"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


wrote in message
...



On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:33:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:




Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the
several
Supreme
Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being
removed.



You are referring to speech rights, Larry is talking about tax
status.
Two different things.



So far. With the current court, who knows. It's pretty hard to
separate
one
from the other, esp. if they're not paying their "fair"
share.


Let's not get too confused. The corporate officers are taxed when
they
take the profits as compensation and the stock holders are taxed
when
they take the profits as dividends. If the profits stay in the
corporation and used to grow the business that is good for everyone,
including the government. You are talking about double taxation.



There are plenty of ways for the corporate officers (or anyone who is
sufficiently well-off) to avoid most of the taxes.



Not legally.


Sorry, but you'll need to be a bit more convincing before I accept your
legal advise.



Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong
though
when that runs counter to what's best for the country.




Those are capital expenditures and are depreciated over time.


?? What??? What do capital expenditures and depreciation have to do
with
being a responsible corporate citizen?



If you want to tax the corporations to get at the fat cats, tax the
"expenses" that are used for things the rest of us call the cost of
living. Better yet make the officers show that as income and tax
them.



A fair tax for everyone is, well, fair. Another reason why a flat tax
is
regressive (but that's another subject). Again though, we're talking
about
the gov't stepping in, which is an anathema to some people.








How else do you grow your business? Growth almost always requires new
capital expenditures. New employee? New desk and computer. Get it?


What are you going on about. You're going to complain about fair
taxation?
If you're going to make a point, try and make it a bit more obvious for
me.
I only have a graduate business degree, and I just don't understand.


You might want to go back to school.


You might want to not drop out next time... sorry, big assumption that you
were actually in school at one point in your sorry life.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 4/11/10 2:24 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:40:05 -0400,
wrote:

On 4/11/10 1:32 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:00:26 -0400,
wrote:

You can't do it is semi-rural Florida if you want decent coverage
(more than the legal minimum).


When we moved to the Jax area, I was astonished by the high rates for
auto and homeowner's insurance. They were twice what we were paying up
north. I attributed the high auto rates to the crappy drivers and the
hundreds of cars we saw without license plates, and the high homeowners'
to the plethora of hurricanes.

Both are probably accurate assessments. They now separate wind storm
from homeowners so you can see it. My pure homeowners is about $1100 a
year for replacement coverage.
I think the car insurance problem has to do with the number of
tourists. We have so many people who are lost and making turns across
3 lanes of traffic that it makes it real easy to get hit.
Add to that a huge population of people who should have surrendered
their driver's license during the Reagan administration and you can
see the problem.
My mother was dead when we got her "mail in" license sticker, renewed
for another SIX years. She would have been 90 when it expired. They
have not seen Judy for over 18 years. She has 3 renewal stickers on
the back of her license.


Florida's lax laws and regulations were a constant source of amusement.
I was pulled over once because the annual sticker on my license plate
had expired. I was not aware it had expired...and in fact the county or
state had not sent me a renewal notice. I fought the ticket and in fact
the judge let me off the hook, but reminded me that it was not the
government's responsibility to remind me about expired stickers. Well,
hell, everywhere else I had ever lived, I got a renewal notice.

I always get my notices, did you have 2 homes listed or something?
Although the tax collector is officially a state office, it is really
county by county so a lot depends on which county you live in. Lee has
always had a good tax collector. They make the tag process easier than
any place I have ever lived. You can usually transfer a title, buy
tags and get out the door in 10 minutes. They have a lot of offices.
For a while, before that had that many, they had a fleet of RVs that
would set up in various parking lots around town on a schedule what
was in the paper. That was really sweet. They used that data to decide
where to place offices.

BTW you must have been in a place where the cops were jerks. I always
call SW Florida "tags optional". I see cars all the time without them.
If the cops stop you and you have proof of insurance you will usually
just get a warning ticket. Tags on trailers are far less than
universal. There is no title and no insurance requirement.


This was in the mid -1990's...perhaps the renewals are handled better now.

In those days, the county mounties, like school teachers, were grossly
underpaid and the educational requirements were not very high. Teachers
also were paid peanutes. Hopefully, that has changed, too.

NE Florida was a strange place in many ways, especially for a
transplanted yankee like me. Charming, but backwards, which I attributed
in no small part to the religious fundies who controlled a lot and were
hungry to control more. I enjoyed our stay there, but I was glad to get
back to the civilized world.




--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


wrote in message
...



nom=de=plume wrote:



wrote in message
news



On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700,
wrote:





Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax
for
a
single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in
U.S.
income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the
world's
second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53




Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do..
If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the
price of gas, with the profit tacked on.
I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and
this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be
doing.




There is a basic problem with how corporations are treated as
individuals.
They're not people.





That's an S-corp. Exxon Mobil is a publicly traded C-corp.



Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several
Supreme
Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being
removed.




Really? XOM is a sole proprietorship now? I missed that.


Corporations, as they relate to campaign financing. Both sides of the
isle
aren't sure about the implications.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=122805666



Did you mean aisle? I'm here to help.

When did this discussion deviate from taxes? Evidently you chose to put
up this smoke screen.

Read your own words before you write. You said XOM was not a
corporation.
Now you are trying to avoid your mistake and change the discussion to
campaign financing? Nice try.


Yeah, the island. The one we're on. I'm on the other side with the
rational
people.

I never said XOM was not a corp. I said that legally they're treated as
an
individual. Try again bozo.


Read it again. I'm not going to do it for you.


Perhaps you're incapable, as you are in so many other aspects of your life.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"hk" wrote in message
m...
On 4/10/10 4:50 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:33:43 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:47:57 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


Sad when people think that less than $100k is near poverty. Maybe
they
should associate with the real middle class. Those ringing up the
groceries
in the grocery store. Clerks in a local store. The clerk in the
local
legal drug store. The machinist at the local automotive machine
shop, the
local mechanic.

spare me. the attiude of the wealthy towards the middle class was
just demonstrated by the mine owner who killed 25 miners.

the middle class is expendable.


I hought Harry's unions were to protect the workers.

there are no unions in the US.

the middle class has voted for politicians who destroy them,
preferring to be protected by wall street.



The mine in which 29 died this week was not a union mine. The CEO has a
long rep as a union buster.




So your union is powerless. Next they will need to scrap their healthcare
insurance.



Hmm... let's see. The right wing claims unions are all-powerful and now
you're claiming they're powerless. At least you're consistently
inconsistent.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:10:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I believe tort is responsible for a few percentage points of the overall
cost.

Cite that.
Be sure to include the legal costs of the suits that fail and the
defensive medicine, useless tests and unneeded procedures to avoid or
blunt a tort.


Read up:

http://www.factcheck.org/president_u..._costs_of.html

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, hk
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of
aspects to car insurance.

That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it?
Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day
soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment
that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement.
The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before
you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is
over $1000 a year in some places

Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need
inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are
insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no
assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of
your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5
minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you
carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require
the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing,
no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease
dramatically.



Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/04/2010 1:20 AM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400,
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of
aspects to car insurance.

That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it?
Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day
soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment
that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement.
The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before
you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is
over $1000 a year in some places

Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need
inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are
insured
your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no assets. You
hit
the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of your insurance
and
assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5 minutes. Pass laws
that
say you can sue for as much insurance as you carry. No insurance, your
car
is totaled, tough ****. I would require the person at fault to pay
direct
medical costs. No pain and suffereing, no lost wages, no damages. You
would see insurance cost decrease dramatically.

Why not require insurance? Seriously? If your caught without it say
$1000 fine and lose the vehicle. Double the fine for each occurance and
jail if not paid.

Would be good to say if an uninsured was hit by an insured, the insured
does not have to pay for the uninsured. Makes sense, good social
engineering.

In Canada we have maximum settlements much lower than the US and don't see
it in the rates. I personally have no problem in suing a person into the
poor house if they DWI in a red light and kill someone. The real problem
is with juries making feel good judgements, that is they feel sorry for
the injured and figure they need money. The wrong way to make the
judgement.

Like our propeller case in another thread. In no way is the manufacture
liable for a idiot boater backing up on a swimmer. Nor a swimmer entering
the water with a motor a running. Stupid case shouldn't even be heard.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


Sounds like a gov't takeover to me. Did I mention you're an idiot today?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want a
small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On 4/11/10 2:40 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
m...
On 4/10/10 4:50 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:33:43 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:47:57 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


Sad when people think that less than $100k is near poverty. Maybe
they
should associate with the real middle class. Those ringing up the
groceries
in the grocery store. Clerks in a local store. The clerk in the
local
legal drug store. The machinist at the local automotive machine
shop, the
local mechanic.

spare me. the attiude of the wealthy towards the middle class was
just demonstrated by the mine owner who killed 25 miners.

the middle class is expendable.


I hought Harry's unions were to protect the workers.

there are no unions in the US.

the middle class has voted for politicians who destroy them,
preferring to be protected by wall street.



The mine in which 29 died this week was not a union mine. The CEO has a
long rep as a union buster.




So your union is powerless. Next they will need to scrap their healthcare
insurance.



Hmm... let's see. The right wing claims unions are all-powerful and now
you're claiming they're powerless. At least you're consistently
inconsistent.



Hey...BiliousBill figured out all on his own that unions don't have much
power to make non-unionized workplaces safer... Unionized mines, by the
way, have better safety records than non-unionized mines.

Bill's last employment was running a home fixit business with
undocumented work crews he selected at shape-ups.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

On 4/11/10 2:45 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400,
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of
aspects to car insurance.

That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it?
Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day
soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment
that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement.
The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before
you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is
over $1000 a year in some places

Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need
inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are
insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no
assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks of
your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5
minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you
carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require
the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and suffereing,
no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease
dramatically.



Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%.



I wonder if bilious bill had workers' comp insurance coverage for the
undocumented workers he "hired" to handle the work in his home fixit
business.

What do you think?


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym