Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No surprise there. In fact I predicted profit taking today.
What's your point?
It was a pretty modest pullback - leaving most of the gains intact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Opps!
I guess I spoke too soon.
It didn't end up nearly 400 points - it ended up just shy of 500 points up.
I DO expect some profit taking tomorrow, but no matter how you slice it, a nearly 500 point gain - expecially on top of the 800 or so points it gained in the last 2 weeks - is pretty darned nice.
We still have a ways to go, but at least the trend is in the right direction (at last).
Ken
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 03-24-2009 at 11:50 PM..
"72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period"
I NEVER said that companies pay zero taxes every year. What I said is that MOST COMPANIES pay ZERO TAXES. And this happens SINGLE EVERY YEAR. It's not the same companies every year, but it's still MOST COMPANIES - and many of them have done it for multiple years (see the "two or more years" in the quote above). And again, there is NO WAY that most companies don't make a profit most years - otherwise they would fail, so clearly tax loopholes are the reason for the zero taxes situation.
Stats for you:
Percentage of companies with a ZERO tax bill (by year):
Year Foreign Comp US Comp
1996 46,791 (67.6%) 1,360,566 (60.3%)
1997 50,625 (71.7%) 1,331,638 (60.9%)
1998 50,671 (71.8%) 1,335,000 (61.0%)
1999 50,149 (72.3%) 1,310,280 (61.2%)
2000 50,688 (73.3%) 1,332,239 (63.0%)
Source - GAO
Note that those years were GOOD years for business - the booming 90's when business was good - not the recession years that followed 9-11.
And among those that actually PAID taxes, most paid a relatively small percentage:
"In 2000 alone, 94% of all U.S. corporations paid less than 5% of their total income in corporate taxes, the GAO said in a report released Friday. Among the largest corporations -- the 1% of all corporations that owns 93% of all corporate assets -- 82% paid less than 5% of their income in taxes.
Most companies paid no taxes during the boom - MSN Money (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P80242.asp - broken link)
That's a LOT smaller percentage than I pay.
So, again, while the tax rate is high, the rate is pretty irrelevant because there are so many loopholes, that very few companies actually pay that rate.
Got It?????
Jeeze! You just simply can't face up to the fact that you are wrong can you?
Just admit it and move on - you are looking more and more foolish.
Ken
That one has been on ignore for quite some time. I discovered early on that some people have absolutely nothing of value to offer.
I'm glad you found the evidence in GAO because I was appalled when my own corporation was bragging in its shareholder report how it had dodged ALL taxes through creative loophole angling. People don't believe it, but it happens everyday. And the ironic thing is a multi mill/ bill biz is paying LESS than small biz!!!! Nuts huh?
Did you not hear about the big socialism and welfare program called social security that this country has?
Yes, I'm familiar with it. It kept my parents out of poverty in the "golden years". Most of us have 401Ks now instead of pensions b/c that's what the neocons sold us down the river on. Does bentlebee think the stock market drop is only going to affect liberals' 401Ks? That was the point of my question. Or is s/he planning to retire just on SS? I guess we'll await the answer.
Yes, I'm familiar with it. It kept my parents out of poverty in the "golden years". Most of us have 401Ks now instead of pensions b/c that's what the neocons sold us down the river on. Does bentlebee think the stock market drop is only going to affect liberals' 401Ks? That was the point of my question. Or is s/he planning to retire just on SS? I guess we'll await the answer.
Social security has done nothing at all for my parents nor my grandparents. My father in fact still works but he worked hard his entire life and could have done better if the money taken from him was his to manage.
Y'know, this is just terrible! It takes the wind out of the Obama-haters sails!
Since Obama was able to turn around the Bush recession in the past couple days, it's time to make this week the cut-off week. Since Oct 2008, the stock market has been falling. We can all say that Obama has caused the turn up in the DOW index, it's no longer about Bush, the trillions of dollars Obama has added to the debt must have brought up the DOW. No more blaming Bush from here on out.
If Obama's adding to the debt is working then things will soon be fine, but we can't say it's just chump change he's throwing at the problem. If throwing $3 trillion in new debt isn't the best solution, then we will soon see.
Since Obama was able to turn around the Bush recession in the past couple days, it's time to make this week the cut-off week. Since Oct 2008, the stock market has been falling. We can all say that Obama has caused the turn up in the DOW index, it's no longer about Bush, the trillions of dollars Obama has added to the debt must have brought up the DOW. No more blaming Bush from here on out.
If Obama's adding to the debt is working then things will soon be fine, but we can't say it's just chump change he's throwing at the problem. If throwing $3 trillion in new debt isn't the best solution, then we will soon see.
I would say that is probably a fair assessment.
Certainly Obama's activities are starting to have a substantial impact to the economy and the legacy of the Bush years is fading substantially. It's not yet 100% Obama and 0% Bush - but in truth Obama is now by far the major contributor of the two men for what happens from here on out. It's possible that some "surprise" from the Bush years may yet pop up, but that's pretty unlikely - so as a general rule I'd say it's fair to hold Obama responsible for the bad and to give him credit for the good.
It always takes a while for any administration to really get a handle on whatever situation they inherit, but Obama has pretty much done that by now - he has his team in place, and his policies are starting to take affect - so yeah, I'll buy into your contention.
I would say that is probably a fair assessment.
Certainly Obama's activities are starting to have a substantial impact to the economy and the legacy of the Bush years is fading substantially. It's not yet 100% Obama and 0% Bush - but in truth Obama is now by far the major contributor of the two men for what happens from here on out. It's possible that some "surprise" from the Bush years may yet pop up, but that's pretty unlikely - so as a general rule I'd say it's fair to hold Obama responsible for the bad and to give him credit for the good.
It always takes a while for any administration to really get a handle on whatever situation they inherit, but Obama has pretty much done that by now - he has his team in place, and his policies are starting to take affect - so yeah, I'll buy into your contention.
Ken
I'd say the scale is sliding....heck...we haven't even given the Prez 100 days yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
