Log in:  

Register

U.S. Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Eshnar, Irondan, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

15 Aug 2018 16:37

Scott SoCal wrote:
Bustedknuckle wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
Corporate America didn’t write the tax code. If you don’t understand it then you don’t. 35% wasn’t competitive. In some years given certain circumstance did certain companies pay a net tax less than 35%? Why, yes, yes they did.
And according to Pfizer’s annual report their pre-tax net income was $12,240,000,000. They paid $3,120,000,000 in income tax which is 25.5%, not 7.5%.
This is public information.


35% wasn't competitive..but then you say most didn't pay that(Pfizer at 25.5%)..so...which is it scott..35% or 24% or something else? Trotting out the 35% figure, as per the article and your own post, isn't accurate..

trump lies with statistics too..somebody else's cuz he's too stupid to really understand it..pictures, cartoons maybe(like the head of the EU used)...


Again, I'm the guy looking for a simple tax system. The Feds throw out tax incentives for all sorts of reasons. You want a system w/o loopholes? Okay but be careful what you wish for.

The highest corporate rate Federally was 35%. That's a fact.

Do yourself a favor and read through this;

https://www.thebalance.com/corporate-income-tax-definition-history-effective-rate-3306024


I guess that noise is the point going over your head, again..YOU said, 35% isn't competitive'..I said, no company that has a tax guy pays 35% in the good ole USA...Yup, loopholes and subsidies(like to the BOOMING oil and gas industry)...

So WHAT if that number is a 'fact' on the books when nobody pays that?

From that article
But most large corporations never paid that much, thanks to tax attorneys who help them avoid paying more.
On average, the effective rate was 18 percent.
User avatar Bustedknuckle
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,065
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 15:38
Location: USofA

Re: Re:

15 Aug 2018 17:53

Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:

It's a shell game, and your words reflect that, but you just can't bring yourself to put the rest together. Not my problem. The stories your economists tell are meant to bolster or deflate confidence, based on what they see as the need at any given moment in the economic cycle. But the fact remains that wealth is not an actual thing, it is a belief, unquantifiable in reality, but worshiped none the less. Kinda' like religion.

The exchange of currency is no longer trading tangible things for tangible things, It is the addition or deletion of numbers in a computer, particularly at the level of federal taxes. The system you worship is a facade with real world consequences, most of which are based on dogma that isn't based on the ability to provide or not, but based on an idea of who deserves to receive and who doesn't.


Faith supports currency to that end we agree. But trading tangible things for tangible things was as much a shell game as currency. Uptown the rate for two pigs was five goats. Downtown the rate for two pigs was three goats. It’s always been this way, Chewy. Individuals make decisions for different reasons. The downtown guy didn’t value his pigs as much. Why? You’d have to ask him.

The system you worship is a facade with real world consequences, most of which are based on dogma that isn't based on the ability to provide or not, but based on an idea of who deserves to receive and who doesn't.


I hate to break this to you but even the barter system is a facade. As for the rest, very simply, if it were true then different people would never enter or exit what you consider to be wealth. Nobody is behind the curtain controlling who deserves to receive.


The federal government doesn't make goats. There is a major difference, and you don't want to see it. That's your ignorance, not mine.

I will point you to our system of elections, and the subsequent manipulation of legislation at every level of government, and tell you that you're a fool.


The Federal government doesn't make anything - including wealth. It's "our" system of elections. Yeah, it's corrupt but from the outside in. The system is fine - it's the outside influence that aren't.


Show me another entity that produces currency and controls the amount of that currency in computers and pocket books, and I'll believe your point. Otherwise, you buy into the bulls**t that is spouted by economists whose job it is to affect the confidence in the system.

And the outside influences are determining who "deserves" to get what. Thanks for conceding my point.
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,947
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

Re: Re:

15 Aug 2018 18:25

Bustedknuckle wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
Bustedknuckle wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
Corporate America didn’t write the tax code. If you don’t understand it then you don’t. 35% wasn’t competitive. In some years given certain circumstance did certain companies pay a net tax less than 35%? Why, yes, yes they did.
And according to Pfizer’s annual report their pre-tax net income was $12,240,000,000. They paid $3,120,000,000 in income tax which is 25.5%, not 7.5%.
This is public information.


35% wasn't competitive..but then you say most didn't pay that(Pfizer at 25.5%)..so...which is it scott..35% or 24% or something else? Trotting out the 35% figure, as per the article and your own post, isn't accurate..

trump lies with statistics too..somebody else's cuz he's too stupid to really understand it..pictures, cartoons maybe(like the head of the EU used)...


Again, I'm the guy looking for a simple tax system. The Feds throw out tax incentives for all sorts of reasons. You want a system w/o loopholes? Okay but be careful what you wish for.

The highest corporate rate Federally was 35%. That's a fact.

Do yourself a favor and read through this;

https://www.thebalance.com/corporate-income-tax-definition-history-effective-rate-3306024


I guess that noise is the point going over your head, again..YOU said, 35% isn't competitive'..I said, no company that has a tax guy pays 35% in the good ole USA...Yup, loopholes and subsidies(like to the BOOMING oil and gas industry)...

So WHAT if that number is a 'fact' on the books when nobody pays that?

From that article
But most large corporations never paid that much, thanks to tax attorneys who help them avoid paying more.
On average, the effective rate was 18 percent.


Goddam. You can't possibly be this thick.

Image
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,640
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

15 Aug 2018 18:31

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Show me another entity that produces currency and controls the amount of that currency in computers and pocket books, and I'll believe your point. Otherwise, you buy into the bulls**t that is spouted by economists whose job it is to affect the confidence in the system.

And the outside influences are determining who "deserves" to get what. Thanks for conceding my point.


Outside influences direct only to a point. Look at Trump. Which outside influences were causational in his hase? Wha, he spent half of what Hillary did and didn't have the FBI & DOJ in her pocket.

Tell me which outside influence is responsible for Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. Bill Gates. Michael Dell.

The Tim Cook's of the world will try and prevent entry of competitors through what you love - regulations. But good ideas normally find a way to the marketplace. And that is random as f*ck.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,640
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

15 Aug 2018 18:57

duplicate
Last edited by aphronesis on 15 Aug 2018 19:05, edited 1 time in total.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,631
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

15 Aug 2018 19:01

aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,631
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

15 Aug 2018 19:30

Suppose we lived in a world where Bill Gates could not get copyright or patent protection for Windows and other Microsoft products. Anyone who wanted could duplicate these products without charge, sending Bill Gates a thank you note, if they were so inspired.

In that world, Bill Gates would certainly not be the world’s richest human with a fortune of more than $70 billion. Even without copyright protection Mr. Gates would probably still be doing fine – he seems reasonably bright, works hard, and comes from a wealthy family – but he would not have amassed his huge fortune if he could not get government granted monopolies on his software.

This simple and obvious point matters because it is popular in many circles to claim that income inequality is just an inevitable, even if unfortunate, result of technology and globalization. In fact, there is nothing inevitable about patent and copyright protection, these monopolies exist as a result of government policy. The fact that Bill Gates and many others have gotten hugely rich as a result of these protections is a result of government policy, not an inevitable outcome of technological progress.


I'll just leave this right here.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,640
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

15 Aug 2018 19:34

Good to see you can read
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,631
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

15 Aug 2018 19:53

Funny. We freak over China stealing intellectual property. This clown wants it made available from the get-go.

The question isn't how rich Bill Gates would be. The question is how would the world have developed without Microsoft? Without Apple? What would music be like? No patents then no trade-marks either.

All this from an 'economist.'
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,640
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

15 Aug 2018 20:02

Ahhh the howrah. What would music be like. How would we get anywhere?
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,631
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

15 Aug 2018 21:43

I realize logical conclusions to idiocy isn't your strong suit. Forget about people living longer, forget about reductions in global poverty, forget about most things that come about via any creative process. Patents are one of the few things most of the people of the world agree on.

But ya know, the wealth gap is intolerable.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,640
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

15 Aug 2018 21:56

You couldn’t describe creativity to save someone’s life. Not even your own. Last I heard poor people wern’t living longer. There’s, you know, a contemporary constellation of physical and psychological isues that come with it.

Poverty as meausured by the IMF? Something similar. Not by any creative metrics.

Really? Most people?

No one said the wealth gap is intolerable; the argument is that it’s unnecessary as it stands. Don’t worry: no one expects you to be able to comprehend that.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,631
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

15 Aug 2018 22:21

And the dipshit author thinks a solution is to crush creativity.

Smart. Real smart.

