698661 wrote:Do you even honestly know what a marxist or communist really is?

  Marxist/communist = Mike Clark? I kid
• Belly35

  

  Ty Webb;698661 wrote:Do you even honestly know what a marxist or communist really is?
  
  
  Because if you did,you would not make the statement you just did

  We have photos
  
  
  
  
  
  
• stlouiedipalma

  belly,
  
  This is a fine example of conservative America. Your fellow righties on this site must be bursting with pride right now.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  stlouiedipalma;698808 wrote:belly,
  
  This is a fine example of conservative America. Your fellow righties on this site must be bursting with pride right now.

  
  With SB 5 well on its way to becoming law, I'm a pretty happy (and proud) Ohioan right now.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  The states have been following in the federal governments footsteps for wayyyyy too long, now. I'm glad that some of them are trying to straighten up and fly right.
  
  *EDIT
  No pun intended!
• BoatShoes

  Writerbuckeye;697596 wrote:Why do people complain when businesses don't pay income-related taxes? Do they not realize that taxing business is nothing but a PASS THROUGH tax to the American people that we all end up paying in the form of higher costs for goods and services?
  
  Funny how the people arguing these companies need to pay more don't realize that these kinds of pass through taxes end up hurting the people they (liberals) PRETEND to protect the most: the poor.

  
  See, you speak this proverb, "taxes always get passed onto the consumer" as if this is a law like the law of gravity and that it is true in all instances when this is flat out wrong. For instance, in the case where a supply is inelastic but demand is elastic the producer will bear the brunt of the tax incidence, etc.
  
  It just flat out isn't true what you speak to be the absolute truth. And look, you've got a lapdog follower in Believer. Cute.
  
  Nevertheless, let's imagine that it were true that businesses will always raise the price of their product to account for any lost profit due to taxation. A company has a very large taxable income indicating a good, profitable year. Like the rest of us, as a legal person, this corporation pays a tax on its income. In subsequent year, foreseeing this tax as a cost of business, raises its prices to ensure a similarly large profit margin.
  
  You pay taxes out of your earned income without passing your tax burden onto others why should a corporation. If they remain profitable after their tax incidence, shouldn't the bear the tax incidence?
  
  In fact, I've seen you whine about the government unjustifiably taking what you've earned from the sweat of your brow...yet you hold no such sentiment towards private actors who might do the same thing.
  
  So overall, you are wrong that taxes always get passed on to the consumer as there is disagreement amongst public finance economists and you should also show the same type of contempt towards public entities "confiscating" your labor towards private actors improperly shifting their burdens onto you.
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;699046 wrote:So overall, you are wrong that taxes always get passed on to the consumer as there is disagreement amongst public finance economists and you should also show the same type of contempt towards public entities "confiscating" your labor towards private actors improperly shifting their burdens onto you.

  Businesses stay in business if their margins are healthy. Additional tax burden will, in fact, get passed on to the consumer eventually in the form of price increases in order to allow those eeeeevil p-p-p-profit making businesses - the ones that actually create wealth and feed the public tax pig - to continue to produce healthy margins for the stakeholders. When the parasite gets bigger, someone pays the price. Trust me on this - eventually it's always the taxpaying consumer - you & me.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Okay, you got me. It may not happen EVERY time -- but when economic times are tough (sound familiar) do you REALLY think a business will absorb a tax increase that puts them out of business?
  
  I guess they could go ahead and pay the taxes, and then layoff a few thousand employees to make up the difference. Would that be a better solution?
  
  This isn't rocket science, folks. If businesses get hit with taxes beyond a certain level, bad things are going to happen to consumers, one way or another. Either prices will go up, or there will be layoffs, or possibly both. The worst scenario will be when none of those things even help the company survive and it simply goes under.
  
  Of course, some of these companies have resolved the problem by moving, too. Whether it be out of states like Ohio with a harsh business climate, to go down South -- or overseas.
  
  Again, none of these are good solutions if you are an unemployed person looking for a job in a state like Ohio.
• stlouiedipalma

  Or they could set up a foreign operation, make all of their profit on it (deferring any tax liability indefinitely, of course) and claim a loss domestically, effectively eliminating their tax liability here.
  
  These folks aren't idiots. They know that, unless they have a product which we cannot do without, continual price increases will cost them market share and then they will be hurting. If I were running the company, I would re-package my product in slightly smaller sizes while charging the same amount. The consumer would be slow to catch on and, by the time they did, everyone else would be doing the same thing.
  
  You don't think they would do that, do you?
• BoatShoes

  believer;699088 wrote:Businesses stay in business if their margins are healthy. Additional tax burden will, in fact, get passed on to the consumer eventually in the form of price increases in order to allow those eeeeevil p-p-p-profit making businesses - the ones that actually create wealth and feed the public tax pig - to continue to produce healthy margins for the stakeholders. When the parasite gets bigger, someone pays the price. Trust me on this - eventually it's always the taxpaying consumer - you & me.

