You pay, but the rich don't!

putsometrebleinit said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
ONLY if you're one of the top shareholders/investors....otherwise, the Joe Schmoe's of the investment world sure as hell won't be able to afford the fees to hide their loot offshore.
Click to expand...
Great mindset. You stick to that logic and I'll stick to my investments and I'll guarantee this Joe Schmoe will come out ahead
Click to expand...

"Mindset" has nothing to do with it, my friend. I'm talking cold, hard FACTS! YOU CANNOT AFFORD THE FEES NECESSARY TO HIDE YOUR INCOME IN AN OFFSHORE ACCOUNT. PERIOD. THEREFORE, YOU PAY MORE IN TAXES THAN WEALTHY FOLK AND THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER PAYS MORE THAN LARGE CORPORATIONS PROPORTIONATELY. Deal with it.
 
Truth Detector said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You're about as stupid as the Post Modern Fool...which is why he's on IA.

Think, you simpleton, THINK! If an a American based company starts a subsidiary in a foreign nation, and derives profit from that, then that is REVENUE...and revenue is a taxable item on your tax return.

The opening post stands....TFB if the truth hurts your ideology, but then no one said life was easy.
Click to expand...


Dear leftist twit; you telling others to think while erupting with such inane stupidity suggests a profound irony.

If an American company starts a subsidiary in a foreign country, the PROFITS derived from that subsidiary are taxed in that country you moron.

Revenue is not taxable income you dumbass; the profit after expenses is.

This is why arguing with low information arrogant twits is such a waste of time; you haven't the first clue of what it is you are erupting about. It's best just to point at idiots like you and laugh.
Click to expand...

If it weren't so pathetic, it would be fascinating to examine how you IGNORE FACTS in the real world in favor of your own personal revisionist take.

No one said they didn't pay local taxes, I'm talking about the PROFIT the HOME CENTRAL company derives from their foreign branch!

Here stupid, learn something:

Apple’s Move Keeps Profit Out of Reach of Taxes


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/b...ove-profit-to-avoid-taxes.html?pagewanted=all


More U.S. Profits Parked Abroad, Saving on Taxes

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324034804578348131432634740

Oh, and I stand corrected on one point:

Revenue and profit are often used synonymously, but they mean quite different things in a general business sense and from an accounting perspective. Revenue, or sales, is the money brought into the company through sales of products and services. Profit is actual earnings after you subtract expenses from revenue.

http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/revenue-vs-profit-1647.html

But my original post stands valid.
 
Truth Detector said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
A clarification...which supports my original post:


We’re not going to weigh in on Warren’s larger point about whether corporations like GE aren’t paying their fair share. That’s up to voters to decide. Again, the company has clearly been aggressive in reducing its tax burden through various tax credits and deductions created by the federal government (one example is clean energy incentives). It also has been creative in moving a good deal of its profits offshore. But Warren overreached with her claim that GE pays “zero” in taxes. The company does pay payroll taxes and local and state taxes. And GE says it also pays federal income taxes. How much? We don’t know, and GE isn’t saying. Nor is it required to.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/war...pays-no-taxes/

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...s-and-creates/
Click to expand...


Factcheck is a less than credible source tha attempts to spin the stupidity that erupts from Liberals.

Yes, you really are THAT fucking clueless.
Click to expand...

Translation: this dimbulb cannot refute or disprove the content of the links, so he just shoves his head further up Limbaugh's ass and babbles rhetoric.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Not really:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/business/flat-tax-doesnt-solve-inequality-problem.html
Click to expand...


Well if you want corporations to pay their 'fair share' that's how you're going to get it. Raising the corporate rate isn't going to change anything because they'll just be more deductions. Politicians want the opportunity to support companies in their district/state and one's they support ideologically and they do this through selective tax breaks. Take that away from them. Tell corporations this is what you will pay, no deductions.
 
Taichiliberal said:
The first 3 words in your sentence says it all.

There is NOTHING to think about....the FACTS are there and irrefutable.

I do wish folk like you would stop carrying the water for the wealthy, who do NOT want YOU at their private beaches, clubs, communities, etc., but sure as hell want YOU to foot the bill for the use of the commons and infrastructure (i.e., highways, water)
Click to expand...

I laugh in your face at the pity of liberal economic ignorance.
I am the rich you hate.
My tax break is larger than your salary.
Stuff your hatred.
Hater
 
Taichiliberal said:
If it weren't so pathetic, it would be fascinating to examine how you IGNORE FACTS in the real world in favor of your own personal revisionist take.

No one said they didn't pay local taxes, I'm talking about the PROFIT the HOME CENTRAL company derives from their foreign branch!

Here stupid, learn something:

Apple’s Move Keeps Profit Out of Reach of Taxes


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/b...ove-profit-to-avoid-taxes.html?pagewanted=all


More U.S. Profits Parked Abroad, Saving on Taxes

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324034804578348131432634740

Oh, and I stand corrected on one point:

Revenue and profit are often used synonymously, but they mean quite different things in a general business sense and from an accounting perspective. Revenue, or sales, is the money brought into the company through sales of products and services. Profit is actual earnings after you subtract expenses from revenue.

http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/revenue-vs-profit-1647.html

But my original post stands valid.
Click to expand...

Well you were massively wrong on a basic economic tenant.
No wonder you don't grasp the complex.
Ignorance Is bliss
You blissful poor person
 
Taichiliberal said:
"Mindset" has nothing to do with it, my friend. I'm talking cold, hard FACTS! YOU CANNOT AFFORD THE FEES NECESSARY TO HIDE YOUR INCOME IN AN OFFSHORE ACCOUNT. PERIOD. THEREFORE, YOU PAY MORE IN TAXES THAN WEALTHY FOLK AND THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER PAYS MORE THAN LARGE CORPORATIONS PROPORTIONATELY. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
Oh no Libby's using all caps now.
 
cawacko said:
Well if you want corporations to pay their 'fair share' that's how you're going to get it. Raising the corporate rate isn't going to change anything because they'll just be more deductions. Politicians want the opportunity to support companies in their district/state and one's they support ideologically and they do this through selective tax breaks. Take that away from them. Tell corporations this is what you will pay, no deductions.
Click to expand...

just for fun lets say it is possible to have corporations pay more taxes. where will those dollars come from ? higher prices of course. so all you do is push add burden to the individual tax payers on top of what they already pay as there is zero chance of their taxes declining. and if you are one to fret over the poor, it impacts them the most having this sort of inflation.
 
Celticguy said:
just for fun lets say it is possible to have corporations pay more taxes. where will those dollars come from ? higher prices of course. so all you do is push add burden to the individual tax payers on top of what they already pay as there is zero chance of their taxes declining. and if you are one to fret over the poor, it impacts them the most having this sort of inflation.
Click to expand...

It has always made me wonder why people assume that the corps will eat the costs of higher taxes, an increased minimum wage, etc, when the individual is the one who always ends up paying for the increased prices of fuel, fluctuations in the costs of production and others.
 
putsometrebleinit said:
It has always made me wonder why people assume that the corps will eat the costs of higher taxes, an increased minimum wage, etc, when the individual is the one who always ends up paying for the increased prices of fuel, fluctuations in the costs of production and others.
Click to expand...

really. they also dont see how this sort of thing would impact their 401k etc. they want what they want because theory is all they will consider and they dont realize how flawed the theory is.
 
Taichiliberal said:
If it weren't so pathetic, it would be fascinating to examine how you IGNORE FACTS in the real world in favor of your own personal revisionist take.

No one said they didn't pay local taxes, I'm talking about the PROFIT the HOME CENTRAL company derives from their foreign branch!

Here stupid, learn something:

Apple’s Move Keeps Profit Out of Reach of Taxes


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/b...ove-profit-to-avoid-taxes.html?pagewanted=all


More U.S. Profits Parked Abroad, Saving on Taxes

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324034804578348131432634740

Oh, and I stand corrected on one point:

Revenue and profit are often used synonymously, but they mean quite different things in a general business sense and from an accounting perspective. Revenue, or sales, is the money brought into the company through sales of products and services. Profit is actual earnings after you subtract expenses from revenue.

http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/revenue-vs-profit-1647.html

But my original post stands valid.
Click to expand...

Again, you're a clueless leftist twit that doesn't know the difference between revenue and profit and can't comprehend the sources you quote.

Any debate about excess Corporate profits is based on ignorance in that corporations do not "pay" taxes. ALL tax costs are passed on to their "customers"; you and me.

The reality is that forcing corporations to pay MORE in taxes is actually a tax increase for EVERYONE. It would be better policy to not require corporations to pay ANY taxes at all. This would increase investment, which would create jobs, which would create MORE taxpayers resulting in MORE revenue.

Then all gains by shareholders and dividends distributed could be taxed at the taxpayers personal rate eliminating double taxation and lowering the costs of goods and services.

But alas, I am debating a clueless dunce stuck on Leftist talking points.

This ignorance based issue with corporate taxation is about as moronic as the income inequality canard. When has income ever been equal in the history of the world? NEVER!
 
Taichiliberal said:
Translation: this dimbulb cannot refute or disprove the content of the links, so he just shoves his head further up Limbaugh's ass and babbles rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Translation; this clueless leftist twit is stuck on lefttard talking points ignoring facts, reality or the truth.
 
Again; the premise of any topic debating corporate tax rates or income inequality is based on the false belief that this nation has a revenue problem and not a spending problem.

