Dems Call for the ending of tax breaks to the "Big Five"
 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/201...e-deficit.html

I appluad this decision. Why are we habding money to these companies who clearly don't need any more help, and who have not shown any progress to keeping prices down for the american consumer?

Link Fixed. Sorry guys

NO Corporation pays any tax at all, the consumer of the products pays ALL the tax. When you buy a Big Mac you are paying the corporate taxes.
When you buy anything YOU are paying the tax. It's really very simple.

I had my own small business for 18 years and my costumers payed all my taxes. The more I was taxed the higher was the cost to my costumers.
All my competitors also payed the higher taxes so we were even.

With international corps the competitors may not have to pay the same taxes, so they lose business to foreign competition. Lost business equals lost jobs.

The very same thing applies to minimum wages talked about in another thread. The higher the wage the greater the cost of your product, till you price yourself out of the international market.

Believe me I did not make any decisions on hiring, wages or equipment that I didn't consider the tax consequences.
If I could not justify the expense I didn't hire anyone and you don't have a job at any wage. The higher the taxes the harder it is to put someone on.
Every time I turned around I had a new tax bill from somebody on my desk.
You have no idea at all about what it takes to run a business big or small.
There were many a time when I could have expanded my business but I didn't because of all the hassles government puts in your way.
Somebody lost a job pure and simple.

The bigger the company the tighter they look at these things. Nobody runs a business to give you a job, Unless they make money off your labor you will not be working for them.

Repeating my self here but it is very simple. You pay the taxes period.

By the way your link turned a blank page for me so I couldn't respond to that subject directly.

Magic

For some reason the link keeps coming up as a blank page, so I can't comment directly. I will comment on a statement of yours though:
While with all the information I might actually agree that perhaps certain corporations need to be watched, you're falling into your old fallacy. A tax break is not handing money to anyone. It's taking less of their money, which is not the same thing. The purpose of taxation is not to punish anyone, or to help anyone. The sole purpose of taxation is that governments by their nature cannot generate revenues. Taxes are necessary for the government to run, and using them for anything else is political and moral engineering.

More politcal grandstanding. :hmmm:

How could you come to that conclusion?:haha: So they just need to pay a little more tribute to the bamster (like GE) then you pay no taxes.

Yes, but its taking less of their money than other companies. Why do they get to skate by in these hard times? why are they given tax breaks when other big companies are not? especially when their businesses are booming?

ps. Link fixed

My thought is that the government shouldn't be taking any money from anyone, period. Of course I've mentioned before that the government doesn't exist if it can't get money from somewhere, so taxes become a necessary evil.

But these guys are talking (at least on the surface) about subsidies, not tax breaks, and I agree. The government shouldn't be spending our money to subsidize major corporations. Nor should they be subsidizing farmers at the same time food crops are dying due to lack of distribution, and farmers are being paid to not grow certain crops.

Political grandstanding? I think so too, but we'll see.

You missed the point gimpy.

CORPORATIONS DO NOT PAY ANY TAXES AT ALL.

You pay the taxes every time you fill up your tank.
If they pay more taxes you will pay more at the pump. It's that simple.
If you think that they will generosity pay the tax out of their profits you have a rude awaking coming.

The bill would "eliminating the domestic manufacturing tax deduction"
Sounds like that is not the right thing to do, we need more domestic oil production. One of the objectives of tax policy is to encourage certain behavior. Encouraging domestic oil production seems like a very good thing indeed.

Sounds like a Nancy Pelosi smoke screen to me.

Magic

U.S. government needs two things:
1. more tax or other revenues
2. lower operating costs

Ms. McCaskill said that unless U.S. government can do this particular thing nobody will take your deficit reduction efforts seriously. Well who at the moment really takes your government seriously in deficit reduction?

There have been a lot talk in this issue but zero progress. I would really like to see something happening before this is in situation where investors are no longer willing to loan more money.

Mark this one in the calender, gimpy, as I agree with you and the Team D on this. At one point these tax subsidies were necessary, but with record prices comes record profits, and oil companies should pay their fair share.

Indeed, as someone said, corporations do NOT pay taxes - consumers do. On the other hand, in this particular situation if the oil companies attempted to recoup the reduction in record profits through passing the cost on to the consumer, they would be guilty of gouging. Capitalism is a balance.

However, that all being said I do believe that the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot with energy policy. This would be an excellent bill if it also aimed to increase domestic energy production. It just blows my mind how the party that supposedly sides with the poor won't allow for us to drill and refine our own energy supply when the poor are the people MOST affected.

In any case though, just because you can't get 100% of the policy you think is good on the books, the 50% you CAN get is not necessarily bad.

but the thing is, how will domestic energy production help unless wall street reduces it's prices on the commodities market? We can make all the crude we want here, and unless the price per barrel of oil goes down on th market we'll just have a lot more gas priced over $4.00 a gallon. Team R keeps saying drill baby drill, saying it will lower prices, and while thats a ice thought it's not that simple, especially was oil prices ignore supply and demand.

but yes Armike, the subsidies are totally unnecessary in todays market.

Big oil companies are the biggest crooks on the planet, they have very high dollar accountants to see that they can pass this tax increase on to the consumer. It may take a year or two but rest assured you will be paying the tax.

Magic

Domestic drilling doesn't have to lower prices to still be a good idea. Reducing or eliminating our dependency on foreign oil used to be an objective in itself.

A lot more gas will help keep prices down a little but at least some of the money will stay here instead of going to foreign interest. Some of them don't like us very much.

Oil does follow supply and demand as the recent big drop in price during the recession proves. 2007 or 08 oil was well above $130.00 a barrel. During the recession it went to well below $100.00
Gas was above $4.50 and dropped to about $3.00

Two Billion dollars/year deduction divided by five oil co. will not amount to a hill of beans. They only pay a small percentage of that in taxes.
It's a deduction not a credit.
This whole thing is a feel good sham.

Magic

I thought that was due to people getting out of the market :hmmm: