Corporate profits are taxed at two levels, the company level and the shareholder level.
So, for example, Exxon earns $100. It’s taxed 35%, leaving $65. Then the shareholder is taxed at $39.5%, leaving $39.33.
In short, for every $100 in profits Exxon distributes, the Obama Regime takes $60.68, for a total tax rate of 60.61%.[/quote]
Here is another theoretical falsehood. 35% is the nominal tax rate, not the effective rate. A big difference![/quote]
So, what is a “fair” rate?[/quote]
Not the point. The poster tried to pretend that corporations pay 35% and they do not. Fed tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a much better rate than today. So you tell me…[/quote]
I wasn’t addressing your point. You brought up what wasn’t fair, I was asking you a direct question. What is? What is fair to take from a company? At what minimum rate is it unfair to allow a company to keep from its’ earnings?[/quote]
Anywhere up to 100% is fair (Not necessarily smart though). Companies only exist by government grace. They could not exist in a free market.[/quote]
Corporate profits are taxed at two levels, the company level and the shareholder level.
So, for example, Exxon earns $100. It’s taxed 35%, leaving $65. Then the shareholder is taxed at $39.5%, leaving $39.33.
In short, for every $100 in profits Exxon distributes, the Obama Regime takes $60.68, for a total tax rate of 60.61%.[/quote]
Here is another theoretical falsehood. 35% is the nominal tax rate, not the effective rate. A big difference![/quote]
So, what is a “fair” rate?[/quote]
Not the point. The poster tried to pretend that corporations pay 35% and they do not. Fed tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a much better rate than today. So you tell me…[/quote]
I wasn’t addressing your point. You brought up what wasn’t fair, I was asking you a direct question. What is? What is fair to take from a company? At what minimum rate is it unfair to allow a company to keep from its’ earnings?[/quote]
Anywhere up to 100% is fair (Not necessarily smart though). Companies only exist by government grace. They could not exist in a free market.[/quote]
“Atherosclerosis is the most common form of this disorder. Atherosclerosis is also the most common cause of cardiovascular disease, and it’s often caused by an unhealthy diet, lack of exercise, being overweight and smoking. All of these are major risk factors for developing atherosclerosis and, in turn, cardiovascular disease.”
"Causes of heart arrhythmia
Common causes of abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias), or conditions that can lead to arrhythmias include:
Heart defects you’re born with (congenital heart defects)
Coronary artery disease
High blood pressure
Diabetes
Smoking
Excessive use of alcohol or caffeine
Drug abuse
Stress
Some over-the-counter medications, prescription medications, dietary supplements and herbal remedies
Valvular heart disease"
So the US Healthcare system is causing people to have eat an unhealthy diet, not exercise, be fat, and smoke?
How about, people are not being responsible for themselves?
You can’t blame Jiffy Lube for your car engine shelling its bearings because you chose to change the oil every 50,000 miles.
I’m convinced you need to move to Cuba. You will be happy there.
And look, it will reduce the amount of stress in your life. You know, that’s one of those factors that can cause heart arrhythmia.[/quote]
Even if your heart disease statement is true it doesn’t deflate my statement. Read it again.
[/quote]
“Even if your heart disease statement is true?”
I cited the CDC statistics. Provided the LINK so you can confirm it.
And besides, it STATES the major cause of death is HEART DISEASE. Not that the Health industry kills them.
You conveniently ignore facts.
Please go live in one of your Marxist wonderlands.[/quote]
So are you claiming that every other country who has a from of government healthcare and pays half as much do not have heart disease problems? And this is the main reason why healthcare in the U.S. is so expensive? Also how do you explain away the much better efficiency of Medicare? Do people who have Medicare not get heart disease?
[/quote]
Look who’s changing topics?
The issue was you discrediting CDC statistics. “Even if your heart disease statement is true”…
You proved perfectly in your response how you avoid facts.
I’ll make it VERY SIMPLE for you. Maybe you can follow along.
You stated as FACT “More people are killed by the US Heathcare System then any disease.”
Nothing to back it up.
I counter with statistics from the CDC that refuted that, ALONG with related link to verify.
Your response was “Even if your heart disease statement is true”
I point out exactly when you discredit CDC statistics, which you claim to have no knowledge having done.
And you turn it into trying some crap about other governments and their healthcare systems.
How the fuck does that have anything to the point of you avoiding CDC statitics that prove your assumptions wrong?
I posted a link showing the WASTE and ABUSE of Medicare in that same thread, BTW.
[/quote]
What about infant mortality rates? Are they to be blamed on heart disease? Can you explain this?
Waste and abuse in Medicare? Try the private sector. Why do government programs cost less? Medicare, V.A.? Why does every other county pay about half as much as we do when they have some form of government run healthcare? According to you it is because they don’t have heart disease ruining their system. Even if they didn’t have 1 case you have failed to give an answer as to why government run sectors of healthcare in this country operate more efficiently than the private sector. Do people who receive Medicare not suffer from heart disease? Only folks in the private sector?
My overall point is that private sector healthcare is a sham. It costs twice as much and forces folks into BK, why? What is your basic argument as to why this is or isn’t so? Heart disease, proven by CDC stats?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Funny that they have such power over the elected officials.
[/quote]
No, it’s not. What IS funny(and sad) is that those who want to limit the “power” of corporations continue to vote for the philosophy that gives corporations and government the legal ability to coerce.
You and those like you are too stupid to understand that you are the ones who have given corporations any power they have.
When you give those with the right to use force the “right” to control the economy, then you should expect just what you claim to be/think you’re against. Your average citizen has nothing with which to persuade government officials, but those with big money do. You live in a fantasy world in which people are not persuaded by money, and continue to grant power to your rulers.
You are a slave who gleefully takes his/her beating, then begs for more.[/quote]
Then why did Glass-Steigel work so long and so good?
I do not live in a fantasy world, regulations when enforced are good as they can curtail BIg Corporations abuse like Glass- Steigel. Gut the regulations and corporations run amuck.
I will agree that those who vote for democrats because they believe in their plank are delusional. The democrats, like the Republicans, are owned by corporate interests. It is to their interests that they pander.
Big banks need to be broken up, Glass-Steigel needs to be re-implemented and people need to be more involved in unionization.
This guy has been practicing economy for longer than you have been an accountant.[/quote]
Great. Doesn’t mean a damn thing.
When “practicing economists” teach accounting courses and CPE lectures on a regular basis, you will then, and only then have a point.
I’m not afraid of anything, nor would I be showing anyone the “right way”. I would simiply be pointing out they are spending an awful lot of time and energy comparing apples to beaver pelts. Much like I’ve already pointed out here.
[quote] Maybe it’s that your ignorant of economics since you are an accountant. Just some thoughts.
[/quote]
Well, then unless you have a degree in economics or “practice it” does that not make you the ignorant one?
I mean I was required to take a few courses in economics to get my degrees, and was also tested on it to earn my letters. So I would say, no, I’m not ignorant. [/quote]
Comparison analogy doesn’t answer the question? Why don’t you show them the imbalance?
Just because you have taken a rudimentary course or two on economics does not prove that you are not ignorant in it’s real world applications. I would argue that you are as you think micro has much more of an effect than macro in the overall economy. Even though the evidence has shown otherwise,
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
What about infant mortality rates? Are they to be blamed on heart disease? Can you explain this?
Waste and abuse in Medicare? Try the private sector. Why do government programs cost less? Medicare, V.A.? Why does every other county pay about half as much as we do when they have some form of government run healthcare? According to you it is because they don’t have heart disease ruining their system. Even if they didn’t have 1 case you have failed to give an answer as to why government run sectors of healthcare in this country operate more efficiently than the private sector. Do people who receive Medicare not suffer from heart disease? Only folks in the private sector?
My overall point is that private sector healthcare is a sham. It costs twice as much and forces folks into BK, why? What is your basic argument as to why this is or isn’t so? Heart disease, proven by CDC stats?[/quote]
Government programs do not cost less. You are truly every bit as stupid as you seem if you think that’s possible. A government can lower healthcare costs by enslaving people(if it was to force people to work for less than their value), spreading costs around(kind of like insurance companies do, but government forces some to pay huge amounts while others pay nothing), or by choosing what services it will and will not pay for(ex: you need this, but the cost is too great to justify it, so good luck).
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Big banks need to be broken up, [/quote]
This I agree with and agree that more large monopolies and oligopolies need to be broken up. We need competition and we’re not getting it.
Corporate tax rates are immaterial. We shouldn’t base our entire economy on hand outs in the form of taxes. It should be driven by trade but I suppose that I’m stuck in the 1700’s and that’s a discussion for a different day.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Then why did Glass-Steigel work so long and so good?
I do not live in a fantasy world, regulations when enforced are good as they can curtail BIg Corporations abuse like Glass- Steigel. Gut the regulations and corporations run amuck.
