Massive CEO rewards for tax dodging

[Skybird]

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/executive_excess_2011_the_massive_ceo_rewards_for_ tax_dodging/


corporate tax dodging has gone so out of control that 25 major U.S. corporations last year paid their chief executives more than they paid Uncle Sam in federal income taxes.
(...)
We researched the 100 U.S. corporations that shelled out the most last year in CEO compensation. At 25 of these corporate giants, we found, the bill for chief executive compensation actually ran higher than the company's entire federal corporate income tax bill.

[vienna]

Add to this: a large number of those CEOs and other top executives "underpay" or avoid paying taxes on their income completely due to deferrals, hedge accounts, offshore accounts, the tax breaks generously awarded them by the Bush administration, etc. ...

The ability of these corpoartions and their executives to lobby for tax breaks is amazing; this has gone from "no taxation without representation" to "preferred representation with no taxation"...

[August]

Europe lies. Do not believe it.

[Skybird]

Europe lies. Do not believe it.
Source is not European, but American. ;)

And maybe you remember my link/post of maybe 2-3 months ago where a US senator listed on his website all numbers of US corporations that avoided tax payment alltogether, or minimised them to ridiculous marginality. that guy, I can assure you, was no European trojan horse, but a real US senator indeed.

[August]

Source is not European, but American. ;)

And maybe you remember my link/post of maybe 2-3 months ago where a US senator listed on his website all numbers of US corporations that avoided tax payment alltogether, or minimised them to ridiculous marginality. that guy, I can assure you, was no European trojan horse, but a real US senator indeed.

The thing is Sky these corporations are not dodging taxes like this very biased article implies. They are taking the deductions and exemptions allowed to them by law just like any of us would do, so to imply some wrongdoing on their part is, well, just wrong. I admit that I didn't read the link you're talking about but for a US Senator to badmouth people for just following the tax law that he and his fellow Congress critters wrote is pure hypocrisy.

As for how much CEO's are paid, again the article is biased and misleading. What a civilian company wants to pay it's employees, and that includes it's officers, is nobodies business except it's owners and shareholders. End of story. If we ever get to the point of the Federal government setting the pay scales for private citizens, like your article is basically advocating, that is the day it's time to follow Thomas Jeffersons "tree watering" advice.

[mookiemookie]

The thing is Sky these corporations are not dodging taxes like this very biased article implies. They are taking the deductions and exemptions allowed to them by law just like any of us would do, so to imply some wrongdoing on their part is, well, just wrong. I admit that I didn't read the link you're talking about but for a US Senator to badmouth people for just following the tax law that he and his fellow Congress critters wrote is pure hypocrisy..

It doesn't appear that you've read this link either, as it addresses your point.

Tax-dodging corporations argue they are breaking no laws. They are just, the argument goes, operating "under the rules that Congress has established." They are indeed. But massive corporate outlays for lobbying and campaign contributions shape those rules. The 25 firms highlighted in this study spent a combined total of more than $150 million on lobbying and campaign contributions last year.

All the companies highlighted in this report benefit enormously from their institutional presence in the United States. They utilize our taxpayer-funded infrastructure for transportation. They tap into government-sponsored research and subsidies for technological innovation. They expect the U.S. law enforcement and judicial systems to protect their intellectual and physical property. And they rely on the U.S. military to defend their assets abroad.

U.S. corporations also benefit from the public education of their workforces. In fact, 16 of the 25 CEOs included in this study received at least a portion of their post-secondary education in taxpayer-supported public universities. Yet these same corporations remain content to let others pay the bills.

That's what the argument is. The fact that corporations benefit from a taxpayer supported system without paying into it themselves is not fair. A corporation can be expected to use whatever profit-maximizing mechanisms they can. But the fact that they spend millions of dollars lobbying to keep their sweetheart deal going is indeed worthy of criticism.

The argument that CEOs can be paid whatever the shareholders want to pay them is fine and true, and it's also tired. What people are upset about is that these CEOs are taking advantage of worker productivity to enrich themselves and giving nothing back into the system in taxes that benefits everyone. I think it's a fair argument.

[Skybird]

Nice theory. But I have a different one. And that is that things are totally off balance, and that this is not by random fault, but by wanted intention by some who have the power to legalise system deformations that way that they benefit from from abusing it. And all others have to pay for them.

To me, a law has a certain intentions or purpose. Trying to work around it, to bypass it, and trying to find an exit door in the point above the "i", is the same like openly violating it.

We talk about politics and private business being in bed with each other . Which is the death of any democratic regime.

And we talk about criminal energy to avoid taxes, too.

Maybe you would do that too, like you imply in your answer when saying "we all would do". But still is a viollation of the spirit and intention of certain rules and laws, and still it is simply this: "wrong". Excusing it by refering to others, does not change this fundamental fact.

Such corporations often are just this: a closed club of bosses who think the company is just there to fill their pockets, and so they agree to act by a rule of "You fill my pockets and I'll fill yours." All persons outside their club, are just human capital waiting to be exploited. And the society, community, nation - is just a possibility to externalise all internal costs.

It's not clever to excuse such a system. It is organisid gang crime, and comes at the cost of the vast majority of ordinary people, and the desintegration of national and social structures. Not oinly is it immoral - it is antisocial, and corrosive to the basic cement of communities and societies.

And no, that can never be the decision for just a board of directors deciding over the payment of their own club members behind locked doors.

Edit: P.S.
I posted it before, and do it again, third time I think:
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=67562604-8280-4d56-8af4-a27f59d70de5


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. (Source: Exxon Mobil's 2009 shareholder report filed with the SEC here (http://sanders.senate.gov/graphics/exxon-sec.doc).)

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. (Source: Forbes.com here (http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_slide_8.html), ProPublica here (http://projects.propublica.org/tables/treasury-facilities-loans) and Treasury here (http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/briefing-room/reports/tarp-transactions/DocumentsTARPTransactions/3-25-11%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%203-24-11_INVESTMENT.pdf).)

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. (Source: Citizens for Tax Justice here (http://ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2011/03/ge_exposed_for_aggressive_tax.php) and The New York Times here (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=2&hp). Note: despite rumors to the contrary, the Times has stood by its story.)

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. (Source: See 2009 Chevron annual report here (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/drawFiling.asp?docKey=136-000095012310016846-0U8FHCM8L6JE4NU5JFAVUGUQBF&docFormat=HTM&formType=10-K#F54086E10VK_HTM_342). Note 15 on page FS-46 of this report shows a U.S. federal income tax liability of $128 million, but that it was able to defer $147 million for a U.S. federal income tax liability of $-19 million)

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. . (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, here (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/21) and Citizens for Tax Justice here (http://sanders.senate.gov/graphics/CTJ_testimony.pdf).)

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. (Source: the company's 2009 annual report, pg. 112, here (http://www.valero.com/InvestorRelations/FinancialReports_Filings_Statements/Documents/VEC%202009%20Form%2010-K%20FINAL.pdf).)

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. (Source: Bloomberg News here (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6bQVsZS2_18), ProPublica here (http://projects.propublica.org/tables/treasury-facilities-loans), Treasury Department here (http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/briefing-room/reports/tarp-transactions/DocumentsTARPTransactions/3-25-11%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%203-24-11_INVESTMENT.pdf).)

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. (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, here (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/21), ProPublica here (http://projects.propublica.org/tables/treasury-facilities-loans), Treasury Department here (http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/briefing-room/reports/tarp-transactions/DocumentsTARPTransactions/3-25-11%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%203-24-11_INVESTMENT.pdf).)

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2006 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. (Sources: Profits can be found here (http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-89.pdf). The deduction can be found on the company's 2010 SEC 10-K report to shareholders on 2009 finances, pg. 127, here (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=COP:US))

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.


I also remind of the now known fact that many banks and investment companies payed their bosses hilarious bonusses in the wake of the crash 2009 - with money that just had given to them from the tax payers tpo bail them out and help repairing the system. Billiions got sunk in pirvate pockets that way. Billions that the poublic had to come up for, and that were meant to repair the system for the benefit of all (whter that is reasonable or desirable, is something different) - not just some parasites at the top.

More obviously blood-sucking parasitism cannot be practised.

[vienna]

Amen to the above!!... :up:

[August]

Nice bit of disinformation there Sky. Corporate profits go to their shareholders who pay income tax. What you're arguing for is basically double taxation. Taxing the same profit twice.

Like I said. The Federal government has no right to regulate the pay of private citizens. You want to talk about the death of a democratic regime, there it is.

[gimpy117]

Nice bit of disinformation there Sky. Corporate profits go to their shareholders who pay income tax. What you're arguing for is basically double taxation. Taxing the same profit twice.

Like I said. The Federal government has no right to regulate the pay of private citizens. You want to talk about the death of a democratic regime, there it is.

the question is, how much of those "income taxes" are never paid because the super rich (who own a large chunk of stocks) are dodging taxes as much as they can too. In a perfect world, sure, all us little guys who pay what we are supposed to pay because we can't hide our boats in the virgin islands, or live in Monaco tax free for long enough not to pay us taxes, would give a lot of money back in taxes. The sad part is, with our tax system...that is not the case. Besides, If they are supposed to pay taxes they should. why pass off the bill on somebody else because corporations hate paying their share like they do giving their workers a decent wage?

now, in this climate of Cut, Cut, Cut, Cut, us the little guys keep getting asked for more and more, either through program cuts or tax hikes on subtle things, while The super rich get away with paying lower tax rates than many middle class brackets.

[Armistead]

Nice bit of disinformation there Sky. Corporate profits go to their shareholders who pay income tax. What you're arguing for is basically double taxation. Taxing the same profit twice.

Like I said. The Federal government has no right to regulate the pay of private citizens. You want to talk about the death of a democratic regime, there it is.

No, a large majority of profits are paid to CEO's, not shareholders and mass amounts of profit sit in overseas tax shelters. Just compare your average shareholders worth compared to the CEO's.

Capitalism doesn't equate you do what you want. We built the strongest middle class in history based on a high corp. tax rate, fair regulation and trade laws, thanks to Bush and others those no longer exist and now 10% control 80% of all wealth. It will be the ruin of this nation as we move into a two class society where rich CEO's have no loyalty to any nation in the global economy, but it will still eventually ruin them as well.

Most studies show another 20 MILLION US jobs will be either moved overseas or simply hired overseas in the next 10 years by US corporations if current trends continue.

I'm not even sure why we call them US corporations anymore.

[August]

the super rich (who own a large chunk of stocks) are dodging taxes as much as they can too.

Gimpy if you have proof of an individual evading their taxes then you should report it. Otherwise it's just more meaningless partisan rhetoric from you.

For instance you should quit equaling the taking of legal deductions with "dodging taxes". Apples and oranges.

Besides. The "chunk" of stock that the "super rich" own is not by any means the largest chunk. If you shake down these companies it will just be passed on to all of us in the form of higher prices and reduced dividends. Don't you realize that the retirement funds of millions of Americans in all economic classes are dependent on those corporate profits that you want to hijack?

You also seem to forget that you could pool the ENTIRE net worth of every one of the super rich and it wouldn't even come close to paying off the Federal deficit let alone the retirement funds of all those "little guys" you claim to want to turn our system on it's ear to help.

[gimpy117]

Gimpy if you have proof of an individual evading their taxes then you should report it. Otherwise it's just more meaningless partisan rhetoric from you.
so any argument is invalid i say unless I have detailed financial information on all of the top % of earners...how convenient for you...


For instance you should quit equaling the taking of legal deductions with "dodging taxes". Apples and oranges.

I'm not talking about legal things. I'm talking about sleazy tactics like hiding yachts in tax free zones, or putting your profits on overseas accounts to deliberately have no taxes on them. But I may add, a lot of the "legal" deductions have been put in place by the greasing of many palms by a swarm of lobbyists


Besides. The "chunk" of stock that the "super rich" own is not by any means the largest chunk. If you shake down these companies it will just be passed on to all of us in the form of higher prices and reduced dividends. Don't you realize that the retirement funds of millions of Americans in all economic classes are dependent on those corporate profits that you want to hijack?


http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4e47a728ecad041466000004/chart.png


You also seem to forget that you could pool the ENTIRE net worth of every one of the super rich and it wouldn't even come close to paying off the Federal deficit let alone the retirement funds of all those "little guys" you claim to want to turn our system on it's ear to help.

whoopty freaking dee! so this fact is supposed to make it okay to let these people live tax free and pampered, when everybody else is supposed to be tightening their belts due the the financial crisis that was caused largely by said group?

[August]

No, a large majority of profits are paid to CEO's, not shareholders and mass amounts of profit sit in overseas tax shelters. Just compare your average shareholders worth compared to the CEO's.

Personal worth means nothing toward making your point. How do you know he didn't inherit it? How do you know he didn't marry his money like my good Senator John Kerry?

Besides, show me the business big or small that doesn't pay it's employees more than it pays it's shareholders and i'll show you the business that can't afford the talent needed to survive.

As for overseas tax shelters like I just told Gimpy if you have any kind of real proof of someone breaking the law then you ought to report it or you're just spouting political hot air.

