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.
I am really surprised to read the outrage by our liberal listmates against tax loopholes and corporate welfare when I can easily point to just two Democrats who are poster children: Jack Lew and George Soros.
Lew got nearly a $1 million golden parachute with Citigroup at the same time tax payers were bailing it out.
Soros is not really a Democrat--just extreme far left. He sees capitalism as evil, avoids paying taxes with his offshore funds, moved his headquarters to Curacao to avoid paying taxes, not to mention advocates open borders, amnesty, and big expansion of welfare programs while taxing the "rich" (not him though).
So, if we are to stop loopholes and corporate welfare, do you really think Soros, who liberally funded Obama's campaign and the organizations that help Democrats gets elected, would just agree and pay his fair share?
Soros is a man who does not have loyalty to his nation, only to wealth.
So, if we are to stop loopholes and corporate welfare, do you really think Soros, who liberally funded Obama's campaign and the organizations that help Democrats gets elected, would just agree and pay his fair share?
Why do you dislike and question a successful job creator, like George Soros? Why do you want him to have to pay taxes? Jealous?
Does it ever occur to you that sometimes doing the right thing has nothing to do with whether or not some clown in your political party would be affected?
Oh my gosh child, you do not even know what you are saying. You do not even understand what transcends politics. Go forth though and do good things for your party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by things and stuff
Why do you dislike and question a successful job creator, like George Soros? Why do you want him to have to pay taxes? Jealous?
Does it ever occur to you that sometimes doing the right thing has nothing to do with whether or not some clown in your political party would be affected?
I agree with you HK. He wrote some very, very interesting books. Said he views himself as a god, but not even that--more like a scientist like Einstein.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
Soros is a man who does not have loyalty to his nation, only to wealth.
how about corporate welfare and bailouts - that's also undemocratic.
Uh, you just said that Socialism is undemocratic.
I already knew that, but thanks for admitting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda
So why do they continue to exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
I think the corporations would be able to contribute a lot more than low-income wage earners and it would be a lot more fair. Why don't you want wealthy corporations who do business in the U.S.A. to pay fair taxes?
Because of Socialism.
Corporations in Socialist Euro-States get handouts from their governments --- what you are calling "corporate welfare."
In addition to the fact that the Socialist Euro-States give handouts to corporations, they have lower tax rates for corporations.
Let's say you were CEOs of a corporation, like an oil corporation....that would never happen in this Universe unless the population dwindled to 3 people........but hypothetically speaking.
You see, looking for oil, is not free.....it costs money.....lots of money.....it costs $Billions to search for oil.
But, I'm getting ahead of myself. Before you can spend $Billions to search for oil, you first must spend $Millions to lobby foreign governments to get an opportunity to bid on an exploration contract. Once you've done that, and then assuming you won the bid, you'll have to fork over $Billions to walk around with oil dousing rods to find oil.
And if you find oil, it ain't even yours. If you want it, you'll have to bid on the royalty rights for production. That will cost you $Millions to prepare and submit the bid. Assuming you win, you'll have to pay $Billions for the contract.
Statoil and Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum, and Gazprom, and Total SA, and all of the other oil companies have as much money as their government has to bid on these contracts, because all of those companies have lower tax rates, plus are subsidized by their governments, plus have the full faith and credit of their government --- effectively unlimited money.
What do US oil companies have? They have only their profits from the previous year(s) to bid (and perhaps future profits).
Same with US auto-makers. Other countries subsidize their auto-makers and they have lower corporate tax rates, which makes it difficult for US companies of any kind --- public corporations, private corporations, LLCs, LLPs and such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
In 2009, six tax filers among the country's 400 richest tax filers, who earn an average of $202 million a year, owed absolutely nothing in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
When are you going to learn the difference between income and wages?
Wages/salary are income, but not all income is wages/salary. When you learn the difference, perhaps you can explain the difference to the idiots at your web-site link.
Corporately...
The effective rate will always be lower by definition.
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.
