Thread: 'Many failures' caused BP spill

Originally Posted by Fovezer

You make no sense, and again you think some personal experience in a small section makes you an expert in the whole field. Everyone is biased except you, and the people reporting on government reports are all lying. Right... To put it bluntly, I don't give a shit about your taxes. They don't mean anything and the world doesn't revolve around you. Your taxes are not the same as other companies and I'm talking about all companies, of which yours is only one. Does your company have over $250 million in assests? So why do you think you can speak for them?

You tried to correct me on what i have been doing for 15 years. I also only spoke to small businesses. Obviously i cant speak for mcdonalds i havent even served 1 million customers yet.

What the hell? Do you even understand what you posted? How does that undercut anything I said? In fact, it strengthens it. You are bitching that companies pay too much in taxes, I counter by saying the effective tax rate is quite low and that their tax burden has dropped. You quote a line that basically says that companies sidestep their tax liabilities and that means individuals pay a greater share. That's pretty much word for word what I have been saying. LOL at your pathetic "gotcha" attempt that backfired.

I understand what i said perfectly. Your post is about the amount of revenue reciepts that have been turned into the IRS for business taxes. Did you not understand what the article was about? The burden hasn't dropped the amount of companies fofilling their obligation has. That is why i gave you the very next item in the article you posted because it seemed like you misunderstood what was being said.

I'm not debates business taxes themselves, I'm debating the rate and percentage of which those business pay. So pay attention.

The problem is your debating the wrong numbers.

What are you talking about? There is nothing called "Obamacare" or any other public program anyone can sign up for. The public plan wasn't passed. The "public plan" that members of Congress get is for federal employees because they are the employer.

Your trying to suggest that companies pay less in taxes then they did 10 years ago and that is not the case. The articles clearly state that companies are not paying the taxes because they are finding way around them wether it be legal or illegal ways. Let me give you a couple quotes from your articles.

"Currently the rate is 35%"
"If the U.S. drops the rate to 30% but closes other tax loopholes, that may ultimately generate more tax revenue for the government."
"said that some corporations reported zero income before deducting expenses while others said they had zero net income after deducting expenses. Either way, those companies reported no tax liability, the GAO said."
"The Internal Revenue Service and congressional investigators have uncovered the widespread use of legal corporate tax-avoidance schemes"
"While such companies are growing in number, they don't account for the precipitous decline in corporate tax receipts. Nor would they explain why companies such as Wachovia paid no income taxes in 2002, despite reported profits of $4.1 billion"

It is all about the companies that aren't paying. The rate has not dropped like you tried to imply. In fact the rates have gone up more then down over the past 10 years. Much of which was a Bush thing of which he gets a giant middle finger for.



Now let me explain to you why some say 13.4-16% and other say 35%. Our companies actual burden is in the are in the area of 13.4-16% and in some areas more. Then you have to take into account that is just the tax on the companies money. Now add the payroll tax we pay. Of which should be easy to find out for you. Look at your paycheck. The number you paid to fed. income tax your employeer paid as well for you and everyone else there that gets a check. Of course this only applies to fed. I'm lucky enough to live in a state that does not have state tax for the individual but unlucky enough for it not to apply to companies in the state. Does that make it a bit easier to see where i am coming from?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

You tried to correct me on what i have been doing for 15 years. I also only spoke to small businesses. Obviously i cant speak for mcdonalds i havent even served 1 million customers yet.

No, I didn't try and correct you on anything. If you reread my post, I clearly exempted small business like yours by saying many of them claim income from their business as personal income and not business income, which would mean they fall under the "paid no tax" category. They paid personal income tax on it, but no business taxes. Then I went on to say my big problem was with the big companies that don't pay. So I don't know what you thought I was trying to correct you on, because I wasn't.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I understand what i said perfectly. Your post is about the amount of revenue reciepts that have been turned into the IRS for business taxes. Did you not understand what the article was about? The burden hasn't dropped the amount of companies fofilling their obligation has. That is why i gave you the very next item in the article you posted because it seemed like you misunderstood what was being said.