Capitalism doesn't equate you do what you want. We built the strongest middle class in history based on a high corp. tax rate, fair regulation and trade laws, thanks to Bush and others those no longer exist and now 10% control 80% of all wealth. It will be the ruin of this nation as we move into a two class society where rich CEO's have no loyalty to any nation in the global economy, but it will still eventually ruin them as well.Bull. We built the strongest middle class in history when we abolished the monarchy. In the 20th century the definition of middle class was artificially increased to include the factory workers and other lower class jobs. That has proven economically unsustainable not helped at all by the increasing fiscal demands of those lower class workers.

Most studies show another 20 MILLION US jobs will be either moved overseas or simply hired overseas in the next 10 years by US corporations if current trends continue.

I'm not even sure why we call them US corporations anymore.The loss of jobs overseas is a concern to me as well but until the worlds standard and cost of living evens out everywhere on earth the only way to stop it is by becoming economically isolationist. No matter how much you tax corporations you just can't compete with a person to whom the good life is a regular supply of rice and electricity most of the time. He'll outbid the American union member who thinks his assembly line job makes him "middle class" every time.

[August]

so any argument is invalid i say unless I have detailed financial information on all of the top % of earners...how convenient for you...

Every argument of yours is invalid as long as you continue to lay in the partisan rhetoric bed that you yourself have made. Sorry.

[Sailor Steve]

Oh, goody, we're doing pie charts! Of course that one is for the stock market, and of course most stocks are owned by the people who can afford to buy them. How about this one?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/MINT-TAXES-R4.jpg

[gimpy117]

yes, but you forget, that the top 1% also have a giant share of the nations wealth and income. by all that i can see, they're actual income and % paid is pretty in line.

[Sailor Steve]

I forget nothing. The question is how much should they pay before you're satisfied? All?

How about we tax everybody at 100%, and then you can just give us what you think we deserve? That seems to be where we're bound anyway.

[gimpy117]

Every argument of yours is invalid as long as you continue to lay in the partisan rhetoric bed that you yourself have made. Sorry.

you know you can be as partisan as I august.

I forget nothing. The question is how much should they pay before you're satisfied? All?

How about we tax everybody at 100%, and then you can just give us what you think we deserve? That seems to be where we're bound anyway.

and lets go straight to the ridiculousness and pouting. The sad part is, the Super rich aren't even taxed like they are supposed to be...and they still are taxed the lions share. Why is that? It's not a sign that we tax them to much, It's a sign of the giant amount more that actually make. that's something I think it terribly wrong here. We have eliminated the safety net that was the many holding most of the money. there is a reason in my eyes why our economy is in the same wealth spread as just before the great depression, and why we are in the great recession.

[Skybird]

August, in your country olike in mine and almost all Western countries, companies have to pay taxes. Working around these is criminal. It is njot double taxation, your logic is flawed there. Not values get taxated, but people profiting from them (that's why a piec eof land that has no owner does not produce any tax income for the state although it has a value). The company produces an income, and gets taxated for it. Employees get wages, and pay taxes on that wages. Shareholders getting an income from their shares, pay taxes on that income.

Gimpy, Steve, the issue here is not groups of tax payers and the share of taxes they pay, but individual offenders weaseling past their obligation to pay taxes. And especially when a big player not only pays hilariously low taxes of 1%, or none, but even gets tax returns from the IRS exceeding these payed or not-payed taxes, it should become evident what the problem is.

[August]

but individual offenders weaseling past their obligation to pay taxes. And especially when a big player not only pays hilariously low taxes of 1%, or none, but even gets tax returns from the IRS exceeding these payed or not-payed taxes, it should become evident what the problem is.

Skybird you have to realize that in our country we have these things called tax deductions. The cost of certain expenses, either in whole or partial, are by law allowed to be deducted from ones gross earnings before taxing the remainder. Mortgage interest is one of these deductions. Non-reimbursed medical expenses, other taxes paid (property tax for one), charitable donations and more are others.

I, hardly one of the super rich, was able to save 9K on my income taxes last year because of these deductible expenses.

So when these attack articles claim that corporations don't pay taxes they don't mention the millions of legitimate deductions involved to get that tax payment so low.

[Penguin]

Skybird you have to realize that in our country we have these things called tax deductions. The cost of certain expenses, either in whole or partial, are by law allowed to be deducted from ones gross earnings before taxing the remainder. Mortgage interest is one of these deductions. Non-reimbursed medical expenses, other taxes paid (property tax for one), charitable donations and more are others.

I, hardly one of the super rich, was able to save 9K on my income taxes last year because of these deductible expenses.

So when these attack articles claim that corporations don't pay taxes they don't mention the millions of legitimate deductions involved to get that tax payment so low.

Oh we have these deductions too, literally 1000s. Believe me, our tax system is even more complicated, a big mess.
And here lies the crux: You and me and every average taxpayer does the same as corporations: we try to find as many deductions as possible to reduce our financial load. While we are obliged to know all the tax laws - which is virtually impossible - we have not the resources to find and use them all.
The more financial or time resources you have, the more you are likely to find loopholes and use them for your advantage. The big corps have armies of specialists, who do nothing else. They find little flaws or loops, some of which even the legislature did not think when they adopted taxation laws. There lies the inequity.

The entities that profit from an environment that the taxpayer provides should be taxed directly. Indirect taxation - employee's taxes - should always be a second choice.
I also see a lack of political willingness to change that, to close loopholes or to make an understandable tax system with little till no exceptions.

[mookiemookie]

So when these attack articles claim that corporations don't pay taxes they don't mention the millions of legitimate deductions involved to get that tax payment so low.

Just because they're legal and legitimate doesn't mean they're ethical and the way things should be. Companies have lobbied long and hard to write the tax code to their benefit. The effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is one of the lowest in the world, we're facing humongous deficits due in no small part to unfunded tax cuts, and yet still the rallying cry of the Republican Party is to cut taxes.

[Skybird]

Some years ago there was a docu on TV where they calculated in black-on-white numbers that around one half of all globally existent literature on tax systems and laws - are just about the German tax system.

And you may want to ask the question why these systems are being tailored to be so complicated. Maybe it has something to do with the immense lobbying done?

Tax deductions are a favourite ways for companies to reduce their tax obligations. Thats why the big players invest enormous money into lpobbying for such deducation schemes, and for expanding them.

You see, when some crazy man would legalise car theft, it would mean nothing. Stealing a car still would be considered to be a crime by every reasonable person. And a law tryxing to legalise that crime - maybe is nothing more than a law that is criminal in itself.

That'S how I think about tax deductions when they allow things like in the earlier described things. And law-makers accepoting such laws, are either incompetent, or criminal and/or complices themselves. Since there are many politicians who have positioned themselves inside massive conflicts of interest becasue they also hold some seat in some director'S board or are CEO in some bank, this cannot surprise at all. Being an elected representative of the people and at the same time being a member of a board of directors, does not go well - especially when the person in question has own treasures at risk, and as a politicians has the option to design legislation to give them special protection.

