"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.

"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

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:37:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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...


I think that because I don;'t think a corporation is a person (in
spite of the recent speech ruling that I think is wrong).
When that money leaves the corporation and a person gets it, that
money should be taxed. I think as long as the corporation is plowing
that money back into development and improving the business it is more
valuable in the long run than taking it away from them and giving it
to the government. We already established compensation and dividends
are already taxed. As I said, the IRS should also have a very sharp
pencil when it comes to perks, disguised as expenses. That is a huge
tax avoidance scheme for the fat cats.


I basically agree, but corps typically either pay salaries (bonuses,
whatever) or they increase their cash reserves or they buy back stock or pay
out dividends or they invest in growing the company (or making improvements,
etc.) If they are saving cash, they pay tax on this and on the interest they
receive.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

I agree the match was a good deal but the 401k itself, not so much.
Fees are typically several percent a year and over the life of a
career's worth of a 401k that can easily cost you close a million
dollars.
We still don't have a clue what the tax implications and market impact
will be when the boomers start pulling their money.
I have long predicted that the taxes on 401ks in the next decade will
end up being more than if you had just paid them when you earned the
money. I am looking at rolling mine into a Roth while these tax rates
are so low.


The 401K is the vehicle whereby people who work for companies save for their
retirement in a somewhat responsible manner. It's fine if you have the will
to do it yourself, but many don't.

Sure.. there's no absolute certainty that the tax rates will be lower for
those who retire. But, historically, that's what happens.

Roths are good if you can do it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:13:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"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


When you have families in the $40-50k a year range paying zero taxes
and 2 people making $70-80k paying 10% tax, I don't think anybody is
soaking the little guy.

You're really just playing with numbers. How many in that family? What
deductions are they taking? Certainly not just the standard deduction. Two
people who make the amount specified must also have something else going on.
Not sure where you're getting your numbers on the tax bracket, but I believe
this is accurate:
http://www.bargaineering.com/article...projected.html

Like I asked BP, what is this middle class who is getting soaked?
With the new tax changes people making over $250k are probably going
to be paying close to 90% of the taxes.

Well, that seems about right or perhaps a bit high.

If you really want to see some taxes, get that "free" public health
care thing going. It ads about 25% to the average Canadian's tax bill,
far more than that for a Frenchman

Except that they get a great benefit. They live longer and have far better
outcomes. In addition, without starting to reform the healthcare/ins.
system, the costs will go way beyond what you're quoting. That path will
lead to a true economic meltdown. What happened legislatively wasn't enough,
far from it, but it's going in the right direction. As someone said, you're
either on the bus or off the bus. I'd prefer to be on the bus.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:19:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Sure.. there's no absolute certainty that the tax rates will be lower for
those who retire. But, historically, that's what happens.

History is irrelevant

Whew... that's a pretty bold statement. Are you sure you subscribe to that
notion? There are lots of bad things that can happen if you ignore history.

There has never been a retirement cadre the size of the boomers in the
history of the world. Europe is in more trouble than the US because of
their demographics. We are going to end up with less than 3 workers
per retiree. That is unsustainable. There is really no "savings" in
any real way. We are simply invested in the dreams of growth and the
likely rate of growth can't sustain the investment.

Well, I guess we should all hide under the bed. So far, and I haven't heard
one single viable solution to this situation. The Republicans are certainly
doing nothing, not even bothering to work a full schedule. The Democrats are
mostly trying, but the rabid reactions of those on the far right and the
lobbying money flowing aren't helping. When people listen to the likes of
Beck/Rush, guys who make millions a year, guys who couldn't give a hoot
about anyone save themselves, and the people can't figure out they're worse
than snake-oil salesmen, there's no telling what'll happen. I prefer to
believe that sanity will prevail, given our history of making good choices
(eventually).

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:52:21 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:57:13 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

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

I understand the matching and I took all they would match but that is
far from universal these days. There are big companies that don't
match at all. They are just doing that in lieu of a real pension
program.
The real problem is you don't know what the taxes on that money are
going to be when you take it out. You can bet your ass a government
that is going broke will be eyeing that big pile of money
The other problem is what do you think will happen to the stock market
when 83 million boomers start cashing in those 401ks?
I bet you will get your wish then and they will start treating capital
gains like ordinary income to slow selling but you don't get that
break on a 401k anyway.
Finally, you are whining constantly about haw badly the money managers
have treated your 401k money in the last few years and I am doing fine
running my own money

unfortunately i work for a living. i dont have the time to work AND
watch what the rich are doing. some of us have a life.

and, yes, i dont know what the tax man will do. but given that the
rich have impoverished the middle class by destroying pensions and
raiding 401k's now, there''s little to complain about; the damage is
done. that's why the rich need to pay more taxes NOW.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:13:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"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


When you have families in the $40-50k a year range paying zero taxes
and 2 people making $70-80k paying 10% tax, I don't think anybody is
soaking the little guy.
Like I asked BP, what is this middle class who is getting soaked?
With the new tax changes people making over $250k are probably going
to be paying close to 90% of the taxes.
If you really want to see some taxes, get that "free" public health
care thing going. It ads about 25% to the average Canadian's tax bill,
far more than that for a Frenchman

Please. You are speaking as if federal income tax is the only tax.
It is not. There is FICA, Medicare, and health plans coming directly
out of paychecks. And often state taxes.
There are state, local, RE, and sales taxes to drain even more of what's
left.
Then there are baseline expenses like heating, electricity, gasoline,
auto insurance, education and groceries that everybody is subject to.
Discretionary income is what determines who is "middle class."
Or any other "class."
It is a very dishonest argument you make.
Strikingly similar to talking points I hear from one political party.
When you do the arithmetic and find that a 100K salary can provide 6 or
7 times the discretionary income as a 50k income, then you'll begin to
understand the concept of wealth, and who is footing what percentage of
the bills for services and profits.
I leave aside all ideas of beer salary and champagne tastes, as that is
another subject.
By the way, BP may indeed be "wealthy" in the scheme of national income
statistics, and not "middle class."
It takes only 100k to put one in the top 5% of income "earners."
That does not mean he cannot see what is happening regarding
distribution of wealth, and sympathize with whatever the "middle class"
really is.
I have a perspective on this lent by coming from a family of one-time
great wealth, which is no longer so.
That family sometimes looked down on the "lower classes" and used them
to gain their wealth, regretfully, not always fairly.
Since I now clerk shoes, I look up to everybody.
And I am proud to do my job well, because despite actions that often ran
counter to it, a motto of my family was
"Class knows not wealth, nor should power know arrogance."
I have taken that motto to heart as my family legacy, and it has made me
content in my life.
That does not mean that I cannot rail against inequities that I
perceive, or die fighting to rectify them, but only that I do so with a
peaceful soul.

Peter

"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.

On 4/9/10 11:59 AM, Bill McKee wrote:

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.


I had a feeling English was not your primary language.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym