True, Clinton was quite the pushover for Newt Gingrich, cutting welfare benefits and the Republican Congress reducing the debt in the years they had the House.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: Excuses. Ronald Reagan got his agenda passed with a Dem House.
Even "W" worked with Pelosi on getting stuff done after 2006.
Which just goes to show that Democrats are more willing to work with a Republican president and compromise than Republicans in congress are to work with a Democrat as president? For Republicans now in congress all I have seen from them is do it our way or we will make sure you don't do it at all. I sure hope a lot more Republican congress critters get defeated in 2014.....this country can't afford them anymore.
Hmmmm... it seems that a really BIG, BIG bill just past mark up... the immigration bill... helmed by 4 Dems and 4 Gop's.
FredHayek wrote: Hmm, Rush Limbaugh was saying the other day that Apple pays a very high percent of the corporate taxes actually paid to the US treasury. They just avoid as much as they pay?
Does Apple pay more than those evil oil companies? One advantage of domestic fracking, harder to hide profit offshore.
Maybe the IRS needs to spend more time auditing corporations rather than people who adopt children? Something like 60% of people who claimed an adoption tax deduction were auditied.
Apple does pay a lot in corporate income taxes ($14.21 billion income taxes paid world wide in 2012). They actually pay the third most total income tax of all US corporations, but much of it is not paid in the USA. The top two corporate income tax payers are oil companies with Exxon at #1 ($31.05 billion) and Chevron at #2 ($20 billion).
But Apple pays a much lower percentage income tax than the oil companies. Apple paid an effective rate of 25% compared to ExxonMobile at 39% and Chevron at 43% (I'm using numbers from the first link below which are similar to the 2nd link). Microsoft paid the tenth most taxes and their effective rate was similar to Apple at 23%.
And for the US only, Apple paid an effective rate of just 17% (second link) while the US corporate tax rate (before deductions) is 35%. Unless I missed it, I don't see the US numbers for the other companies in my links. So maybe the reason Apple is before Congress is because they had a very high income put paid a very low effective US rate?
Again LJ is here pushing for you to pay taxes PLUS corporate profit vs. just taxes.
Corporations that don't fail don't pay ANY taxes, ever. We pass all our expenses, no matter where they come from on to one of two parties, the consumer and the employee.
By the way, those were the people that I thought you were trying to protect. Why on earth would you raise their costs and specifically allocate the money to the corporations you were pretending to rail against? The name of the action does not matter nearly as much as the consequence. Raise corporate taxes and you have given them control of a larger portion of the economy of which to skim from. This is how it works.
What do you think happens to prices the day after a big corporate tax increase? Perhaps not much. What happens the day after a big corporate tax increase that is covered by the media and you brag up and down the message boards about it. Prices will go up and everyone will have been set up to expect it. You just shook the snow globe and those of us better at dealing with storm (the business owners) will come out ahead again. This is how it works.
Some people prefer a 'hidden' tax increase, such as a corporate tax increase which is totally passed on to the consumer in price increase, but not shown as tax increase, rather than being honest about it and showing it as a tax increase.
Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley
Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy
jf1acai wrote: Some people prefer a 'hidden' tax increase, such as a corporate tax increase which is totally passed on to the consumer in price increase, but not shown as tax increase, rather than being honest about it and showing it as a tax increase.
Thank you for saying that. Very few admit such things. Just too bad they pay more for that feel good feeling, I just though people were short on funds, it's cool to know that the cup is running over that people can afford such luxuries. The coolest part is that the LJs not only push for this, but they end up paying for it. This is called smart govt. 99% of people don't even see past it (being tricked into punishing yourself more than others).
Haha, LJ couldn't respond to a direct comment poking a hole in her premise....
AGAIN.
and then laughed at someone who did something 1/10th as funny. The funniest part is that Rush is only mentioned here and there, but LJ's taxes will keep going up faster than mine all the time and she will push for it - no less.
See that is your whole problem, you only listen to your echo chamber of far lefties and don't consider all sources like I do. Expand your horizons, if only to see how the other side actually thinks as opposed to HuffPo telling you how they think. :coffee-News: What a concept, getting it from the source and not cut and pasted.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
jf1acai wrote: Some people prefer a 'hidden' tax increase, such as a corporate tax increase which is totally passed on to the consumer in price increase, but not shown as tax increase, rather than being honest about it and showing it as a tax increase.
Thank you for saying that. Very few admit such things. Just too bad they pay more for that feel good feeling, I just though people were short on funds, it's cool to know that the cup is running over that people can afford such luxuries. The coolest part is that the LJs not only push for this, but they end up paying for it. This is called smart govt. 99% of people don't even see past it (being tricked into punishing yourself more than others).
Haha, LJ couldn't respond to a direct comment poking a hole in her premise....
AGAIN.
:thumbsup: To you both... This is where I have the most disagreement with my liberal friends. They seem to think that there's a way of stripping "excess profit" from corps which somehow benefits the employees and/or is put to good use by our wise government. I always ask them who ends up paying for a company's increase in their cost of doing business, and that's usually where the argument ends.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
Good point. Why does the Left assume that goverment will spend your money more wisely than you?
If you pay a guy $25 to mow your lawn every week, he earns money and you get a service. If the feds take your money so you can't afford to pay the lawn guy, he doesn't earn money, but the goverment will give him $10 in food stamps after they use the rest to fund the program administrators plus service the record high debt.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
See that is your whole problem, you only listen to your echo chamber of far lefties and don't consider all sources like I do. Expand your horizons, if only to see how the other side actually thinks as opposed to HuffPo telling you how they think. :coffee-News: What a concept, getting it from the source and not cut and pasted.
:thumbsup: To you both... This is where I have the most disagreement with my liberal friends. They seem to think that there's a way of stripping "excess profit" from corps which somehow benefits the employees and/or is put to good use by our wise government. I always ask them who ends up paying for a company's increase in their cost of doing business, and that's usually where the argument ends.