  
  It's like I'm writing to a tape recorder.
  
  I agree that businesses stay in business when margins are healthy. Everyone agrees with that. Will you even find a liberal who disagrees...even one who wants to put them out of business? No. Have you not been paying attention? Did you even read my post? ExxonMobil had a net income of $31.4 Billion in 2010. How is that not a healthy margin? No reasonable person could suggest that is not a healthy margin, especially considering the wider global economic climate. Yet, they pay a lower effective rate than you, despite receiving much more protection and benefit from our regulated economic system and our unstoppable military.
  
  And for that matter, many of these countries with low corporate tax rates are very protectionist with laws requiring that production must be done in their own country. The chamber of commerce and conservative economists don't support this. You want to lower corporate taxes with out protectionist policies??? It's called Ireland. And in effect, that's closer example of our problems because, as I've pointed out, effective rates are the name of the game and effective corporate tax rates are low as the GAO has found that 2 out of 3 corporations pay zero corporate taxes.
  
  You say "the ones that actually create wealth and feed the public tax pig" but how can that possibly be true when they pay zero income taxes. By definition that is false. Yet, you repeat, ad nauseum false talking points. Now, I don't mean to demonize the corporate world, but your blind allegiance to it is at least as bad as a union man's blind allegiance to union life.
  
  It is not a necessary truth that corporations pass on their taxes to the consumer, but even if were always true as a practical matter, where is your moral outrage?
  
  The average conservative adheres to a merit-based conception of justice wherein the benefits and burdens in society ought to be allocated according to people earning them. Hence, maybe there shouldn't be an income tax, but if there's going to be one, people ought not to pass their burden onto others undeservedly.
  
  The largest theme I hear from conservatives is a disdain for people living off other's tax dollars, other's work, other's labor, the gubment cheese, etc. You yourself suggested that it is wrong that My Uncle (I didn't reveal he was my uncle in the thread) who is a quadriplegic injured in an automobile accident by a drunk driver is able to by cigarettes and beer with your tax dollars as he is on SSI and medicaid living in a nursing home. If that is wrong, that he passes his smallish burden onto you...it follows that it is certainly wrong if a large profitable corporation would pass an immensely greater burden onto you.
  
  The public teacher's pensions burdening you are the essence of moral turpitude but these mega-corporations paying zero income taxes to America send their money to foreign nations (which we then borrow from at least in the case of China) all while receiving the most enormous benefits from your tax dollars are just consequences of good business.
  
  It is not outrageous to think something wrong if very profitable....enormously profitable...near monopolous corporations who are able to synthetically influence prices and achieve vast economic rents ought to pay some taxes. If a tax was going to push them into operating losses, sure, it would be reasonable to raise prices or pass on that tax as a counter measure. But, if you're earning huge economic rents and you were to actively to decide to pass on your burden to the very people who allow you to earn such economic rents...according to most notions of popular morality and certainly conservative morality that is wrong.
  
  You keep talking about the tax monster eating away the corporations profits until they shrink to nothing but no one ITT has suggested anything like that. We've merely suggested how conservatives latch on to popular maxims such as "corporate tax rate too high...mar hrrmm dar harm business...dar." when there is more to the story.
  
  I've advocated cutting the corporate tax rate on here....but it begs the question, that when you can have your corporate counsel call any tax lawyer worth his salt and he can file a couple pieces of paper and reduce your effective rate below 5% without any real economic substance, as to how effective that would even be.
• BoatShoes

  Writerbuckeye;699276 wrote:Okay, you got me. It may not happen EVERY time -- but when economic times are tough (sound familiar) do you REALLY think a business will absorb a tax increase that puts them out of business?
  
  I guess they could go ahead and pay the taxes, and then layoff a few thousand employees to make up the difference. Would that be a better solution?
  
  This isn't rocket science, folks. If businesses get hit with taxes beyond a certain level, bad things are going to happen to consumers, one way or another. Either prices will go up, or there will be layoffs, or possibly both. The worst scenario will be when none of those things even help the company survive and it simply goes under.
  
  Of course, some of these companies have resolved the problem by moving, too. Whether it be out of states like Ohio with a harsh business climate, to go down South -- or overseas.
  
  Again, none of these are good solutions if you are an unemployed person looking for a job in a state like Ohio.

  
  You like believer are like a damn tape recorder.
  
  Times are tough for ordinary americans actually paying domestic taxes. Not Chevron. Not ExxonMobil. Not Bank of America. No one in this thread said anything about tax increase that would put corporations out of business. Laying off employees when you're tax burden is negative, like B of A's would be outrageous...when you actually profit from the U.S. treasury.
  
  Everyone agrees that when you tax businesses beyond a certain level bad things happen....but THIS IS NOT HAPPENING!