World Politics

Page 297 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Hey Young Green I think we have meet before.;)

I am happy you changed your position based on my excellent use of the ad hominem. Honestly I owe you an apology because I should have added some smiles and winks. That post was made using a completely intolerant point of view. I should have explained further but I was to busy being a smart azzzzz.:)

Seriously I was just trying to stir something up and my post came across to personal and I apologize for that.
Way to suck up to the mods Glenn.;)
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Way to suck up to the mods Glenn.;)
this is the politics thread. he's not sucking up, he's lobbying for more favorable posting conditions for himself and his constituents.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Hey Young Green I think we have meet before.;)

I am happy you changed your position based on my excellent use of the ad hominem. Honestly I owe you an apology because I should have added some smiles and winks. That post was made using a completely intolerant point of view. I should have explained further but I was to busy being a smart azzzzz.:)

Seriously I was just trying to stir something up and my post came across to personal and I apologize for that.
apology accepted! You are setting a great example for civility :)
 
Jul 2, 2009
5,540
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Did you guys discuss the GE tax 'avoidance' scheme that was posted in the NYT recently? (see at G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether
redtreviso said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
GE is one of many companies who are avoiding their share of taxes. Zug Switzerland is the home to many USA companies who are sheltering their money.
Meh, I'll cite British judge Lord Clyde, who wrote this in a judgment in 1929:

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue."
 
Moondance said:
Meh, I'll cite British judge Lord Clyde, who wrote this in a judgment in 1929:

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue."
Though this presupposes the integrity, also, of the individual (rich) man.

The only difference is that, usually, the state functions in his interests, moral or other.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
0
0
Moondance said:
Meh, I'll cite British judge Lord Clyde, who wrote this in a judgment in 1929:

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue."
The problem, IMHO, isn't that they have ~100 tax lawyers to exploit the tax loopholes. The problem is that they pay politicians to create those tax loopholes in the first place.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
0
0
Somewhere else, voters have rejected for a second time to socialize losses of failed banks. First, a right wing government fell over this issue, now a left wing government is in trouble. Politicians of all colors selling out their country to international finance. Ironically, Iceland's credit rating might actually improve now that it does not want to accept this debt.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Cobblestones said:
Somewhere else, voters have rejected for a second time to socialize losses of failed banks. First, a right wing government fell over this issue, now a left wing government is in trouble. Politicians of all colors selling out their country to international finance. Ironically, Iceland's credit rating might actually improve now that it does not want to accept this debt.
Yeee Hawwww.............................................(from switzerland)

 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand."

-- House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R - Wis.)
-------------------------------------------------------

That's kind of like an NASA astronaut crediting Victoria Jackson for the inspiration to get involved in space travel.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever."
George Orwell
 
Cobblestones said:
The problem, IMHO, isn't that they have ~100 tax lawyers to exploit the tax loopholes. The problem is that they pay politicians to create those tax loopholes in the first place.
Very true. Excellent post.

Ayn Rand was 100% pro choice. She was an atheist. Not agnostic, not a diest, an atheist. She also was completely in favor of free speech, including flag burning. She also was ardently against a legislating the Pledge of Allegiance. On almost every social issue she agreed with the "liberals". But then again, she ripped into both the liberals and conservatives with fervor, claiming they were nothing but "rubber terms".

I wonder how Paul Ryan feels about that?
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Cobblestones said:
The problem, IMHO, isn't that they have ~100 tax lawyers to exploit the tax loopholes. The problem is that they pay politicians to create those tax loopholes in the first place.
Alpe d'Huez said:
Very true. Excellent post.
Actually the real problem is that these people would rather give their money to lawyers and politicians instead of providing their fair share of support to the country that is making them rich.
 
Apr 1, 2010
459
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'm just dying to hear either the conservatives, or an Obama supporter, explain this one under the guise of cutting corporate taxes creates jobs, taxes are killing American business, etc. What a cruel joke.
Hi Alpe. This is my first time posting in the thread but I think I can help you understand this. The simple answer is that G.E. has done what the US tax system is incentivizing American companies to do, It moved most of its business overseas. If business is done overseas, it gets taxed overseas and not here. Since tax rates are much more business friendly overseas, it "makes business sense" to do it. Lots of other companies are moving that direction as well.

Also, a huge part of GE's taxless year is that GE Capital tanked, causing big losses, which companies can use to offset income for taxes. These losses can be used over multiple years until they are gone, If you look at GE's financials for the last couple of years, (Page 148 of 2010 10-K for found at http://www.ge.com/investors/financial_reporting/index.html) you will see years with big losses. Those carry over into the good years.

To answer your question, if we lower taxes here, companies will keep business in America.

The one thing I don't understand is why people think Corporations of any kind pay taxes? All they do is shift the tax burden to the consumer. Higher taxes = Higher prices. I can explain in greater detail if you don't understand what I mean.