He's right about one thing; it's policy that's causing inequality. He's only confused as to which.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,640
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: U.S. Politics

15 Aug 2018 22:55

'Last night in Sweden!' Sadly, Mr. Trump once again proven a visionary despite
what so many indignant radical far left Swedes tweeted just a few months back.
User avatar oldcrank
Member
 
Posts: 1,610
Joined: 24 Jul 2009 07:16

Re:

15 Aug 2018 22:58

Scott SoCal wrote:And the dipshit author thinks a solution is to crush creativity.

Smart. Real smart.

He's right about one thing; it's policy that's causing inequality. He's only confused as to which.


Oh the drama. “Crush”. Many argue that creativity would flourish if people had the time and means. You for example have no excuses for not being better politically educated.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,631
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: U.S. Politics

15 Aug 2018 22:59

oldcrank wrote:'Last night in Sweden!' Sadly, Mr. Trump once again proven a visionary despite
what so many indignant radical far left Swedes tweeted just a few months back.


Lookout man. Trump has to be wrong about everything. He just has to. And he’s rude.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,640
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

15 Aug 2018 23:04

aphronesis wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:And the dipshit author thinks a solution is to crush creativity.

Smart. Real smart.

He's right about one thing; it's policy that's causing inequality. He's only confused as to which.


Oh the drama. “Crush”. Many argue that creativity would flourish if people had the time and means. You for example have no excuses for not being better politically educated.


Creativity flourished today. And it flourished yesterday. It will flourish tomorrow.

Not with you of course.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,640
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

15 Aug 2018 23:10

Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Show me another entity that produces currency and controls the amount of that currency in computers and pocket books, and I'll believe your point. Otherwise, you buy into the bulls**t that is spouted by economists whose job it is to affect the confidence in the system.

And the outside influences are determining who "deserves" to get what. Thanks for conceding my point.


Outside influences direct only to a point. Look at Trump. Which outside influences were causational in his hase? Wha, he spent half of what Hillary did and didn't have the FBI & DOJ in her pocket.

Tell me which outside influence is responsible for Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. Bill Gates. Michael Dell.

The Tim Cook's of the world will try and prevent entry of competitors through what you love - regulations. But good ideas normally find a way to the marketplace. And that is random as f*ck.


The irony of your later posts on the subject of creativity is not lost on me. Copyright protection sprang forth from a plant in a government office...no wait, it was probably the idea of someone in business. I'm sure that the pharmaceutical industry had no influence on the length and protections for their patents...
ChewbaccaDefense
Member
 
Posts: 1,947
Joined: 05 Nov 2013 19:35
Location: Nevada City, CA

Re: Re:

15 Aug 2018 23:13

Scott SoCal wrote:
aphronesis wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:And the dipshit author thinks a solution is to crush creativity.

Smart. Real smart.

He's right about one thing; it's policy that's causing inequality. He's only confused as to which.


Oh the drama. “Crush”. Many argue that creativity would flourish if people had the time and means. You for example have no excuses for not being better politically educated.


Creativity flourished today. And it flourished yesterday. It will flourish tomorrow.

Not with you of course.


Dead old straight white, sexist, bigoted, rent seeking, self-serving “creativity”?

Probably not.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,631
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

15 Aug 2018 23:35

ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
ChewbaccaDefense wrote:
Show me another entity that produces currency and controls the amount of that currency in computers and pocket books, and I'll believe your point. Otherwise, you buy into the bulls**t that is spouted by economists whose job it is to affect the confidence in the system.

And the outside influences are determining who "deserves" to get what. Thanks for conceding my point.


Outside influences direct only to a point. Look at Trump. Which outside influences were causational in his hase? Wha, he spent half of what Hillary did and didn't have the FBI & DOJ in her pocket.

Tell me which outside influence is responsible for Zuckerberg or Elon Musk. Bill Gates. Michael Dell.

The Tim Cook's of the world will try and prevent entry of competitors through what you love - regulations. But good ideas normally find a way to the marketplace. And that is random as f*ck.


The irony of your later posts on the subject of creativity is not lost on me. Copyright protection sprang forth from a plant in a government office...no wait, it was probably the idea of someone in business. I'm sure that the pharmaceutical industry had no influence on the length and protections for their patents...


Copyright sprang forth in the 18th century. Well ahead of viagra.

You really are something. Imagine a society without incentive.

Image
Last edited by Scott SoCal on 16 Aug 2018 03:23, edited 1 time in total.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 11,640
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], movingtarget, the delgados and 10 guests

Back to top