wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 14:50:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:37:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

It is not an expense until you spend it. If you bank the profit it
would be taxed and that money would not be available to build the
business. That encourages business to borrow money instead of saving
for expansion. Certainly the interest is deductible but it is still
paying more than you should for things because the banker gets a cut..


Umm... you said, "use it to build the business." And, I replied, "used to
build the business." How does one use it without spending it...
infrastructure, new equipment, etc.?

... but you want to tax it away before I can spend it to build my
business. I suppose "saving until you can afford something" is such a
foreign concept that you are having trouble getting your head around
saving money from one tax year to the next so you can buy without
borrowing.
It is no wonder we are in a debt crisis, the tax code encourages debt.


Where did I say that? Business typically have cash reserves, which they put
in various investment instruments. They're usually pretty sophisticated
about what is taxable and how to deal with it. I've got some minor
experience with "saving until you can afford something," since that's what I
used to buy the house, start the business, etc., etc. Feel free to think
otherwise.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Larry" wrote in message
...
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?


So, I guess you're unable to understand the concept of unintended
consequences? I said, "who knows," because it's unclear of the implications.
Of course, if you want to believe Alito's head shake and under-breath "not
true" that's your business.

You're going to rely on Congress to fix the problem??? Don't let the Tea Bag
crowd hear you.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Larry" 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

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Larry" wrote in message
...
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.


Yeah, they're self-policing to about 1 degree. I guess all those CEOs of the
banks were just out of luck when they asked for those big paychecks. The
stockholders said no, and that was that. Same goes with GM. Oh wait....


--
Nom=de=Plume

"Larry" 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.






--
Nom=de=Plume

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:45:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:24:45 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


Just exactly who do you think is "middle class"?
The real screwing comes in at $250k

middle class is 20%-80% of taxpayers

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:29:10 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:11:27 -0400, bpuharic wrote:



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


You seriously underestimate who owns stocks. I am far from rich and I
have always had a pretty good position in equities.
You are a fool if you don't. Has anyone ever explained how many fees
you are paying for that 401k

actually has anyone explained to you about the 50% matching and the
tax benefits? don't know of any investment that gives you 50% on your
money

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:13:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

... but you want to tax it away before I can spend it to build my
business. I suppose "saving until you can afford something" is such a
foreign concept that you are having trouble getting your head around
saving money from one tax year to the next so you can buy without
borrowing.
It is no wonder we are in a debt crisis, the tax code encourages debt.


Where did I say that? Business typically have cash reserves, which they
put
in various investment instruments. They're usually pretty sophisticated
about what is taxable and how to deal with it. I've got some minor
experience with "saving until you can afford something," since that's what
I
used to buy the house, start the business, etc., etc. Feel free to think
otherwise.

--
I was only basing it on the idea that you expected the corporation to
spend all of their profit intended for expansion by the end of the tax
year or pay taxes on it.


I never said that. Are you claiming that have a cash reserve for future
expansion is a bad thing, taxed or not taxed? Do you think they shouldn't be
taxed at all? Why are corporations so special and regular people who make
potentially far less...

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:02:10 -0400, Larry wrote:

Large public companies have compensation committees that are voted on by
the shareholders.

That is a joke. Controlling interest in virtually every corporation is
owned by big funds and voted by money managers who play golf with the
CEOs.


Thank you.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:11:27 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

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


You seriously underestimate who owns stocks. I am far from rich and I
have always had a pretty good position in equities.
You are a fool if you don't. Has anyone ever explained how many fees
you are paying for that 401k? It is one of the biggest scams in the
history of robbing the little guy and by the time the tax man gets
through with you, you would have been better off keeping your money
under your mattress.


401K are still a good deal. I certainly did really well with mine. They
matched a percentage, which was icing on the cake.

--
Nom=de=Plume