Those holding powers shall not be allowed to exclude themselves from the consequences of the decisions they impose onto all others. Politics and private business should be kept separate. Lobby work shall be prohibited, should be seen as what it is: a form of corruption and a bypassing of the electorate, and should be put under penalty. All tax deductions should be banned, like all subsidies should be banned, too. - This just for a start.

[August]

Just because they're legal and legitimate doesn't mean they're ethical and the way things should be.

Really? How ethical would it be to deliberately minimize a shareholders dividend because you *feel* things aren't the way they should be?

Legal is legal. If you want to reduce or eliminate deductions then do it the right way and change the law. Don't think you can shame people into robbing Peter to pay Paul because that is unethical.

Companies have lobbied long and hard to write the tax code to their benefit. The effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is one of the lowest in the world, we're facing humongous deficits due in no small part to unfunded tax cuts, and yet still the rallying cry of the Republican Party is to cut taxes.

No, the humongous deficits are primarily caused by out of control government spending. We waste trillions on domestic boondoggles and giving it away to ungrateful foreigners.

In 1962 government spending, adjusted for inflation, was $3000 per person. By 2002 it was $7000 (http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-research/sahr/sumpercap.pdf). That is just crazy and you want us to pay more? No way. Not until you show you can spend our money wisely.

When the federal government learns to live within it's citizens means then, and only then, can we talk about raising taxes, but we both know if that ever happens we won't need to raise them.

[gimpy117]

No, the humongous deficits are primarily caused by out of control government spending. We waste trillions on domestic boondoggles and giving it away to ungrateful foreigners.


yes, but when you say "giving it away to foreigners" do you mean in bombs and bullets? before Iraq and Afghanistan we had a surplus. Then, we get into Overseas Boondoggles and spend even more than we ever could on things here like the bridge to nowhere. There is something to be said about domestic problems, but before 9/11 and the freedom fries era we were on the right track in my opinion.

[mookiemookie]

If you want to reduce or eliminate deductions then do it the right way and change the law. :damn: That's exactly what the argument is advocating. Stop strawmanning it into something it's not.



No, the humongous deficits are primarily caused by out of control government spending. Precisely. Spending on unfunded tax cuts, Medicare prescription drug plans and two wars, amongst other factors have caused the deficit. That's exactly what I said. Without those boondoggles as you call them, the deficit would be a fraction of what it is now. Cutting taxes even more in order to solve a problem that was caused in large part by cutting taxes is sheer lunacy.

[Catfish]

Interesting, i just do not get how someone can defend those companies behaving like a$$holes and giving nothing back to the nation who makes them and their earnings possible. Including the managers' own education which was paid by whom ?

Here in Germany stocks rise according to how much workers are being fired, and as long as that works there will be growing unemployment numbers. Statistics of unemployment in German are completely faked, they took out all under 20 (they are in education) and over 45 (they will not get a job anymore anyway). So unemployment really is a at real 28 %, instead of a lied 7.

And firing even good and valuable workers for rising stocks, it is of no concern how the company will look in 4 years, because as managers say "Boy do you think i'll be still here then ?"

A side effct of the growing fury among the less paid already leads to millionaires being willing to pay a lot more taxes just to shut them up and calm society. It just has become too obvious :-?

[August]

:damn: That's exactly what the argument is advocating. Stop strawmanning it into something it's not.

I am not strawmanning anything. If anything this entire argument is a huge strawman. Implying what these corporations are doing is illegal ("they claim" and "dodging"). Strawmanning the concept that we have any right to tell a private company how much to pay it's employees.


Spending on unfunded tax cuts

Oxymoron. There is no such thing as unfunded tax cuts. That's like saying "dry water" or "sunny night time". You don't spend money that you didn't get, unless apparently you are the Federal government.

Medicare prescription drug plans and two wars,

This on the other hand is spending, and along with the trillions the Democratic controlled Congress used to bail out the automakers in order to keep those union contributors from loosing their overpaid jobs, banks and other thieves has got us into this hole. Sniveling about someone not paying enough is besides the point.

Cutting taxes even more in order to solve a problem that was caused in large part by cutting taxes is sheer lunacy.

There you go again, implying that rescinding tax cuts would:

A. Make a bit of difference in the multi trillion dollar debt the Federal government has spent itself into and
B. Does not perpetuate the tax and spend bad habits that got us into trouble in the first place.

Well wrong on both counts. It is our money that you want to steal and it has to stop somewhere. If that means the mighty Federal behemoth has to wither on the vine then so be it. I'm done putting up with it and I will vote and agitate against any politician who even suggests a tax hike in any form.

[August]

giving nothing back to the nation who makes them and their earnings possible.


Giving nothing? These hated corporations are our largest donors to charity by far. What do you think is going to happen if our socialists are allowed to take away those charitable deductions?

[yubba]

I bet their isn't one soul in here that doesn't look for all the deductions that one can take in one's tax return. The government could take everything from everyone and still not be able to pay off the dept, the government got us into this mess, and there is no socalist commie way to get us out of it, the quickier everone figures this out the better, I for one don't think, anyone should be enslaved to this government, the more you raise taxes the more you enslave yourself. And If anybody gripes about oil companies making to much money, why don't you go out into your back yard and produce your own gas to put in your car, and in your home to keep the lights on. If you want more taxes on big oil fine, you'll be paying for it every time you go to the pump. Well puker up Obama is on vacaition at camp David this weekend.

[Catfish]

Hello,
@August since you claim your arguments to be true without ever backing it up, did you bother look at any one link all those people provided ?

@Yubba it was not the current governement alone that brought you into this mess, although it continued the politics that were already planned and intended during the Bush administration - including the dialogue with the islamic world, which was not an idea of Obama surprise surprise, but of Bush's presidential advisors.

Indeed the causes for the financial mess have been thoroughly listed here and in other threads, forums and newspapers worldwide time and time again (maybe NOT FOX NEWS), and it is almost entirely the war costs that would ruin any budget, always, everywhere.
If you criticize "the government" also consisting of conservative Bushs you automatically criticize the oil companies because they were one and the same. Problem is the plans did not work out, but whose fault is that ?

Gosh has anyone in the US still an overview of who did what, why and when ? Obama has to go, right. Bring back a Bush IIIrd, invade Iran and then wonder where the money went.

[August]

Hello,
@August since you claim your arguments to be true without ever backing it up, did you bother look at any one link all those people provided ?

Yes I did. Biased trash mostly.

Why do you Germans in particular always insist on telling us how to run our country? You have been doing it for years. Is yours run so much better that you can presume to pass judgement on us?

