What should they pay.

NOVA said:
EXXON is the largest oil producer in the world, oil being the life blood of the United States and the world in general.
Employs 10's of thousands of people and is responsible, directly and indirectly, for 10's of billions of tax revenue generated.....

Your green card friends, contribute little to nothing in the grand scheme of things by comparison, and they are probably living better than they
could have ever dreamed of in their native country........and those are the cold hard facts of life.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your input, Mr. Romney.
 
NOVA said:
Without the Exxons of the world, there would be few workers engaging in free trade, middle class lifestyles....there would only be an over abundance of ditch diggers....Corporations make the world go round, put food on your table and pay for your kids education, plus being responsible for most of the innovations that make our lives better and healthier.......morons take all that for granted .....
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: The world was still going round under an agrarian economy.
 
I want to thank Jarod for starting this thread as it thoroughly highlights what is wrong with this country.

Jarod truly believed that Exxon pays $0 in taxes. Why does he believe that? Did he go to Exxons 10K which is publicly available to him at no charge? No. He was told that by Obama. Because he trusts Obama implicitly, and fails to do his own fact finding he doesn't know any better.

This type of willful ignorance forms his opinions and ultimately leads to his voting patterns.

This thread is a classic case of Jarod being a low information voter
 
NOVA said:
Without the Exxons of the world, there would be few workers engaging in free trade, middle class lifestyles....there would only be an over abundance of ditch diggers....Corporations make the world go round, put food on your table and pay for your kids education, plus being responsible for most of the innovations that make our lives better and healthier.......morons take all that for granted .....
Click to expand...

Exxon and other corps are an abstact. As such they don't actually do anything. The concrete are individual workers.

Without Exxon there would be some other corporation made up of workers and investors.

I am not making an argument against corporations. But the individuals that make them up are not any more or less special than other market participants.
 
Jarod said:
Plenty of very wealthy people pay less than $2000.
Click to expand...

depends on what you mean by "very wealthy"......are you talking about people who made $41k a year instead of $37k?...........maybe they have a credit requiring other tax payers to help them pay their babysitter.......maybe they have a credit allowing them to pay less because they have a mortgage on the house to pay for a cottage on the lake......
 
I Love America said:
You want to try that again?

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_pub_ir_finstmts2011.pdf

Look at F-15. Exxon paid $31 billion in income taxes for a net effective tax rate of 46%. Your dear friends paid an effective rate of 4.8%. Seems pretty damned progressive to me.

BTW, I didn't even look at all the other taxes they paid in 2011 which totalled over $100 billion

If you tax wealth, you are in effect taxing income. How does one accumulate wealth? One accumulates it through income. What is sad is that you have inadvertently stumbled upon the liberals love with the income tax. It is done precisely to keep people from accumulating wealth and becoming independent, thus needing to be dependent on the gobblement.

It will be interesting to see how you respond to your myth of Exxon paying $0 in taxes being shredded right before your eyes. Spin away my friend. Spin away.
Click to expand...

No, wealth and income are different concepts.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
Exxon and other corps are an abstact. As such they don't actually do anything. The concrete are individual workers.

Without Exxon there would be some other corporation made up of workers and investors.

I am not making an argument against corporations. But the individuals that make them up are not any more or less special than other market participants.
Click to expand...

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.....

Its just that corporations like Microsoft, Apple and Intel come to mind as opposed to Studebaker, Agere, Bethlehem Steel and some others....maybe some individuals or
groups of individuals are special....
 
Jarod said:
More estate tax, luxary tax, a fee on stock transactions, tax on bank holdings, tax on realestate holdings, tax on large money transfers, gift tax on large money transfer tax....

Sales tax on large luxary items, international airplane fairs, there are plenty of ways to work it.

None of it is fair, I simply think directly taxing the proceeds of hard work is one of the most unfair ways to do it.
Click to expand...

Well, now you are no longer strictly talking about a tax on wealth. Most of the taxes you are suggesting are a bad idea. Luxury taxes, for instance, only stop the rich from buying items that would distribute wealth.
 
I Love America said:
True, in the way that deficits and debt are different concepts. In general though you gain wealth through income.

I am sure being the lib prole that you are, you will want to split hairs


On a separate note, I don't expect Jarod to be back
Click to expand...

No. For an individual you gain wealth by income minus spending. For a business wealth or owners equity is increased by income minus distributions. Taxing them is different and will have very different results. For instance, income taxes have the effect of encouraging corporations to accumulate more wealth than may be healthy or needed as distributions are taxed twice. I would prefer to have wealth taxed to avoid the massive corporations which inevitably engage in rent seeking.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
No. For an individual you gain wealth by income minus spending. For a business wealth or owners equity is increased by income minus distributions. Taxing them is different and will have very different results. For instance, income taxes have the effect of encouraging corporations to accumulate more wealth than may be healthy or needed as distributions are taxed twice. I would prefer to have wealth taxed to avoid the massive corporations which inevitably engage in rent seeking.
Click to expand...

Not surprised you did what I though and split hairs.

I will agree with you on rent seeking. But, companies will do that regardless.

I personally support a sales tax. It is equitable and everyone pays
 
I Love America said:
Not surprised you did what I though and split hairs.

I will agree with you on rent seeking. But, companies will do that regardless.

I personally support a sales tax. It is equitable and everyone pays
Click to expand...

But it's not nearly as good for the economy as progressive income tax.

So I personally support the progressive income tax. It increases aggregate demand and accounts for inequality of circumstance.
 
You idiots have no idea. The vast majority of wealth in this country is obtained the old fashioned way... From your ancestors.
 
I Love America said:
True, in the way that deficits and debt are different concepts. In general though you gain wealth through income.

I am sure being the lib prole that you are, you will want to split hairs


On a separate note, I don't expect Jarod to be back
Click to expand...
y not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top