wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:16:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There are a lot of other factors in those numbers. If you just look at
obesity you can explain a lot of our health problems.

Yes, and Michele Obama is making a public case to do something. Snaps to
her.


That could do more to lower health care costs than the whole health
care bill and it is free. I always thought Michelle was the smart one.



In the long term, I agree it would.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"Larry" wrote in message
...
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.

Profits are what you have after expenses. So the tax expense is built
in to the cost structure. XOM may not pay any US income tax, but I
pay on my dividends I receive from them. Also 46% of the workers in
this country do not pay income tax. And lots of those get back extra
from the government. Is one thing to not pay taxes, but to get back
money is criminal. Criminal for government. A family of 4 making $50k
will not pay any income tax. But they get all the benefits of
society. They get an 11k deduction that everyone gets, which leaves
them an about $2k tax bill. They they get a $K credit for each kid.
the $2k tax bill is now zero. That is middle class America making
$50k.



As usual, you've misrepresented what that means:

"About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009.
Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough
credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability."

Your philosophy: Soak the middle/lower earners, let the rich get
richer.

--
Nom=de=Plume


the middle owners are paying little of the tax bill. When people making
$50k pay zero $ and a person like Greg with no mortgage deduction pays
about 10%, there is little soak the middle lower earners.

Good grief... you're being pretty simple-minded. Read the thread section
where gfretwell and I are actually having a rational discussion.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Come out of my ignoring you to say you are still a twit! You have never
had a rational discussion.



Sorry for your loss of reality. Pray for rain.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:27:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

How are the democrats trying? Certainly not by addressing the deficit.
In this regard there is no difference between the parties.
I would not plan on getting everything you think you are "entitled"
to.,

They ARE addressing the deficit by passing healthcare reform. I'm going to
take the CBO's word for it on this, not to mention most economists. You'll
forgive me if I don't take your word for it. As to 'getting everything',
I'm
not sure what that has to do with the previous sentence.

I certainly don't see any deficit reduction in this plan.

The CBO ?? stop it, I am hurting myself laughing. When have they EVER
been right?
They were off by a factor of 10 on their 10 year medicare projections
and you don't even want to talk about how bad they bungled the cost of
the Gulf War(s)

Hiding under the bed is not the answer but shedding your personal
debt and being prepared to live very cheaply is not a bad plan. You
better have the home to keep that bed, you want to hide under, paid
for.

Well, that's always a good plan.

Then you only have to be afraid that the government will tax you out
of it.


Property tax increases are always a possibility, although not very
politically viable. Sure. Anything is possible, including asteroids
destroying the earth.

A devastating meteor hit is about 50:1 in any given lifetime according
to the people who study these things, an extinction event is about
1000 to one in the same period and a globe altering event about 10,000
to one.
All way better than hitting a 5 number lottery ticket.

Property tax increases are almost a given when you look at the state
budgets


That's the agency that both sides uses. If you have another, have at it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
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.


Cash on hand = retained profits that were already taxed.

nom=de=plume wrote:
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.


Lousy spin.

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


Cash on hand = retained profits that were already taxed.


Perhaps. I doubt Microsoft has stockpiles of cash in their mattresses. Any
interest made on the money is taxable... well, usually.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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


Lousy spin.


Lousy logic on your part.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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.

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?

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


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


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

middle class is 20%-80% of taxpayers

???