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



Could one reason ExxonMobil paid $0 in taxes have to do with the
$27,430,000 it spent on lobbying Congress against job-killing,
confiscatory socialism? Nah.]]

yeah but we're middle class. we're lucky exxon lets us live. we
should pay all taxes...the rich deserve a life of leisure

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote:

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

and since their customers are not necessarily all of us, it's
irrelevant. their stockholders pay taxes...not enough...but they do

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:17:47 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


Not necessarily. But know raising taxes on the other guy comes around
to you in due course.

Say you rent and heat is included. Exxon gets taxed more. Sends bigger
bill to the owner. Owner jacks your rent so he does not loose money.

When it comes to taxes, in the end we all pay. Government likes to let
people think taxing one and not the other is good, but this is a ruse to
get away with more taxes. Even your lettuce or stawberries that uses
Exxon fuel to get it to you will cost more.

what's funny is the right pushes tax cuts ONLY for the rich. if
cutting taxes is good, why do they NEVER propose tax cuts for the
middle class?



And when too much wealth is sucked out of the economy, the economy
contracts into a recession. As there is a magic point where too much
taxes is unsupportable by the economy. Like now. Revenues are
collapsing because people are not spending the money they don't have
that is going to debt and taxes.

and who are these people? the middle class. we've been raped by the
rich who got their massive wealth increases, t heir tax cuts and
passed the bills to the middle class.



Taxes are like a well. Keep sucking to much out of it too fast and it
will dry up.

In the end, we all pay for more taxes.


we all need to pay a fair share; the rich do not

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.

wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:57:17 -0700, "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.

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

That was the topic, right?

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

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:57:17 -0700, "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.

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.


Got a cite for any of this? What current court are you referring to and
what does any court have to do with it. You do know there are three
branches of government and how they work, right?

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote:


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.

Flawed logic. Exxonmobil is simply a conduit for sales taxes paid by
you and me. Doesn't make a whit of difference to ExxonMobil, whose
profit was the largest in history last year, while paying no taxes.

You think that's fair? Not me.

I do the same for the city, state and government when selling retail
but that doesn't make my company a productive tax producer, just a
conduit.

Where I produce for the state is in state revenue taxes and federal
income taxes.

Profitable corporations do not pay taxes. They pay a business expense. And
expenses are calculated in to the price the consumer pays.



Do you have an example of that? Pick a publicly traded company and look
at their balance sheet and financial statement. Profits = taxes. If
they were an expense they would reduce the profits.

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.
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.
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.

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

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:23:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


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

As long as that profit remains in the corporation and gets used to
build the business, the government should leave it alone, When it gets
pulled out, either as compensation, perks or dividends it should be
taxed.


When profit remains and is used to build the business, it's called a
business expense, which is deductible. Sounds like the incentive would be
not to pay anyone much of anything. I think CEO pay should be tied to
performance by an independent board. A lot of excessive CEO pay is due to
the stacking of the Board of Directors by the CEO.


Large public companies have compensation committees that are voted on by
the shareholders. "Excessive" CEO pay is lost profits for shareholders
and can affect the value of the stock - something the executives watch
very closely. They are self-policed to a degree.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:03:18 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:46:45 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote:

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

and since their customers are not necessarily all of us, it's
irrelevant. their stockholders pay taxes...not enough...but they do

I take it you don't own stocks.

in my 401K. i have no income from stocks at all. none.


There is no surprise that stocks and dividends get special treatment.

yeah. they're owned by the rich.

Politicians take credit for a vibrant stock market.
Most of Bill Clinton's "great economy" was due to a booming market.
Even Greenspan, cheerleader for excess, called it "irrational". Some
of that was due to Clinton slashing the cap gains tax rate

and cutting the cap gains tax cut did precisely

zero

for the middle class. made the rich fantastically rich.

blew out the middle class