corporate profits all time high, wages all time low

[scootrd]

In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

that's how many companies finance themselves.  they pay the profits to the SHAREHOLDERS and pay zero tax.  the SHAREHOLDERS gain a bigger dividend and they are the ones to pay the tax which works out to a lower tax rate and everyone wins except the IRS.
the difference is miniscule.  ah, class warfare, bleed to death those with enough smarts and gumption to be successful.

do your homework on tax benefits and then you'll understand.  or not, being a liberal.

Hmm ...and even Reagan agrees with me.

While G.E.’s declining tax rates have bolstered profits and helped the company continue paying dividends to shareholders during the economic downturn, some tax experts question what taxpayers are getting in return.

Since 2002, the company has eliminated a fifth of its work force in the United States while increasing overseas employment.
In that time, G.E.’s accumulated offshore profits have risen to $92 billion from $15 billion.

G.E. and other financial services firms won a change in tax law that would allow multinationals to avoid taxes. The company would no longer have to pay American tax on the interest income as long as the profits remained offshore.

GE keeps it's profits in low-tax countries  Over the last three years, 46 percent of the company’s revenue was in the United States, but just 18 percent of its profits.

This tax Loophole is called active financing. (legalese for Tax avoidance!!!) .

President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. — a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman — was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes. “I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.

Bug,
Do your homework then perhaps you you can debate based on factual data  and gain an understanding or not, being a conservative, Liberal, independent or otherwise.

Nuff said ,
Semper Fi
 

[D Fischer]

If I was working for a guy that I though wasn't paying me fairly, I'd go somewhere else. Those business's only exist because someone is willing to work there.

BTW, the auto industry has paid their employee's very well for a long time. I think Obummer bailed one out with an unspeakable aamount or your money! Don't complain about how much your car costs.

[45-70.gov]

In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

that's how many companies finance themselves.  they pay the profits to the SHAREHOLDERS and pay zero tax.  the SHAREHOLDERS gain a bigger dividend and they are the ones to pay the tax which works out to a lower tax rate and everyone wins except the IRS.
the difference is miniscule.  ah, class warfare, bleed to death those with enough smarts and gumption to be successful.

do your homework on tax benefits and then you'll understand.  or not, being a liberal.

Hmm ...and even Reagan agrees with me.

While G.E.’s declining tax rates have bolstered profits and helped the company continue paying dividends to shareholders during the economic downturn, some tax experts question what taxpayers are getting in return.

Since 2002, the company has eliminated a fifth of its work force in the United States while increasing overseas employment.
In that time, G.E.’s accumulated offshore profits have risen to $92 billion from $15 billion.

G.E. and other financial services firms won a change in tax law that would allow multinationals to avoid taxes. The company would no longer have to pay American tax on the interest income as long as the profits remained offshore.

GE keeps it's profits in low-tax countries  Over the last three years, 46 percent of the company’s revenue was in the United States, but just 18 percent of its profits.

This tax Loophole is called active financing. (legalese for Tax avoidance!!!) .

President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. — a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman — was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes. “I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.

Bug,
Do your homework then perhaps you you can debate based on factual data  and gain an understanding or not, being a conservative, Liberal, independent or otherwise.

Nuff said ,
Semper Fi

GE  is big enough to write the tax code
the parasites elect the ones that listen   to GE and soros

the  more government control there is


the further  the bribery money  goes

[BUGEYE]

Bug,
Do your homework then perhaps you you can debate based on factual data  and gain an understanding or not, being a conservative, Liberal, independent or otherwise.

Nuff said ,
Semper Fi

you really should take the NY times with a grain of salt.  what GE does is pay dividends to their shareholders as a debt.   btw, what color is the NY times koolaid??
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/04/actually-ge-is-paying-taxes-for-2010/

GEs accountants are smarter than the average bear.
                                                        Yogi Bear

[ChungDoQuan]

So, the rightys here demonize GE and at the same time defend others like Martin Marietta, BP,and  Halliburton, for doing the same things. I think you're all just picking on GE because the CEO supported Obama. So, it's OK for the right to do the same things?