[mookiemookie]

Oxymoron. There is no such thing as unfunded tax cuts. That's like saying "dry water" or "sunny night time". You don't spend money that you didn't get, unless apparently you are the Federal government. Then the natural conclusion to your argument to cut taxes to zero, because none of that would ever be considered spending. If you're dealing with a situation where you're running a balanced budget or surplus, then cutting taxes to the point where it throws you into deficit is damn sure spending.


This on the other hand is spending, and along with the trillions the Democratic controlled Congress used to bail out the automakers in order to keep those union contributors from loosing their overpaid jobs, banks and other thieves has got us into this hole. Sniveling about someone not paying enough is besides the point.

Got it. You hate unions. You hate that middle class Americans enjoy a living wage in safe working environments at a reasonable number of working hours per week. You hate that they've banded together, bargaining collectively so that they might have a bit of leverage against the deep pockets of the corporations and their armies of lawyers.

Well wrong on both counts. You offer zero evidence of it. A return to the Clinton era tax rates solves most of the deficit over the next 4 years. It solves 40% of it over the next 20. You can see the numbers in black and white.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

Meanwhile, you offer no evidence of your position except "nuh uh!" or to immediately dismiss anything counter to your worldview as "biased trash." Of course you never point out the perceived flaws in the facts presented, but you just dismiss it with a wave of your hand as "biased trash." That's intellectually lazy and a sign of a closed mind. And that means is that the argument can never be advanced because you've decided you've won from the outset. Whatever. Done here. This is like pee-peeing in the wind.

[Sailor Steve]

Then the natural conclusion to your argument to cut taxes to zero, because none of that would ever be considered spending. If you're dealing with a situation where you're running a balanced budget or surplus, then cutting taxes to the point where it throws you into deficit is damn sure spending.
And the natural conclusion to your argument is to raise taxes to 100%. I made that observation back when Clinton crowed about balancing the budget. Both ideas are extreme, and extremes will kill us.

[August]

Got it. You hate... You hate......You hate

Yeah that's it mookie. If only i could see life through your rosy tinted glasses... :roll:

[August]

And the natural conclusion to your argument is to raise taxes to 100%


Well of course not on his middle class union floor sweepers and stockboys. Such things are only upon the evil rich.

[Diopos]

... Corporate profits go to their shareholders who pay income tax. What you're arguing for is basically double taxation.
...


So what happens when corporations don't pay dividends (in profitable years).

.

[Armistead]

Personal worth means nothing toward making your point. How do you know he didn't inherit it? How do you know he didn't marry his money like my good Senator John Kerry?

Besides, show me the business big or small that doesn't pay it's employees more than it pays it's shareholders and i'll show you the business that can't afford the talent needed to survive.

As for overseas tax shelters like I just told Gimpy if you have any kind of real proof of someone breaking the law then you ought to report it or you're just spouting political hot air.

Bull. We built the strongest middle class in history when we abolished the monarchy. In the 20th century the definition of middle class was artificially increased to include the factory workers and other lower class jobs. That has proven economically unsustainable not helped at all by the increasing fiscal demands of those lower class workers.

The loss of jobs overseas is a concern to me as well but until the worlds standard and cost of living evens out everywhere on earth the only way to stop it is by becoming economically isolationist. No matter how much you tax corporations you just can't compete with a person to whom the good life is a regular supply of rice and electricity most of the time. He'll outbid the American union member who thinks his assembly line job makes him "middle class" every time.

How silly, it's easy to know what they earned, bonuses, etc...that's reported, but I actually have no problem what they're paid.

Funny, the more lobbying allowed, the more tax shelters that have been given to US corps overseas. You call it fair because it's legal, no, it's bought and paid for. Because of these shelters US corps pay one of the lowest rates in the world.

Geesh, what country are you living in, we never abolished the monarchy, we started our own nation. Our strong middle class was developed in the late 1870's -1980's due to people fighting for fair tax codes, fighting monopolies, fair wages, etc...Many parts of the world were poor then, but our laws worked for Americans.

You hit it when you said the US will be force to go back to working wages and standards of 3rd world nations, because US law allows us to outsource jobs to lands with lil regulation or workers rights, no amount of tax cuts will bring back jobs, just more profits corps can invest creating more jobs overseas.. When americans are willing to take jobs for $2 per hour with no benefits or regulation, maybe they'll come back. Due to cost of living here it would never equal out. Why not go back to the regulations, trade laws and tax code that created a great middle class here. Seems we cut the tax code and we lost many more jobs, that's a fact.

The next generations of Americans will find themselves not a superpower, mass poverty, etc....why new nations build themselves as superpowers off the US corporation.

[Skybird]

Yes I did. Biased trash mostly.

Why do you Germans in particular always insist on telling us how to run our country? You have been doing it for years. Is yours run so much better that you can presume to pass judgement on us?
I knew you would play that card sooner or later. But leave the nationalism out here. The debt crisis in the US effects ALL tHE WORLD in consequences, like the debt crisis in Europe also does. You have no right to claim immunity from examination as long as this is so.

Not to mention that since decades your own government tries to lecture the rest of the world on how others should run their countries - and that means: similiar to the american model. ;)

Economy and finances and debt crisis are supranational issues today. The mutual ties and interdependent interactions are too intense nowadays. It was like that before they gave birth to the brainchild named "Globalisation", and it surely has not become less international since then. and the bhig capital travels around the globe in a 24 hour cycle all year long anyway. There is no such thing like national, patriotic big business anymore. At least not in the US or Europe. Big business' loyalty lies not in nations, but where the profit opportunity lies. Corporations are the only real cosmopolitans in this world.

[yubba]

Hello,

@Yubba it was not the current governement alone that brought you into this mess, although it continued the politics that were already planned and intended during the Bush administration - including the dialogue with the islamic world, which was not an idea of Obama surprise surprise, but of Bush's presidential advisors.

Indeed the causes for the financial mess have been thoroughly listed here and in other threads, forums and newspapers worldwide time and time again (maybe NOT FOX NEWS), and it is almost entirely the war costs that would ruin any budget, always, everywhere.
If you criticize "the government" also consisting of conservative Bushs you automatically criticize the oil companies because they were one and the same. Problem is the plans did not work out, but whose fault is that ?

Gosh has anyone in the US still an overview of who did what, why and when ? Obama has to go, right. Bring back a Bush IIIrd, invade Iran and then wonder where the money went.
I know blame Bush, Obama had his chance to turn this around but, he could not sway from his liberal agendia, more spending and taxaition, he liked Bushes policies, so much he doubled down on them, doubled the dept, doubled the involvement in the war terror, how many threaters of war are we in now? Unemployment wasn't at 9.1 % when Bush was in office, I can't say that I liked King George. Obama had 2 years with a democratic majority in the house and passed every thing he wanted and look where we are at now, 14 to 16 trillion dollars in debt when it was only 9 trillion when Bush was in office. You spent to much time in the past to see what is going in the present, and we are the one's to be blamed for voting these knotheads in to office.

[MH]

Well of course not on his middle class union floor sweepers and stockboys. Such things are only upon the evil rich.


Why don't you consider than American system went to much to extreme in its capitalistic way just as communism did the other way.
Maybe same regulation are needed to keep companies in check because well...capitalism is about opportunities and in every case that there is a way to screw the system or someone else someone will do it.
Maybe American system has outgrown itself.

I don't like unions as well.
They are OK when kept under control but given too much power turn to extortion syndicates where only the ones close to the plate benefit.

[August]

So what happens when corporations don't pay dividends (in profitable years).

Has that ever happened?

[MH]

'Aggressive tax planning is at odds with social responsibility'

Study: Big firms talk up corporate giving but scrimp on taxes.

By Ram Ozeri






The 25 leading companies on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange pay around NIS 3 billion less a year in taxes than they should be, according to the headline, or declared, corporate tax rate. That is one of the main findings of a study carried out by the Legal Clinic for Corporate Social Responsibility, part of the Academic Center of Law and Business (ACLB ) in Ramat Gan.
The researchers based their study on financial reports for 2006 to 2009 of the companies represented on the TASE TA-25 index. Many of the largest firms, their study shows, make big donations to the community in order to maintain their positive image. But when it comes to paying taxes, there is a big gap between their official tax brackets and the amounts actually paid.


The researchers will present their findings publicly for the first time today, at a conference held by ACLB in cooperation with the Jerusalem Center for Ethics. The center's director is Daniel Milo,
They are quick to note that many factors could explain this gap, including differences in tax rates from one year to the next and legitimate tax breaks granted by the state. But at least some of the differences, they say, are the result of aggressive tax planning.
The researchers also reviewed the corporate giving of these companies - the money they gave to their communities and in support of social responsibility. These numbers were considerable: Fifteen of the 25 companies on the TA-25 index reported combined annual donations of NIS 164 million to various corporate responsibility projects. Assuming that this sample was representative of the whole, they estimated the combined annual contributions of the 25 firms at NIS 274 million.
That puts the ratio of corporate community giving to the "tax expectation gap" - the difference between the headline tax rate for companies and the rate of tax they actually pay - at 1 to 11. For example, the Israel Corporation, which is controlled by the Ofer brothers, donated nearly NIS 100 million to the community from 2006-2009. On the other hand, according to the researchers' calculations (which were based on Israel Corp.'s own financial statements for the period ), the company paid NIS 1.74 billion less in taxes than its declared corporate tax rate would suggest it should have.
For this three-year period, the Israel Corp. reported profits of nearly NIS 11 billion, on which it paid NIS 1.3 billion, reflecting an effective tax rate of just 12%.
In response to the researchers' questions, the Israel Corp. noted that its tax flow payments were materially different from its total tax payments, but did not elaborate.
The researchers also noted that the list of subsidiaries of the Israel Corp. featured companies based in such locations as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Virgin Islands, Switzerland and Luxembourg.
Clueless Israel Corp. said in response: "The Israel Corp. pays taxes in accordance with the law. The company has no idea on what basis the people presenting these figures reached their conclusions, but it is obvious that the figures are in error and totally incorrect, and are misleading."
As to where the company pays taxes, Israel Corp. stated: "Subsidiaries and associates of the Israel Corp. operate throughout the world and pay their taxes according to law. In addition, it must be remembered that most of the group's activities take place abroad."
The picture is similar for Nochi Dankner's IDB group. For the 2006-2009 period it paid NIS 1.8 billion, or 19%, on reported pre-tax profits of NIS 9.4 billion, compared to NIS 2.6 billion according to its headline tax rate. The difference between those amounts was more than NIS 800 million, 16 times more than the IDB group's NIS 41 million in corporate contributions for the three-year period.
In its response, the IDB group also said it pays its taxes, and that there is no connection between its taxes "and the more than NIS 400 million the group has donated since 2006 to hundreds of projects in the Galilee and the Negev, in the areas of education, welfare, health, culture and sports."
At cross-purposes "The corporations' massive spending on aggressive tax planning is not congruent with their boasts of social responsibility," says Ronit Donyets-Kedar of the ACLB.
"Paying taxes is one of our obligations, as individuals and as corporations. There are very heavy arguments against a situation where corporations underwrite opening museums up to the public, on one hand, while on the other evading their moral responsibility to fully pay their taxes," Donyets-Kedar said.
According to Donyets-Kedar, corporate responsibility goes beyond the company's meeting of its legal obligations. Corporate responsibility also means you are a useful member of society.
Jerusalem Center for Ethics director Daniel Milo said companies must remember that tax planning is a murky area of tax law.
At the core of the study is the belief that meeting tax obligations fully is like a dividend paid by the corporation in exchange for the receipt of public services such as security, transportation infrastructure and the education of its employees.


************

[August]

Geesh, what country are you living in, we never abolished the monarchy, we started our own nation. Our strong middle class was developed in the late 1870's -1980's due to people fighting for fair tax codes, fighting monopolies, fair wages, etc...Many parts of the world were poor then, but our laws worked for Americans.I can do without the sarcasm Armistead. :shifty:

It seems like you and I have a different definitions of middle class.

To me middle class is a Small Business Owner, Engineer, Teacher, Architect, Doctor, Lawyer and other careers with similar degrees of education and professional qualifications.

What you and others here keep calling middle class are actually working class which in this country have been paid wages that approach those of the middle class.

[Catfish]

edit: *****deleted

Obama had his chance ? I can only see that republicans began to run amok as soon as he was elected into office. He is an islamist, he was not born in the US, block all he does, he is satan, whatever.
All major companies and organisations that somehow control or at least influence America were against him, only they did not have the majority in votes. Not to speak about the open hate that broke its way into the media and was watched with irritation worldwide. You know what to think about Fux news, but shots came from all sides USA.
He did NOT get the important things through. What he did was listening to those spin doctors telling him to continue Bush's war against terrorists, only using drones now and killing civilians as collateral damage.

1. He thought he could turn the rudder around, and idiot that he was expected America to understand and support him - "his dream".

2. The real important things he tried to get through the senate were blocked, just for the "fun" of blocking and destroying, being counter-constructive against anything democrate regardless what would be good for the nation. If Obama said he liked the american flag republicans would burn it.

3. The same presidential advisors that already advised Bush are in charge, big money. Along with the CIA it seems some never trusted him, Obama's fault was not to fire them instantly, but he obviously thought he needed their knowledge and thought it would be the best for the nation.

He did not get his own plan through, there is just too much resistance by the folks really in charge. However he did get some things through:
A lot of the eastern world has now also declared war to the terrorists coming from their very countries. Supporting Libya. Making an offer to the islamic world was one of the right things to do, even if thought out by the Bush administration. Unemployment in the US is falling, it already began a few months ago. As well changes need time to take effect.

I really don't know how the next president will look like, and how the nation as a whole will support him - or not.

In Germany with the middle class breaking away there will be a scissor-like development, lots of poor and a few real-rich. I do not think this is something to look forward to.

[MH]

Maybe he is just an a$$hole ? Or even worse, he's black.

Obama had his chance ? I can only see that republicans began to run amok as soon as he was elected into office. He is an islamist, he was not born in the US, block all he does, he is satan, whatever.
All major companies and organisations that somehow control or at least influence America were against him, only they did not have the majority in votes. Not to speak about the open hate that broke its way into the media and was watched with irritation worldwide. You know what to think about Fux news, but shots came from all sides USA.
He did NOT get the important things through. What he did was listening to those spin doctors telling him to continue Bush's war against terrorists, only using drones now and killing civilians as collateral damage.

1. He thought he could turn the rudder around, and idiot that he was expected America to understand and support him - "his dream".

2. The real important things he tried to get through the senate were blocked, just for the "fun" of blocking and destroying, being counter-constructive against anything democrate regardless what would be good for the nation. If Obama said he liked the american flag republicans would burn it.

3. The same presidential advisors that already advised Bush are in charge, big money. Along with the CIA it seems some never trusted him, Obama's fault was not to fire them instantly, but he obviously thought he needed their knowledge and thought it would be the best for the nation.

He did not get his own plan through, there is just too much resistance by the folks really in charge. However he did get some things through:
A lot of the eastern world has now also declared war to the terrorists coming from their very countries. Supporting Libya. Making an offer to the islamic world was one of the right things to do, even if thought out by the Bush administration. Unemployment in the US is falling, it already began a few months ago. As well changes need time to take effect.

I really don't know how the next president will look like, and how the nation as a whole will support him - or not.

In Germany with the middle class breaking away there will be a scissor-like development, lots of poor and a few real-rich. I do not think this is something to look forward to.


Wow..... and what this has to do with the issue here.
So you are mixing your ideological hate with rational discussion about taxes.

[August]

mixing your ideological hate with rational discussion

Yeah I know, it's been a common theme throughout this thread. :yep:

[Catfish]

My ideological hate ? Where ?

Millionaires dodge taxes alright, so you like what e.g. your bank managers did and do, while the middle class is going haywire ?
Is this ideological ? I think it is calling a spade a spade.
(Ah I see, must be Obama's fault again :O:)

But really, why this hate against Obama ? It even shines through here.


For what i read in the first four months of this year, an average of 180,000 jobs were created each month in the US. In 2011, that is.

This makes some 2.1 million jobs a year. Not soo bad. Then the Republican "Tea Party congress" (this is what it is) refused to honor the nation's debts without major spending cuts, with no new revenue.
When the sh!t hit the fan and this "debate" crashed right through the deadline, this job creation mentioned stopped.
The republicans being happy to have brought through all their ideas (almost a hundred percent of what they wanted) had passed their plan. Only when business began to absorb the new conditions and implications of said plan, the stock market crashed down some thousand points and there were no jobs created.
Fact is this plan failed, like it did before in those 8 years with Bush junior.

[August]

Obama had his chance ? I can only see that republicans began to run amok as soon as he was elected into office. He is an islamist, he was not born in the US, block all he does, he is satan, whatever.


Really? Like that was any more "amok" than "Bush = Hitler" and "Bush doesn't care about Black People" and "Bush Lied, People Died"?

The fact is the current Presidents party has controlled both houses of Congress for two whole years before they also captured the White House. The Republicans could not block anything. Your attempt at historical revisionism has failed.

[Catfish]

oops sorry,
seems i indeed mistook this thread for another - it's off topic here i admit. Will let the text stand however, if no moderator removes it (?)

Just to answer August

Really? Like that was any more "amok" than "Bush = Hitler" and "Bush doesn't care about Black People" and "Bush Lied, People Died"?

I never said that, but for what i heard and read I think there might be a very small minor little microscopic point of truth in there.
The republicans could not block anything ? What about the latest plan i mentioned ?
-> but maybe in another thread, as i said before: Sorry.

[Armistead]

I can do without the sarcasm Armistead. :shifty:

It seems like you and I have a different definitions of middle class.

To me middle class is a Small Business Owner, Engineer, Teacher, Architect, Doctor, Lawyer and other careers with similar degrees of education and professional qualifications.

What you and others here keep calling middle class are actually working class which in this country have been paid wages that approach those of the middle class.

Almost funny, you list positions of some of the highest paid, cept not sure teachers should be in there. Lawyers and Doctors middle class, I don't think so. The middle class has always been considered the working class, cept they use to have a decent livable wage.

Study how things have changed since the 70's, but it was Bush Sr and after that a systemic destruction of the middle class took effect. We simply allow US corps to operate at will in the world with no care that it's destroying our nation. Shame on all that regulation and tax code that built the greatest nation in the world.

Sure, corps say there is too much regulation, taxes too high so they will stay overseas, but that's because they can with all the new laws. When they were forced to work for America they operated and made great money, now it's about elitism, make enough money to control world politics.

[Diopos]

Has that ever happened?

Well, according to this (http://online.barrons.com/article/SB126481817546137663.html):


DIVIDENDS DO MATTER. THEY HAVE ACCOUNTED for more than 40% of the annual returns of the Standard & Poor's 500 since 1926, and more than 100% of the returns over the past 10 years -- the lost decade, during which the index declined.
Despite this, many financially strong companies don't pay a dividend. Among them: Apple (http://online.barrons.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=AAPL), Google (http://online.barrons.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=GOOG), Cisco Systems (http://online.barrons.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=csco), Amgen (http://online.barrons.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=AMGN), eBay (http://online.barrons.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=ebay), Dell (http://online.barrons.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=dell)and DirecTV (http://online.barrons.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=DTV). It's time for them to consider a change. Many simply are hoarding cash that properly belongs to shareholders.
Apple (ticker: AAPL) sits on almost $40 billion and has no debt. Google (GOOG) has $24.5 billion and no debt. Cisco (CSCO) has $25.1 billion of net cash.
...


.

[Catfish]

Was unnecessary, deleted it.
Thanks :salute:

[Sailor Steve]

Oh, no.

Thank you. :sunny:

[gimpy117]

Really? Like that was any more "amok" than "Bush = Hitler" and "Bush doesn't care about Black People" and "Bush Lied, People Died"?


still doesn't make up for the Uncivilized way the GOP has been acting in government. and, I don't think the issue being discussed is private citizens' feelings on obama. To me, It feels as if there is a concerted effort to hinder the president, no matter what the cost to the people of this nation, and it's something that I Have never seen before. And I think that's what is giving us the feeling that the GOP hates obama.

I might add though, It wasn't obama who lied to get us into Iraq. It's been pretty obvious since the start Iraq was trumped up. Also, although accusations of racism are unfair...bush, his cabinet, and government, really did play a role a large role in the botching of the Katrina aftermath. Heck, Dick Cheney even diverted crews so they could power the oil pipeline, rather then restore power to the hospital.

[Blood_splat]

Remember they won't be able to create jobs in Malaysia if they have to pay taxes.

[CaptainHaplo]

To return to the original topic.....

Readers of this thread will see a lot about corporations taking legal deductions, and how this is still "wrong" in some way because they pay for lobbists to get tax codes from congress that allows this.

Note that this makes the corporations "evil","unethical", etc.

However - what does this make Congress? Should Congress not be standing firm and fixing this?

Now lets be fair here. Republicans want to "protect" business - ok fine. So with that argument its fair to say that in 2010, the change in congress would effectively halt tax reform. Lets pretend this is true (since some would debate it). Why then, in the 2 years when the legislature and the executive were controlled by the left, was there no serious tax reform proposed?

Neither "old school" party wants real change. Raising taxes won't eliminate the loopholes, so the left can still claim that corporations are "shady" while following the law. The right wants to lessen the burden, but not clear away the muck to make it more transparent.

Calls for a flat tax, corporate and personal - yet neither of the "power players" on EITHER side are willing to support such a thing. Both sides talk about how "its not fair", yet neither side works to resolve that.

Want fair - then tax equally. Exempt those items necessary for life. Food, clothing, housing, electrical and water. Everything else should be taxed. Millionaires don't become millionaires by pinching pennies. They make their money work. When the share is equal - both sides lose their greatest weapon, the ability to point to the other side and claim its all their fault.....

[Skybird]

I repeat it: politics and private business are in bed with each other. Politics and it'S representatives are not indepedently acting and deciding from private business, often people hold a poltical mandate and a seat in an director'S board at the same time, and also: plenty of golden handshakes are being done every day, the wanted legislation get'S payed for by those who can afford it.

Do not blame corrupted congress, Haplo. A corrupted congress acts simply natural: corrupt, and in the own interest (career, power) of those representing it.

Do blame the stupid people voting for such congresses, and parties: and this I aim at Americans, but also at Europeans.

Stop voting for this sick, selfish breed. Stop legitimising the fundament on which they stand, and rule from. No matter what party you vote for: you give a much more fundamental legitimation by doing so: by playing by their rules and voting for any of them, you legitimise the very system itself, no matter which party you vote for. And while you think your voice counts, certain people invest much money into corruption to make their voice count many times more than yours.

You all get sold and betrayed - and still you say thank-you every four years, and sign a mandate for them to carry on like this. And then you are surprised that things never change!?!? You need to get rid of both the actors - AND the very system that forms themn, grows and breeds them, allows them to hide in, and is the ever-present background against which they erect their shining careers and stacks of power and influence - that has never been legitimised and voted for by any voter, but gets hidden from said voter.

It'S all show, and it is as much democratic as in "German Democratic Republic". We do not live in "de,moicracies". We live in something like meta-corruption: corruption that has secured itself so much power that it now has the power to even legitimise itself by changing the rules that before it had to violate (which made the act of corruption actually "corrupt"). And thgat way, corruptiuon becomes the new principle of order and legitimacy.

Meanwhile this has become one of my most favourite movie quotes:

"This is how liberty dies - with thundering applaus."

[Catfish]

"Democracy is the illusion, that my wife and I, have the double influence on elections, than Mr. Rockefeller."

"If elections changed anything, they would be forbidden."


I agree though that what we have is only a democracy people had in mind around 1900, before big business took over and lay in bed with the media like Rupert Mudochs's Fox "news". At that time no one imagined that political acting and thinking would corrode in such a way that the business changed from taking influence to taking over.

I guess the real problem is to give certain people power, instead of organisations as a whole. Single people with enough power and money and controlling the media can do virtually everything, Mr. Berlusconi is only one shining example.
B.t.w. what about Ghaddafi as the next italian "president" (sic) ? He even has better-looking bodyguards.

[NeonSamurai]

I've always thought the 2 party system the US, has is the perfect setup for controlling the populace. Look at how absolutely divided the two sides are, the endless amounts of rhetoric and nonsense that comes from both groups, pulling the strings of the devout (I mean the politically devout). Politics is religion in so many ways (unfortunately all the negative ways), where the believers become indoctrinated and blind to all else.

I have never personally believed that Capitalism is the answer, any more then I believed that Communism or Socialism is. I believe more in a hybrid solution which takes the best aspects of both. I strongly think that corporations must be socially responsible entities, both in the local and global sense, rather than destructive, pathological entities. I don't think anyone deserves to be very rich, no matter what they do. I think education levels and what you contribute to society should be the determining factor of what you earn, not your ability to exploit. I also do not believe in a free ride for anyone (though I do believe in helping those who need it back to their feet).

Unfortunately, I also believe the chances of any of that actually happening, are about nil.

[Hottentot]

Politics is religion in so many ways (unfortunately all the negative ways), where the believers become indoctrinated and blind to all else.

Aye. To paraphrase the idea often repeated in literature: "We become who we are by knowing whom we oppose."

Politics is perfect ground for us versus them mentality. You already have a group of people thinking certain way and having an opponent, so you only need to join the group to become somebody. They will even readily give you a list of slurs that you can use to refer to the other group.

But anything can become a religion when you find enough people believing in it. I've seen this too many times and I'm sure so have the others. Football is better than basketball (though we all should love "sports"), dogs are better than cats (though we all should love "animals"), pizza is better than hamburger (though we all should love "food").

Some people just seem to need enemies to feel safe.

[gimpy117]

Stop voting for this sick, selfish breed. Stop legitimising the fundament on which they stand, and rule from.

If it were all that simple. What I think we need is lobbying reform. I wan't to abolish monetary gifts of any form. If it has any value, It should not be given to a congressman. See the problem is, These companies corrupt even the good ones, we all have a price. I suppose maybe one day, we'll find a "white knight" a sort of "Elliot Ness" of the political world....but I feel like no matter what, when they get elected eventually lobbyists will descend.

[Platapus]

Some people just seem to need enemies to feel safe.

Two concepts prove most useful for uniting people - fear and hatred.

Politics use both. :yep: