Corporate taxes are too LOW!

A tax exemption is not a subsidy TM, it is an exemption. To forward the idea that an exemption is a subsidy, you first have to establish that the money belongs to the government and not the individual or the corporation that earned it through their labor or as a result of selling what they produced at their expense.

Does the money you earn belong first to the government or to you TM? For a tax exemption to be the equivalent of a tax subsidy, the money would necessarily have to first belong to the government and not to you.

Do you really believe that? Are you serious - you don't think that the federal government subsidizes corporations? ADM would be surprised to hear that as well as Boeing, Motorola, and Exxon just to name a few. I can see that you are one of the easily misled dupes that actually believes that corporations are our savior from the evil government. Taxes MUST be collected in order to give the population certain things that you seem to take for granted, such as roads, fire, police, and national defense. You want to live in Somalia? That's what happens when there is no government.

Something the Dog Said wrote: I have no desire to be king. I would prefer a system where products are priced at their true costs, and not subsidized by those not consuming them. If corporations are utilizing government services, then it is only fair and right that they pay for those services and not be subsidized by individuals who do purchase their products.

You still have no answer as to how to make things fair. And how are corporations not paying for government services? There are lots of other taxes including property that pay for those services and nobody is exempt. I pay $12,000 every year to the Denver crooks and I guarantee I don't benefit by even half of that.

towermonkey wrote: You want to live in Somalia? .

Do you listen to Thom Hartman? That is what he says that the r's do want to turn this country into.

you lunkheads are going to pay no matter what, how is the only thing you are debating, get real. Useful idiots to the money folks.. you are all the losers in this game you just don't get it yet . You may on your death beds.
The real money folks love you guys. You think your 50k is rich, foolish but you deserve what you get. They make you believe that it is about some principle, go on thinking that and they get the last laugh all the way to the bank.

towermonkey wrote: Do you really believe that? Are you serious - you don't think that the federal government subsidizes corporations? ADM would be surprised to hear that as well as Boeing, Motorola, and Exxon just to name a few. I can see that you are one of the easily misled dupes that actually believes that corporations are our savior from the evil government. Taxes MUST be collected in order to give the population certain things that you seem to take for granted, such as roads, fire, police, and national defense. You want to live in Somalia? That's what happens when there is no government.

Certainly the federal government subsidizes corporations, as well as individuals, but tax exemptions are not subsidies. Paying someone not to grow anything on their land, whether it is Archer Daniel Midland or the family farmer, is a federal subsidy. Allowing a person or corporation to deduct from their income an amount equal to the generous charity they have contributed before their tax liability is computed is a tax exemption, not a subsidy.

So yes TM, the government does subsidize corporations, and those subsidies, whether they are for the person who operates their family farm as a corporation or ADM, should be eliminated. I wholly support, on the other hand, the tax exemptions granted for charitable donations, as they reduce the necessity of federal charity. The goal is to provide the charity and as long as the charity is provided voluntarily, no further involuntary confiscation of funds should occur. Neither you nor I has the right to determine how charitable someone else should be required to be with their own money. Confiscation of funds through taxation for the purposes of providing charity to individuals is not something the federal government should be involved with at any level other than to encourage, through tax exemptions, the voluntary practice of donating to charity. I understand that progressives think that the evil corporations and the evil millionaires and billionaires are not nearly as charitable as they ought to be, but they might just be willing to be more charitable than they already are if they didn't have the salve for their conscious that they already pay a hefty sum in taxes to provide that charity.

Cash for Clunkers was a subsidy - the federal government should not be subsidizing anyone, corporate or individual, regardless of their position on the income scale. Though the government is dependent upon the people, the people should not be dependent upon the government. That is as true today as it was when Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, vetoed a federal appropriation bill to provide funds for Texas farmers to purchase more seed. The result of the federal government not supporting the people was that the good citizens themselves voluntarily donated far more in funds than the federal appropriation bill was seeking for the same purpose.

http://front.moveon.org/d-which-corpora ... 2b858e%2C0
Pay Your Taxes? These 10 Companies Didn't

1. Exxon
2. Bank of America
3. General Electric
4. Chevron
5. Boeing
6. Valero Energy
7. Goldman Sachs
8. CitiGroup
9. ConocoPhillips
10. Carnival Cruise Lines


As an example, here's news for Bank of America - they aren't paying taxes, getting bailouts from the government, laying people off, planning on making more deep cuts, yet their executives are making millions in stock grants? And you guys are stuck arguing over the tax rate for corporations??? The rich are taking care of themselves and screwing us in the process!

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010 ... oes-party/
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/0 ... -cuts.html

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/0 ... rants.html
Bank of America's top four executives, including chief executive Brian Moynihan, are getting stock grants worth a total of about $33 million, though the ultimate payouts will depend on future company performance.

Like for 2009, none of the executives will receive a traditional cash bonus for last year's work, but if the company meets performance hurdles, three of the executives will earn more in 2010 than they did in the previous year.

Bank of America's board awarded the compensation after a year that saw the company lose $3.6 billion for common shareholders, worse than a $2.2 billion loss in 2009. In the filing, the bank said board members made their decision "based upon their recognition of 2010 as a unique and critical transition year for the company and their evaluation of the performance of the company, its lines of business and individual executive officers."
Really? So I guess they have a damn low bar for performance hurdles then don't they? :bash
For 2011, the board also approved pay raises for Noski, Price and Montag, who will see their salaries increase to $850,000 from $800,000. Moynihan's base pay will stay at $950,000.



Last week, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said it gave CEO Lloyd Blankfein a stock bonus worth $12.6 million for 2010, up from $9 million in restricted stock a year earlier, according to Bloomberg News. His base salary climbed to $2 million from $600,000. Other top Goldman executives saw their base salaries jump to $1.85 million from $600,000.
http://www.layofflist.org/2010/02/14/go ... or-profit/

Citigroup gave CEO Vikram Pandit an even bigger raise, upping his salary to $1.75 million from a token $1 after the bank posted its first profit under his leadership.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flo ... he-layoffs
Citigroup

Layoffs since 2008: 59,000

New openings: 1,990

Where's your list of all the leftist that didn't pay their "FAIR SHARE"?

Bank of America isn't even a US owned company.

BoA is publicly traded on the NYSE and is a DOW component. How is it not US owned?