IRS Data Shows: "The Rich" Pay Higher Rates

cawacko said:
Taichi, just to clarify are you claiming the companies that didn't pay taxes did so illegally or that they followed the laws and the current laws need changing?
Click to expand...

the laws, bought and paid for by lobbyist and ALEC, need to be changed. Also, the Attorney General's office needs to grow a pair and aggressively pursue those who are bending even the current laws that favor them.
 
cawacko said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And to date the amount of millionaires in the USA HAVE INCREASED....even under the Clinton tax rate!

Corporations and millionaires were NOT hurting on pre-Reagan tax rates. But 30 years of reagonomics (with a nice assist from Clinton) have devastated this country's economy....period.

You have to divorce yourself from this notion of "trickle down" economy....it doesn't work no matter how many times it's implemented or believed in.

The information I posted regarding those corporations who are NOT paying taxes shows how a monumental amount of revenue is being withheld from federal and state coffers....small wonder the country is in economic dire straits.

The S&L scandal and Enron should demonstrate to many that stock holders are NOT owners of a corporation. Wall St. plays games, and many learned that lesson the hard way.
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with trickle down economics. If we want to force all companies to pay the simply go to a flat tax. Otherwise we will continue on this current path where all members of Congress write in special tax breaks for companies in their districts or states (and companies that donate to them of course). Raising the corporate rate (which is already the second highest I believe, if not the highest) isn't going to bring in more revenue when companies are able to find legal ways around paying it.
Click to expand...

This has EVERYTHING to do with "trickle down" economics (aka "reaganomics), because the changing of the tax codes to favor corporations and the rich went hand and hand with it.

Also, a "flat tax" won't solve the problem, and here's why:

Bloomberg View: Why a Flat Tax Won’t Work; Making Swiss Accounts Less … Swiss
October 27, 2011

http://www.businessweek.com/magazin...aking-swiss-accounts-less-swiss-10272011.html

America needs to grow a pair (i.e., the Attorney General's office, the Executive Office) and put the kibosh on ALEC and the lobbyist run amok that are controlling our politicians. That way, you don't have "legal ways" around paying the fair share.
 
christiefan915 said:
Of course. I've never understood the "I got mine, screw you" mindset and I never will. What a way to live.
Click to expand...

And here's what I just don't get, Christie....guys like Taft have NO problem with "corporate welfare" or rich folk receiving Soc Sec THAT THEY DON'T NEED, or everyone else footing the bill for corporations to set up off shore business (with subsequent outsourcing to boot). But Taft will squeal like a pig at the very thought that some poor schmuck living in public housing will get to watch cable. Seems to me if things are so great on public assistance as Taft makes out, then he should sell his stock and get on it! :)
 
cawacko said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
So what? The point was that a stock holder is not an owner....and the tax dodging is hurting the country.
Click to expand...

You pointed out examples like Enron. There is always risk in buying stock.

And your point? The discussion is about the distortion of the subject title of this thread. Taft's idiotic claim that he's a partial "owner" of whatever company he buys stock in is just that....idiotic. Whether he loses money or not is irrelevant to his claim.

Now admittedly I haven't followed your conversation with Taft but if shareholders don't own a company (corporation) then who does? The fact that I buy one share of Apple obviously doesn't mean I can walk into their Cupertino headquarters and try to start calling the shots but it is the shareholders who own the firm.
Click to expand...

Really? Are ALL shareholders privy to ALL decisions made by the Board? Do ALL shareholders vote on all decisions? Because if that was indeed the case, you wouldn't have had the debacles of S&L, ENRON, JP Morgan or all the mess with Wall St. firms in the last 20 years.

Sorry, but you and Taft are deluding yourselves if you actually think you "own" anything other than your stock's worth.
 
Taft2016 said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
What this troll Taft doesn't realize is that the vast majority of buildings in NYC are wired for cable because otherwise reception is impossible given the surrounding architecture. As you pointed out, he has yet to prove that everyone on public assistance is watching cable TV (if they are hooked up at all).
Click to expand...

Well that's an absolute lie.

No reason to lie to a troll like you....you're arguments self destruct based on simple logic and easily researched facts.

I live to the east of those buildings and more than twice the distance from the Empire State Building transmitters as they do. And I get antenna reception fine.

Goody for you......others don't. I've worked in buildings just as far and they are equipped with cable antenna. It all depends on the angle, genius. Case in point, I worked for a guy living on 1st Avenue and 50th Street. Until the architects hooked up the cable, he used standard antenna....VERY few stations came in without heavy static or bad reception in general. And with switching to digital, that would mean NO reception at all.

All the buildings would have to do is attach the cable wiring to an antenna on the roof and presto, instant reception.

So stop making shit up.
Click to expand...

You have to have cable wiring in the first place, you idiot! And why would you have that unless your building is installing cable? And as apartment buildings have several floors with several apartments on each floor, how the hell do you think your solution is going to work without some illegal hook up?

Think it through before you type, Taft....makes you look less stupid.
 