PS. I'm an accountant with experience in Corporate income tax. Oh and I'm a conservative too.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Rocksteady said:
Hi Alpe. This is my first time posting in the thread but I think I can help you understand this. The simple answer is that G.E. has done what the US tax system is incentivizing American companies to do, It moved most of its business overseas. If business is done overseas, it gets taxed overseas and not here. Since tax rates are much more business friendly overseas, it "makes business sense" to do it. Lots of other companies are moving that direction as well.

Also, a huge part of GE's taxless year is that GE Capital tanked, causing big losses, which companies can use to offset income for taxes. These losses can be used over multiple years until they are gone, If you look at GE's financials for the last couple of years, (I haven't but I'm pretty sure I'm right here) you will see years with big losses. Those carry over into the good years.

To answer your question, if we lower taxes here, companies will keep business in America.

The one thing I don't understand is why people think Corporations of any kind pay taxes? All they do is shift the tax burden to the consumer. Higher taxes = Higher prices. I can explain in greater detail if you don't understand what I mean.

PS. I'm an accountant with experience in Corporate income tax. Oh and I'm a conservative too.
no doubt.. did ayan rand change your life (whining voice)
 
Apr 1, 2010
459
0
0
redtreviso said:
no doubt.. did ayan rand change your life (whining voice)
I honestly don't know who that is. I believe that is a reference to the talk about Paul Ryan above. I think his bill has some serious flaws (not touching SS, defense spending, and lowering taxes) but its the biggest attempt to do something by congress in a while and I give him props for trying to do something.

Edit: Wikipedia is a wonderful thing for quick info on someone. I do agree with her premise that the gov't should be extremely limited.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Rocksteady said:
I honestly don't know who that is. I believe that is a reference to the talk about Paul Ryan above. I think his bill has some serious flaws (not touching SS, defense spending, and lowering taxes) but its the biggest attempt to do something by congress in a while and I give him props for trying to do something.

Edit: Wikipedia is a wonderful thing for quick info on someone. I do agree with her premise that the gov't should be extremely limited.
Faulty circular logic.. Corporations and business in general should not have to pay taxes because they just pass it down to the consumer..On the same note people should not complain about their taxes because their employer or their income is tax added. So better that no one pays taxes at all.. and the sun will rise in the west.
 
Apr 1, 2010
459
0
0
redtreviso said:
Faulty circular logic.. Corporations and business in general should not have to pay taxes because they just pass it down to the consumer..On the same note people should not complain about their taxes because their employer or their income is tax added. So better that no one pays taxes at all.. and the sun will rise in the west.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here (in bold).

And I do think keeping taxes for everyone to the absolute minimum while still providing the essential government service (military, legal system, international delegates) is exactly what we should do.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
0
0
Rocksteady said:
The one thing I don't understand is why people think Corporations of any kind pay taxes? All they do is shift the tax burden to the consumer. Higher taxes = Higher prices. I can explain in greater detail if you don't understand what I mean.
I am employee and therefore pay income tax, but I really don't understand why.

I should be able to found the 'Cobblestones live support company' based in Cayman Island. It provides (pre tax) per diem for the only employee (me), because I am always on travel (no I don't live in the Caymans). Also, me company should simply subcontract with my employer instead of having me as an employee. My company should never pay any taxes whatsoever. It also doesn't pay salary, because all the profits go into an investment+benefit+employee development package. It seems you're the right kind of accountant to help me set up this thing. Better, let's license the idea and sell it to the other ~100M employees in the US. Think, no one would ever need to pay any taxes whatsoever!!! What a bright future that would be!
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Rocksteady said:
I don't understand what you are trying to say here (in bold).

And I do think keeping taxes for everyone to the absolute minimum while still providing the essential government service (military, legal system, international delegates) is exactly what we should do.
For the working class schmuck that says business just passes their taxes on to their customer and therefore just shouldn't be taxed it could be said that they are paid X plus their tax burden..(yet they *itch)

Your republican party is trying everything to keep taxes at the absolute minimum but not for everyone just a few .I doubt your taxes are their concern or ever will be. But go ahead..The Walton family appreciates you.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
0
0
Rocksteady said:
The one thing I don't understand is why people think Corporations of any kind pay taxes? All they do is shift the tax burden to the consumer. Higher taxes = Higher prices. I can explain in greater detail if you don't understand what I mean.
This is probably the absolutely most ignorant post I have read in a long while (and I have read some tea party drivel in the past). It's actually scary, but also not really surprising that such a statement could be made by a conservative accountant.

Can you really not understand why corporations should pay taxes?

Do not corporations benefit from infrastructure, patent law, educated workforce, the legal system, military protections etc? Funny, because I have yet to see a single company headquarter being moved to Somalia.

Now you say that taxes will be pushed over to the consumer? Oh really? So you don't think it just eats into the profit? Funny because if you think your profit should be a guaranteed sum, and to achieve that, cost is simply shifted to the consumer, I really hope you're a monopolist. If not, competition will have sorted you out before you can say 'bailout'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
S Non-Cycling Discussions 12

ASK THE COMMUNITY