So if companies are not fulfilling their tax obligations, what does that mean for their burden? It goes down. By avoiding paying taxes, through loopholes, or other tax cuts, that means they are putting less money into the pot, therefore their burden becomes less and it shifts to the people. Unless you think that by tax burden I am referring to individual companies burden? If so, that's not what the article is about. It is about all taxes from all companies. That is the corporate tax burden that has dropped from the high 30% to less than 10%.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

The problem is your debating the wrong numbers.

No, I know exactly what I'm debating.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Your trying to suggest that companies pay less in taxes then they did 10 years ago and that is not the case. The articles clearly state that companies are not paying the taxes because they are finding way around them wether it be legal or illegal ways. Let me give you a couple quotes from your articles.

"Currently the rate is 35%"
"If the U.S. drops the rate to 30% but closes other tax loopholes, that may ultimately generate more tax revenue for the government."
"said that some corporations reported zero income before deducting expenses while others said they had zero net income after deducting expenses. Either way, those companies reported no tax liability, the GAO said."
"The Internal Revenue Service and congressional investigators have uncovered the widespread use of legal corporate tax-avoidance schemes"
"While such companies are growing in number, they don't account for the precipitous decline in corporate tax receipts. Nor would they explain why companies such as Wachovia paid no income taxes in 2002, despite reported profits of $4.1 billion"

It is all about the companies that aren't paying. The rate has not dropped like you tried to imply. In fact the rates have gone up more then down over the past 10 years. Much of which was a Bush thing of which he gets a giant middle finger for.

I think we might be on slightly different pages here. My first post on the subject was about companies not paying taxes, and I agree with you that those who shirk their tax obligations are the problem. I went on to say that the general tax burden of corporations, as in the percentage of all taxes paid by all businesses, has dropped from high 30% to below 10%. I wasn't arguing about tax rates there. The only mention I made of tax rates was that the average tax rate for all corporations is quite low. Yes, the official rate for the highest earners is 35%, but none of them ever pay that. So of course if you close loopholes, like the first article states, you'll see an increase in tax revenue. It doesn't matter what the top rate is. I haven't ever been arguing if individual companies are paying more or less, though.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Now let me explain to you why some say 13.4-16% and other say 35%. Our companies actual burden is in the are in the area of 13.4-16% and in some areas more. Then you have to take into account that is just the tax on the companies money. Now add the payroll tax we pay. Of which should be easy to find out for you. Look at your paycheck. The number you paid to fed. income tax your employeer paid as well for you and everyone else there that gets a check. Of course this only applies to fed. I'm lucky enough to live in a state that does not have state tax for the individual but unlucky enough for it not to apply to companies in the state. Does that make it a bit easier to see where i am coming from?

35% is the official corporate tax rate for income of $10,000,000+. Source. The 13.4% is the average effective tax rate which is the average companies pay after taking into account exemptions, deductions, loopholes, etc. I understand where you are coming from as a business owner, however small businesses like yours are not the problem here. Yeah, you'll get a nasty letter from the IRS if you are late, but do you think the same goes for megacorporations? Hell no!

Originally Posted by Fovezer

No, I didn't try and correct you on anything. If you reread my post, I clearly exempted small business like yours by saying many of them claim income from their business as personal income and not business income, which would mean they fall under the "paid no tax" category. They paid personal income tax on it, but no business taxes. Then I went on to say my big problem was with the big companies that don't pay. So I don't know what you thought I was trying to correct you on, because I wasn't.



So if companies are not fulfilling their tax obligations, what does that mean for their burden? It goes down. By avoiding paying taxes, through loopholes, or other tax cuts, that means they are putting less money into the pot, therefore their burden becomes less and it shifts to the people. Unless you think that by tax burden I am referring to individual companies burden? If so, that's not what the article is about. It is about all taxes from all companies. That is the corporate tax burden that has dropped from the high 30% to less than 10%.



No, I know exactly what I'm debating.



I think we might be on slightly different pages here. My first post on the subject was about companies not paying taxes, and I agree with you that those who shirk their tax obligations are the problem. I went on to say that the general tax burden of corporations, as in the percentage of all taxes paid by all businesses, has dropped from high 30% to below 10%. I wasn't arguing about tax rates there. The only mention I made of tax rates was that the average tax rate for all corporations is quite low. Yes, the official rate for the highest earners is 35%, but none of them ever pay that. So of course if you close loopholes, like the first article states, you'll see an increase in tax revenue. It doesn't matter what the top rate is. I haven't ever been arguing if individual companies are paying more or less, though.



35% is the official corporate tax rate for income of $10,000,000+. Source. The 13.4% is the average effective tax rate which is the average companies pay after taking into account exemptions, deductions, loopholes, etc. I understand where you are coming from as a business owner, however small businesses like yours are not the problem here. Yeah, you'll get a nasty letter from the IRS if you are late, but do you think the same goes for megacorporations? Hell no!

As we seem to agree on most within a margin i will simply say the tax burden doesn't become less just become some have decided not to pay. The burden remains the same and if your one of those that actually try to do it correctly you really get fucked when you make a mistake. They do not assume it was an error they immediately think your avoiding it all together intentionally. I agree the big companies are pretty much let to skate off with what ever they want.

Originally Posted by flame

Pretty rough times. My company has gone to Texas Workforce for applicants and we get only 10 people come out. Hired three employees and within 2 months, two of the three quit. Here there is work, not enough qood workers. Many companies are looking for workers here. My brother has seen a slow down at work and they are cutting some hours, he has not been affected. His sales numbers are still good just not as booming as they were. Our suppliers that saw slow downs in sales and lost a few customers are starting to pick them back up. Currently what I have seen is suppliers not being able to meet the demand. Across the board we have parts back ordered and some have been as far out as 10 weeks. IMO companies cut back and now that some of us are picking up they dont have the employees to catch up and they are still reluctant to add new employees. I think confidence will come back with time, tax breaks that support hiring would help.

We are lucky, Texas is doing better than most, and here in south texas we have a lot of oil exploration going on and many are expecting big growth. Locally we have some large construction projects that have kept money flowing.

Now if I lost my job, I would get another job and survive. I live within my means and avoid debt, which means if things go south I can survive. That american dream with big mortgages and multiple car payments has cost many people. I have continued to spend money, but I have put aside a good bit of money just to be safe.

Many failures, yes, the government(not just a political party) is full of many failures.

Lucky me im in a state that is just not showing signs of improvement. I would have thought Florida out of the entire country would have bounced back before everyone else due to our tourist industry. However once it extended outside our borders we were fucked.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

As we seem to agree on most within a margin i will simply say the tax burden doesn't become less just become some have decided not to pay. The burden remains the same and if your one of those that actually try to do it correctly you really get fucked when you make a mistake. They do not assume it was an error they immediately think your avoiding it all together intentionally. I agree the big companies are pretty much let to skate off with what ever they want.

I do think we mostly agree here, however you are still misunderstanding what I was referring to when I said tax burden. I am not talking about individual companies tax burdens that they are required to pay. I am talking about when you take all the tax revenue collected in a year and then divide that by who paid what percentage of it. Corporations, all of them, paid less than 10% of all the taxes collected. That is down from high 30% in the 1950's. That is the reduced tax burden I am talking about, as in their share of taxes paid. I am not talking about their individual burdens.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

I do think we mostly agree here, however you are still misunderstanding what I was referring to when I said tax burden. I am not talking about individual companies tax burdens that they are required to pay. I am talking about when you take all the tax revenue collected in a year and then divide that by who paid what percentage of it. Corporations, all of them, paid less than 10% of all the taxes collected. That is down from high 30% in the 1950's. That is the reduced tax burden I am talking about, as in their share of taxes paid. I am not talking about their individual burdens.

Gotcha i was reffering to the percentage of earning from the company not the percentage of the total that actually paid anything. We now see eye to eye and i agree with you.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Gotcha i was reffering to the percentage of earning from the company not the percentage of the total that actually paid anything. We now see eye to eye and i agree with you.

Well, that misunderstanding explains why we were arguing on a rare topic we seem to actually agree on, lol.