Taichiliberal said:
This has EVERYTHING to do with "trickle down" economics (aka "reaganomics), because the changing of the tax codes to favor corporations and the rich went hand and hand with it.

Also, a "flat tax" won't solve the problem, and here's why:

Bloomberg View: Why a Flat Tax Won’t Work; Making Swiss Accounts Less … Swiss
October 27, 2011

http://www.businessweek.com/magazin...aking-swiss-accounts-less-swiss-10272011.html

America needs to grow a pair (i.e., the Attorney General's office, the Executive Office) and put the kibosh on ALEC and the lobbyist run amok that are controlling our politicians. That way, you don't have "legal ways" around paying the fair share.
Click to expand...

That article doesn't make sense. It claims you can't lower taxes on a corporation and get more money? You can if you eliminate deductions they take. You can raise the corporate tax to 90% but if there are all kinds of deductions you won't raise anymore money.

Those in Congress pass tax laws to benefit companies in their district and their state. It's why the tax code is 75,000 pages long. I'm not familiar with ALEC. And i'm not sure how you go after companies for following the tax laws even if you don't like them.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Really? Are ALL shareholders privy to ALL decisions made by the Board? Do ALL shareholders vote on all decisions? Because if that was indeed the case, you wouldn't have had the debacles of S&L, ENRON, JP Morgan or all the mess with Wall St. firms in the last 20 years.

Sorry, but you and Taft are deluding yourselves if you actually think you "own" anything other than your stock's worth.
Click to expand...

Actually yes as a shareholder you do get to vote. You're vote is worth the percentage of the stock you own. As I stated before if I own a share of Apple i'm under no illusion that 'I personally own the company' but the fact remains the shareholders are the owners of the company.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Really? Are ALL shareholders privy to ALL decisions made by the Board? Do ALL shareholders vote on all decisions? Because if that was indeed the case, you wouldn't have had the debacles of S&L, ENRON, JP Morgan or all the mess with Wall St. firms in the last 20 years.

Sorry, but you and Taft are deluding yourselves if you actually think you "own" anything other than your stock's worth.
Click to expand...

Shareholders vote on the board members. The board isn't going to call each individual shareholder every time it makes a decision asking for each shareholders approval. Just as the CEO isn't going to go to the board every time they decide to fire someone within the company. Ultimately that is who they report to though.
 
Taft2016 said:
Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
Taichi lives and works there too so he's not making shit up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he does.

The cable tv industry is only about 30 to 35 years old in NYC.

The public housing buildings went up in the post-war years up through the late 1960s.

That would mean the people lived without television for all of those years? No, not likely.

Like I said, I live twice as far from the ESB transmitters than they do, with more buildings in the way, and I use antenna television. They can get better reception than I can.
Click to expand...

Get up to speed, bunky:

A Brief History of Public Housing on the LES

http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/2...of-public-housing-on-the-lower-east-side.html


Once again, your supposition and conjecture is based on your willful ignorance of history and the facts...thus your conclusions are bogus.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And here's what I just don't get, Christie....guys like Taft have NO problem with "corporate welfare" or rich folk receiving Soc Sec THAT THEY DON'T NEED,
Click to expand...

... and you have no problem with not giving something to people that they paid for their entire lives.

If Warren Buffet paid into Social Security his whole life on the understand he'd get paid later in life, why shouldn't he collect?

What you're envisioning is a new welfare program for old people... and frankly, we have enough welfare programs.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And here's what I just don't get, Christie....guys like Taft have NO problem with "corporate welfare" or rich folk receiving Soc Sec THAT THEY DON'T NEED, or everyone else footing the bill for corporations to set up off shore business (with subsequent outsourcing to boot). But Taft will squeal like a pig at the very thought that some poor schmuck living in public housing will get to watch cable. Seems to me if things are so great on public assistance as Taft makes out, then he should sell his stock and get on it! :)
Click to expand...

Taft started his argument with the premise that he's getting screwed by the "greedy" needy. Then he tweaked the facts to fit his position. Standard bogus operating procedure for cons.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You have to have cable wiring in the first place, you idiot! And why would you have that unless your building is installing cable? And as apartment buildings have several floors with several apartments on each floor, how the hell do you think your solution is going to work without some illegal hook up?

Think it through before you type, Taft....makes you look less stupid.
Click to expand...

Lol, I was thinking the same thing when he said that about cable wiring. What a maroon.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You have to have cable wiring in the first place, you idiot! And why would you have that unless your building is installing cable? And as apartment buildings have several floors with several apartments on each floor, how the hell do you think your solution is going to work without some illegal hook up?

Think it through before you type, Taft....makes you look less stupid.
Click to expand...

Let me explain you moron. The public housing buildings in NYC are owned by the city. The rents are subsidized by the taxpayers of NYC.

The city allowed the cable tv wiring to be installed for the tenants, who, as you see, some of whom are paying $200 a month for.

What you moonbats seem to believe is that these are private apartment buildings. They're not. They're government owned buildings

Know what you're talking about you dipshit beforehand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top