I will agree that those who vote for democrats because they believe in their plank are delusional. The democrats, like the Republicans, are owned by corporate interests. It is to their interests that they pander.
Big banks need to be broken up, Glass-Steigel needs to be re-implemented and people need to be more involved in unionization.
[/quote]
Please explain how the Glass-Steagall Act worked “so long and so good.” I eagerly await your analysis of something that you don’t even know how to spell.
I don’t believe I mentioned voting for democrats, so I’m not sure what you’re agreeing with there.
The only thing that needs to be broken up is the Federal Reserve System.
Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]
lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.
Dumb[/quote]
Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.
The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]
Nor does he understand that cutting into company profits will cut jobs, reduce pay and increase the price of goods. While foreign competitors don’t have this problem and can further undercut prices of goods further reducing company profits and increasing job loss.
Allowing companies to make money is good for the economy. Driving them out of business or forcing them to move out of the country is bad for the economy. This is really simple stuff.
The proof is in the pudding, removing the payroll tax credit on corporations from based on obama’s recent compromise took money out of my paycheck, the company did not suffer at all, they just passed along the tax.[/quote]
i completely disagree with Obama’s raise of the payroll tax it only takes money out of the workers pockets. A true hallmark of a so called “socialist”.
If the effective tax rate was close to zero can you provide evidence? Corporate tax rates were about 52% and personal tax rates were over 90% and the economy grew much faster than today when taxes are much lower.
Since you are so brilliant why don’t you post these so called facts on their website to disprove the propaganda of these economists?
[/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Big banks need to be broken up, [/quote]
This I agree with and agree that more large monopolies and oligopolies need to be broken up. We need competition and we’re not getting it.
Corporate tax rates are immaterial. We shouldn’t base our entire economy on hand outs in the form of taxes. It should be driven by trade but I suppose that I’m stuck in the 1700’s and that’s a discussion for a different day.
james[/quote]
When I was 25 there were more than twenty major banks; now there are four. Same for oil companies and so on…the change is not a reflection of the competitive free market at work. Imagine what the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc would be like if there were only four teams.
Corporate profits are taxed at two levels, the company level and the shareholder level.
So, for example, Exxon earns $100. It’s taxed 35%, leaving $65. Then the shareholder is taxed at $39.5%, leaving $39.33.
In short, for every $100 in profits Exxon distributes, the Obama Regime takes $60.68, for a total tax rate of 60.61%.[/quote]
Here is another theoretical falsehood. 35% is the nominal tax rate, not the effective rate. A big difference![/quote]
So, what is a “fair” rate?[/quote]
Not the point. The poster tried to pretend that corporations pay 35% and they do not. Fed tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a much better rate than today. So you tell me…[/quote]
I wasn’t addressing your point. You brought up what wasn’t fair, I was asking you a direct question. What is? What is fair to take from a company? At what minimum rate is it unfair to allow a company to keep from its’ earnings?[/quote]
Anywhere up to 100% is fair (Not necessarily smart though). Companies only exist by government grace. They could not exist in a free market.[/quote]
Are you serious?[/quote]
Of course. If you don’t want the government to be able to set your tax rate then stop taking handouts.
I don’t think it is smart, or good for the economy, because it would hurt the ability of American companies to compete with foreign companies.
Anywhere up to 100% is fair (Not necessarily smart though). Companies only exist by government grace. They could not exist in a free market.[/quote]
Are you serious?[/quote]
Of course. If you don’t want the government to be able to set your tax rate then stop taking handouts.
I don’t think it is smart, or good for the economy, because it would hurt the ability of American companies to compete with foreign companies.
[/quote]
You’ve gotta be pulling my leg.
First of all, I wish I could get a handout. I’m white, male, and work for a living. I’m the one handing out. Congress sets the tax rate, that’s right in the consitution.
Second, free enterprise can exist without the gov. Privately funded railroads are a prime example.
Third, it wouldn’t hurt companies ability to compete with foreign companies. It would drive U.S. companies to become foreign companies. They would just leave.
Anywhere up to 100% is fair (Not necessarily smart though). Companies only exist by government grace. They could not exist in a free market.[/quote]
Are you serious?[/quote]
Of course. If you don’t want the government to be able to set your tax rate then stop taking handouts.
I don’t think it is smart, or good for the economy, because it would hurt the ability of American companies to compete with foreign companies.
[/quote]
You’ve gotta be pulling my leg.
First of all, I wish I could get a handout. I’m white, male, and work for a living. I’m the one handing out. Congress sets the tax rate, that’s right in the consitution.
Second, free enterprise can exist without the gov. Privately funded railroads are a prime example.
Third, it wouldn’t hurt companies ability to compete with foreign companies. It would drive U.S. companies to become foreign companies. They would just leave. [/quote]
Not at all. There is a reason the worlds top 2000 companies have assets worth a combined ~$160 trillion.
Free enterprise certainly can exist without the government. Companies, by their very nature, cannot.
“Atherosclerosis is the most common form of this disorder. Atherosclerosis is also the most common cause of cardiovascular disease, and it’s often caused by an unhealthy diet, lack of exercise, being overweight and smoking. All of these are major risk factors for developing atherosclerosis and, in turn, cardiovascular disease.”
"Causes of heart arrhythmia
Common causes of abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias), or conditions that can lead to arrhythmias include:
Heart defects you’re born with (congenital heart defects)
Coronary artery disease
High blood pressure
Diabetes
Smoking
Excessive use of alcohol or caffeine
Drug abuse
Stress
Some over-the-counter medications, prescription medications, dietary supplements and herbal remedies
Valvular heart disease"
So the US Healthcare system is causing people to have eat an unhealthy diet, not exercise, be fat, and smoke?
How about, people are not being responsible for themselves?
You can’t blame Jiffy Lube for your car engine shelling its bearings because you chose to change the oil every 50,000 miles.
I’m convinced you need to move to Cuba. You will be happy there.
And look, it will reduce the amount of stress in your life. You know, that’s one of those factors that can cause heart arrhythmia.[/quote]
Even if your heart disease statement is true it doesn’t deflate my statement. Read it again.
[/quote]
“Even if your heart disease statement is true?”
I cited the CDC statistics. Provided the LINK so you can confirm it.
And besides, it STATES the major cause of death is HEART DISEASE. Not that the Health industry kills them.
You conveniently ignore facts.
Please go live in one of your Marxist wonderlands.[/quote]
So are you claiming that every other country who has a from of government healthcare and pays half as much do not have heart disease problems? And this is the main reason why healthcare in the U.S. is so expensive? Also how do you explain away the much better efficiency of Medicare? Do people who have Medicare not get heart disease?
[/quote]
Look who’s changing topics?
The issue was you discrediting CDC statistics. “Even if your heart disease statement is true”…
You proved perfectly in your response how you avoid facts.
I’ll make it VERY SIMPLE for you. Maybe you can follow along.
You stated as FACT “More people are killed by the US Heathcare System then any disease.”
Nothing to back it up.
I counter with statistics from the CDC that refuted that, ALONG with related link to verify.
Your response was “Even if your heart disease statement is true”
I point out exactly when you discredit CDC statistics, which you claim to have no knowledge having done.
And you turn it into trying some crap about other governments and their healthcare systems.
How the fuck does that have anything to the point of you avoiding CDC statitics that prove your assumptions wrong?
I posted a link showing the WASTE and ABUSE of Medicare in that same thread, BTW.
[/quote]
What about infant mortality rates? Are they to be blamed on heart disease? Can you explain this?
Waste and abuse in Medicare? Try the private sector. Why do government programs cost less? Medicare, V.A.? Why does every other county pay about half as much as we do when they have some form of government run healthcare? According to you it is because they don’t have heart disease ruining their system. Even if they didn’t have 1 case you have failed to give an answer as to why government run sectors of healthcare in this country operate more efficiently than the private sector. Do people who receive Medicare not suffer from heart disease? Only folks in the private sector?
My overall point is that private sector healthcare is a sham. It costs twice as much and forces folks into BK, why? What is your basic argument as to why this is or isn’t so? Heart disease, proven by CDC stats?[/quote]
You stated as a fact that the US Heathcare kills more people then disease.
I countered with CDC facts.
You then try to answer with a different, non-sequitar statement.
Pay fucking attention.
Your overall point is you rattle off opinions and when you are countered with contrary facts, you go off on another tangent. Non-sequitar.
Even when I break it down point by point, you don’t get it.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Not at all. There is a reason the worlds top 2000 companies have assets worth a combined ~$160 trillion.
Free enterprise certainly can exist without the government. Companies, by their very nature, cannot.[/quote]
Please explain your statement. It seems so nonsensical that I am genuinely curious to hear the explanation behind it. [/quote]
I’m not phaeton but I think he meant corporations and not companies. If so then that’s true because by definition a corporation requires laws in order to exist. And laws require a government.