[45-70.gov]

no ...i am trying to understand what point the  OP was making

[ChungDoQuan]

I think the point is, big money barely even HAD a recession. The deck is stacked--- you and I feel it, they don't. They still won't, even if they pay another 3% tax, but it will help you and me some.

[jimster]

I think the point is, big money barely even HAD a recession. The deck is stacked--- you and I feel it, they don't. They still won't, even if they pay another 3% tax, but it will help you and me some.

No, them paying more taxes won't help you one bit, but if the goal is kicking the wealthy in the shins to make you feel better, fine...it won't fix a thing though.  Unless you get the government under control with the corruption and insane spending with no budget, it would not matter if you simply took all their wealth, you just would have less jobs and the government would spend all the wealth in short order, then what Mr. Wizard? Why would a billionare want to contribute to a government with no controls and open corruption anyway? Why would you want to give them more money now? Do you think the government will transfer it to you? The only thing you would get transferred to you is the tax bill, they will raise the price of products and services, or just leave...you'll be stuck with your bloated government in the end and less private sector to work for and more taxes, like always.
The corporations are not your enemy, I work for one...the government is your enemy. I prefer the place I work for to be as wealthy as possible, and the government has been in the way lately.
Please tell me the socialists have a better plan than to just tax the wealthy. Is a budget in sight? We need to clean up government before we give them more money to blow on corruption, running guns, investing in bankrupt companies and wars.
You bloated corrupt government has divided it's people....ruined our dollar, and lied and stole from all of us...you need to deal with that before you kick the wealthy in the shins and make them shrink even more.
Once again...I listen to the socialists who have had the power in congress and the executive office for years complain about how things are...is just outrageous.  You had your legislation passed, you have your people in place...what's your problem? Things still not working? Go figure.
And the answer is still raise taxes and hate the wealthy? That seems shallow to me. Can't think of one time in my life where raising taxes on anything or anyone helped me...but hey...whatever.

[Dixie Dude]

CDQ, I think what you don't understand is Dems are hypocrits.  They demonise the rich, demonise big corporations, yet take money from GE, big Pharma, and the health care industry pushing through Obamacare.  They practice crony capitalism.  Republicans probably do the same.  Dems bailed out unions, democratic states and cities going bankrupt with their crony stimulus.  At least FDR spent money to create REAL jobs and didn't just put people on unemployment for 2-3 years, welfare, and disability doing absolutely nothing constructive.  FDR had dams, bridges, canals, reforestation, etc done to create jobs, helping people feel like their hard work earned a paycheck.  Not just sit back and say "you owe me" for nothing.  Republicans actually donate more of their money to charity than democrats.  Not saying republicans are always right.  I am more libertarian or constitutional than either party.  I have just voted over the years for the lessor of two evils. 

[Anna]

I think the point is, big money barely even HAD a recession. The deck is stacked--- you and I feel it, they don't. They still won't, even if they pay another 3% tax, but it will help you and me some.

CDQ is playing devils advocate here, and he is making some good points in this discussion.

[Defoe]

So, the rightys here demonize GE and at the same time defend others like Martin Marietta, BP,and  Halliburton, for doing the same things. I think you're all just picking on GE because the CEO supported Obama. So, it's OK for the right to do the same things?

uh chung,  it's the leftys here who demonize GE.. If I still had stock, I'd probably buy some GE.

[Cuts Crooked]

I think the point is, big money barely even HAD a recession. The deck is stacked--- you and I feel it, they don't. They still won't, even if they pay another 3% tax, but it will help you and me some.

How? If they take their money and jobs elsewhere?

[45-70.gov]

I think the point is, big money barely even HAD a recession. The deck is stacked--- you and I feel it, they don't. They still won't, even if they pay another 3% tax, but it will help you and me some.

I STILL DON'T SEE WHY THIS MATTERS


WHY DOES THIS MATTER??

[ChungDoQuan]

We have GOT to cut spending. That much is obvious. However, we can't cut spending enough to make it go into negative numbers---  to do that, we would have to make the government PROFITABLE. That ain't gonna happen. Ever. Meanwhile, we have this huge deficit we need to pay off.  To paraphrase Mittens, 47% of the workers in the country (that number will get bigger before it gets smaller) pay $0 income tax--- because they are below poverty level. How much of the deficit do you think they can pay? How long do you think it will take? 3% of the 95% of money earned (the top 2% make 95% of the money made in a year in this country) absolutely WILL begin to make a dent in it. If the Bush cuts had never been, the government would have had another $800 billion per year in revenue--- that is %9.6 trillion over twelve years. So, if nothing else had changed, we'd owe that much less towards the deficit. That's still not ideal, but it would be better than what it is.

 Assuming ALL the rich people are not the absolute cowards the right seems to think they are, at least some of them will stay in the country. (Probably to take over the labor and markets the others will leave here.) They stand to make a much larger increase in profits than a 3% tax increase will make. Personally, I don't see the majority of them leaving this cash cow--- they ARE capitalists, and the US is one of the largest markets in the world. 

[45-70.gov]

SO WHAT IS YOUR COMPANY DOING


or are you just saying you know better hoe to spend other peoples money??

[SHOOTALL]

I think the point is, big money barely even HAD a recession. The deck is stacked--- you and I feel it, they don't. They still won't, even if they pay another 3% tax, but it will help you and me some.

First you dismiss the fact that the corp's you list are the few , most corp's are small business and 3% could hurt many . Second how is adding  3% to the cost of products  ( and that is if it's added after mark up ) not going to hurt you and I since it will be passed on to us ? Like most liberal ideas they sound good until you look at the whole story .

[45-70.gov]

liberals  always know best how to spend some one else s money


even  if they are  right......its not their  money


how best to spend thier money  is a fruitless discussion
what if rather than giving the profits to the workers at the plant
they choose to have some one elses workerd build them a yatch
the money eventually goes to some one
its their money to decide who that some one is...........NOT ANY ONE ELSE


has any one here given  a raise  based on profits??
i have ONLY given raises based on productivity!!.....nothing else

[SHOOTALL]

To fix the economy all need to realize the biggest spender makes no products that will bring in capital. They have a budget but it isn't really as budgets reflect the relation of income to spending. What is happening is they passed from skimming from the produces to printing money in hopes the producers could keep up. Which we have not been able to do. Not we are seeing certian segments of our producers being singled out for more skimming and efforts to isolate them from others in an effort to gain support for such actions. When they are skimmed dry then another segment will be cut from the pack and sacrificed and it will go on until no producers are left.
 As hard as it will be someone needs to stop spending .

[SHOOTALL]

or to put it another way we have a gambler with debt and a loan shark printing money and they are the same guy .

[ChungDoQuan]

Bull. Go to the Small Business Administration's website, and see for yourself. You can have 500 employees and make $12.5 million a year clear profit and you're still a small business, as long as you are a single owner corporation. On top of that, if you are in certain fields, like say OIL, you can triple those numbers and still be a small business.  Doesn't sound too "small" to me. Multi-millionaires use the SBA to secure loans for those types of companies so they don't risk their own money. And one person can own as many as they can, provided they do not incorporate them under one umbrella.

Yeah, those "small" businesses will be affected by the tax increase.

[Dixie Dude]

CDQ, you said we have to cut spending.  What have Obama and the Dem's brought to the table to cut?  Nothing.  They want tax increases.  GOP has agreed to keep the tax on the rich, but want cuts in return.  Isn't that fair?  47 million Americans shouldn't be getting off the hook.  We need jobs, jobs, jobs.  We need to cut manufacturers taxes to bring them back.  We need to open up drilling and exploration here, and mining.  Environmental issues can be met, no need to stop completely.  You get the jobs back, the money starts coming back to the middle class instead of overseas. 
 
I really think we need to get rid of all income tax, and go to a VAT tax.  Even corporations have to spend money to buy equipment, energy, raw materials.  They would pay the vat tax when they bought these things.  Our income would not be taxed until we spent it.  More savings to buy things instead of buying on credit.  Some Libertarian figured if we went to a 1% VAT tax for the feds, we could eliminate both corporate and personal income tax.  Charities could be exempt.  New home purchases could probably be exempt also.  Little things here and there to stimulate home buying and charity giving. 

[ChungDoQuan]

SO WHAT IS YOUR COMPANY DOING


or are you just saying you know better hoe to spend other peoples money??

I provide healthcare based on income. You can not run a business like that and take insurance. My patients pay from $20 to $50 per visit. I don't think anyone has ever paid $50.  I'm so busy I'm usually sleep deprived. I am not rich, certainly not even close to the $200K a year mark, but I am able to do ok and to put 20% into retirement. I keep my other job basically for the healthcare benefits--- in two years that won't be necessary. I help people and I make a living. THAT'S a small business. 

[45-70.gov]

SO WHAT IS YOUR COMPANY DOING


or are you just saying you know better hoe to spend other peoples money??

I provide healthcare based on income. You can not run a business like that and take insurance. My patients pay from $20 to $50 per visit. I don't think anyone has ever paid $50.  I'm so busy I'm usually sleep deprived. I am not rich, certainly not even close to the $200K a year mark, but I am able to do ok and to put 20% into retirement. I keep my other job basically for the healthcare benefits--- in two years that won't be necessary. I help people and I make a living. THAT'S a small business. 

good for you
that does  make you a better person..........make no mistake about that
and you are FREE  to do this


DOES THAT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO  DEMAND  OTHERS HAVE YOUR VALUES???

[ChungDoQuan]

I don't demand that. You asked what I was personally doing. I DO think that big money, which is the equivalent of BIG Freedom of Speech, apparently, be restricted so that they can't put people like me out of business, and I do think that if they make 95% of the money, they should pay 95% of the taxes.

[SHOOTALL]

I don't demand that. You asked what I was personally doing. I DO think that big money, which is the equivalent of BIG Freedom of Speech, apparently, be restricted so that they can't put people like me out of business, and I do think that if they make 95% of the money, they should pay 95% of the taxes.

so their ablity to manage their business better than those who can't means nothing ?

[45-70.gov]

I don't demand that. You asked what I was personally doing. I DO think that big money, which is the equivalent of BIG Freedom of Speech, apparently, be restricted so that they can't put people like me out of business, and I do think that if they make 95% of the money, they should pay 95% of the taxes.

and  if i was a big business trying to put you  out


i would do it through government


i still don't get the  OP point

[Cuts Crooked]

.
 For the last 10-12 years there's been no recession for the 1%_ _ITS BEEN BOOM TIMES. Now if the 1% can just get all the taxes shifted to the underclass, continue off/inshoring labor, and get de-regulated things will be better FOR THEM; i.e. if you prefer mid-evil feudalism.
.
..TM7

I can tell you this for certain.......I never got a good job from a poor person.

[SHOOTALL]

Some will always make money get over it. But one must ask were they making as much as in good times ? Its getting funny if the govt. dosen't raise taxes as much as they want to its called a savings but the same people won't allow a company to make profit. Oh well when the money makers are all gone then the idoits will see .

[BUGEYE]

Don't y'all know that we should punish success?  how dare those people work sometimes from dawn to dark and stay and work from dark to the next dawn.     how dare they risk everything they own to try and establish a company which will give his family a good life.  government deserves nearly all he makes and government will decide how his family will be housed and fed and clothed.

I am sick of liberals and I'm ready to boot them out at the point of a gun.  If a revolution does happen, I hope these loyalists/liberals remember that some of them were hanged after the first revolution.

[jhm]

     I remember many yrs. back at GM they made 2 billion profit, and the UAW was jumping up and down saying that the rank and file deserved some of it, well it all boiled down to a 2% profit after all the taxes, and expenses were paid,  Back then the banks were paying something like 5% on savings accts.  GM would have been better off selling everything firing all the UAW and putting their money in a local bank.  Jim