It is false and merely illustrates a blind devotion to a Big Government Namny State by naive low information clueless dunces who hypocritically argue that Big Government is good and necessary; but only if THEIR Government "deciders" are in charge.

This is further evidence of why our founders sought to Constitutionally limit the Federal Government to our laws and defense reserving all other rights to the individual States. They understood that this one size fits all mentality led to an erosion of liberty and freedom resulting in societal decline and malaise.

Give naive gullible low information Liberals enough time, and they would transform America into Detroit.
 
cawacko said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Not really:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/bu...y-problem.html
Click to expand...


Well if you want corporations to pay their 'fair share' that's how you're going to get it. Raising the corporate rate isn't going to change anything because they'll just be more deductions. Politicians want the opportunity to support companies in their district/state and one's they support ideologically and they do this through selective tax breaks. Take that away from them. Tell corporations this is what you will pay, no deductions.
Click to expand...

Sorry Wack, but you're just being stubborn on this point and repeating what the article already addressed. Sen. Sanders offers a simple, yet effective way to do this.....and taking away selective tax breaks is just PART of the solution.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/budget/
 
The Dude said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
The first 3 words in your sentence says it all.

There is NOTHING to think about....the FACTS are there and irrefutable.

I do wish folk like you would stop carrying the water for the wealthy, who do NOT want YOU at their private beaches, clubs, communities, etc., but sure as hell want YOU to foot the bill for the use of the commons and infrastructure (i.e., highways, water)
Click to expand...


I laugh in your face at the pity of liberal economic ignorance.
I am the rich you hate.
My tax break is larger than your salary.
Stuff your hatred.
Hater
Click to expand...

Now you're just babbling like the other moronic uber-right wing posters here....because you cannot logically or factually refute/disprove the opening post on this thread.

I don't "hate" rich folk...I hate rich tax dodgers who then bitch and moan about living wages, affordable housing, unemployment insurance for the working folk.

And spare us all this fantasy you have about being "rich"...because the truly rich don't waste time on sites like these...they usually hire jokers to spew the water carrying nonsense you seem so intent upon groaning about. So until you can actually mount a rational argument on the subject, I'll just let you fume alone. Carry on.
 
The Dude said:
Well you were massively wrong on a basic economic tenant.
No wonder you don't grasp the complex.
Ignorance Is bliss
You blissful poor person
Click to expand...

And yet you avoid addressing directly any of the information I provide in lieu of these generalized smoke screens and nay sayings.

Your "argument" is intellectually bankrupt and dishonest Dude. Let me know when you're ready to actually debate the issue instead of groaning and BS'ing. Until then, I won't bother responding further to you.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Now you're just babbling like the other moronic uber-right wing posters here....because you cannot logically or factually refute/disprove the opening post on this thread.

I don't "hate" rich folk...I hate rich tax dodgers who then bitch and moan about living wages, affordable housing, unemployment insurance for the working folk.

And spare us all this fantasy you have about being "rich"...because the truly rich don't waste time on sites like these...they usually hire jokers to spew the water carrying nonsense you seem so intent upon groaning about. So until you can actually mount a rational argument on the subject, I'll just let you fume alone. Carry on.
Click to expand...

You are poor and will stay poor, your hate is amusing
 
Celticguy said:
just for fun lets say it is possible to have corporations pay more taxes. where will those dollars come from ? higher prices of course. so all you do is push add burden to the individual tax payers on top of what they already pay as there is zero chance of their taxes declining. and if you are one to fret over the poor, it impacts them the most having this sort of inflation.
Click to expand...

Stop and think.....if they are able to hide and squirrel away damn near BILLIONS of dollars, then the prices they have are doing a pretty damned good job of making profit. So they can damned well afford to pay the taxes AND remain a healthy, wealthy, viable corporation WITHOUT RAISING PRICES!

It's like the line from the movie goes, "...how many yachts can you ski behind?" Or as the late Sen. Ted Kennedy said, "When does the greed stop?!!"
 
putsometrebleinit said:
It has always made me wonder why people assume that the corps will eat the costs of higher taxes, an increased minimum wage, etc, when the individual is the one who always ends up paying for the increased prices of fuel, fluctuations in the costs of production and others.
Click to expand...

Stop and think.....if they are able to hide and squirrel away damn near BILLIONS of dollars, then the prices they have are doing a pretty damned good job of making profit. So they can damned well afford to pay the taxes AND remain a healthy, wealthy, viable corporation WITHOUT RAISING PRICES!

It's like the line from the movie goes, "...how many yachts can you ski behind?" Or as the late Sen. Ted Kennedy said, "When does the greed stop?!!"

And for the record: you eliminate SPECULATION as a major determiner of fuel prices, and the price at the gas pump would drop significantly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top