Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — At least 13 firms receiving billions of dollars in bailout money owe a total of more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes, a key lawmaker said Thursday.

Rep. John Lewis, chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the federal bailout, said two firms owe more than $100 million apiece.

"This is shameful. It is a disgrace," said Lewis, D-Ga. "We are going to get to the bottom of what is going on here."

The House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight discovered the unpaid taxes in a review of tax records from 23 of the firms receiving the most money, Lewis said as he opened a hearing on the issue.

The committee said it could not legally release the names of those companies owing taxes. It said one recipient had almost $113 million in unpaid federal income taxes from 2005 and 2006. A second recipient owed almost $102 million dating to before 2004. Another was behind $1.1 million in federal income taxes and $223,000 in federal employment taxes.

"If we looked at all 470 recipients, how much would they owe?" Lewis asked.

Banks and other firms receiving federal money were required to sign contracts stating they had no unpaid taxes, Lewis said. But he said the Treasury Department did not ask them to turn over their tax records.

Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, told the hearing that if an executive signed a contract knowing that information about unpaid taxes was false, "that would potentially be a crime." He said his office will look to see if crimes were committed.

People will ask, said Rep. Artur Davis, D-Tenn., why there are "large companies getting taxpayer dollars, making false representations, and we can't even name them, much less make them pay the money back, much less prosecute them."

Davis continued: "Will they get their day on a billboard, hopefully?"

"Absolutely," said Barofsky. If someone lied, he said. "They need to be prosecuted."

The revelation is sure to spark outrage on Capitol Hill, where the House is expected to vote Thursday on a bill that would impose steep taxes on employee bonuses at firms that have received bailout money.

To date, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, has paid out more than $300 billion to private companies, with billions more on the way.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Us Loses Up To $100 Billion A Year To Offshore Tax Havens

This is the outrage the 90% of us that don't rip the country off should be having "Tea Bag" parties over.

source: Huffington Post

Offshore Tax Havens: A State-By-State Breakdown Of The Cost To Taxpayers

A Senate report estimated in 2008 that the United States loses up to $100 billion a year in tax revenue to offshore tax havens (PDF). In a report released Wednesday, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group offers a state-by-state breakdown of the cost to taxpayers of tax revenue lost to "shell companies and sham headquarters" in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

The practice soaks dutiful taxpayers in every state for hundreds of millions of dollars, according to U.S. PIRG. The citizens of New York and Texas shoulder over $8 billion a year, and the good people of California are on the hook for an extra $11 billion.

Click here for U.S. PIRG's table with the state-by-state breakdown of the burden shifted to taxpayers.

U.S. PIRG came up with the state numbers by dividing the $100 billion figure by the percentage of total federal revenue contributed by each state. The nonprofit released its report on tax day to drive home a message:

"This is the day when we're all working hard, rushing to the post office, filing our returns, and then to hear about these large multi-billion dollar corporations who have used gimmicks to avoid paying their fair share -- it's something that should end this year," says John Krieger, a staff attorney with U.S. PIRG.

U.S. PIRG's report, titled "Tax Shell Game," highlights some findings from a January report by the Government Accountability Office that found over 80 percent of the hundred biggest U.S. companies took advantage of tax havens. In 2008 the GAO found that one five-story building in the Cayman Islands, known as the "Ugland House," contained 18,857 registered businesses, very few of which had anything but a P.O. box there. Bailout beneficiaries Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Bank of America boast over 300 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands.

The tax day release of the report coincides with protests at post offices across the country coordinated by the Campaign to Rebuild and Renew America Now, a coalition of groups supporting the president's budget priorities. Obama's budget calls for reigning in offshore tax havens.

In a speech on Tuesday, Obama talked about "shutting down loopholes and making sure everyone pays what they owe."

John Krieger says similar efforts by U.S. PIRG last year brought attention to tax evasion by major defense contractors like Kellogg, Brown & Root, ultimately leading to legislation to make sure contractors pay their share.

"The point is that we all pay for it," Krieger says. "The issues of tax havens, tax avoidance -- the reason they've had so much cover is that we all think of it as a D.C wonky issue, but in reality it has an effect on every taxpayer who has to take on this extra burden."

source: Huffington Post

<iframe src="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/taxes.html" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Us Loses Up To $100 Billion A Year To Offshore Tax Havens

Does anyone expect Lamarr or actinanass or the likes to even stick their noses in to a thread like this? They are AFRAID to comment on the REAL problem. Corporatists’ domination of our government!
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.

During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion, according to Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who requested the GAO study.

The report did not name any companies. The GAO said corporations escaped paying federal income taxes for a variety of reasons including operating losses, tax credits and an ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries.

With the U.S. budget deficit this year running close to the record $413 billion that was set in 2004 and projected to hit a record $486 billion next year, lawmakers are looking to plug holes in the U.S. tax code and generate more revenues.

Dorgan in a statement called the report "a shocking indictment of the current tax system." Levin said it made clear that "too many corporations are using tax trickery to send their profits overseas and avoid paying their fair share in the United States."

The study showed about 28 percent of large foreign corporations, those with more than $250 million in assets, doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $372 billion in gross receipts, the senators said. About 25 percent of the largest U.S. companies paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $1.1 trillion in gross sales that year, they said.
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
yeah, that s*cks! Remember this?

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=366085

Restructure Corporate Taxes: It would be based on how much of the value-added production occured in the US. If they make their goods here, they would get a low tax rate, however, if the goods are manufactured abroad, they would get a higher rate. This would be done in an attempt to de-incentivize corporations from looking for cheap labor abroad. That would bring the jobs back to America.

Make no mistake, its not a tariff, but a restructuring of the tax code!
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor

You do know that the Boston Tea party was a revolt against the largest COPORATION in the world, which was forcing local business to fail. Where is your outrage against that? Organize against that. The TRUE problem.

source: Common Dreams

The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
by Thom Hartmann

CNBC Correspondent Rick Santelli called for a "Chicago Tea Party" on Feb 19th in protesting President Obama's plan to help homeowners in trouble. Santelli's call was answered by the right-wing group FreedomWorks, which funds campaigns promoting big business interests, and is the opposite of what the real Boston Tea Party was. FreedomWorks was funded in 2004 by Dick Armey (former Republican House Majority leader & lobbyist); consolidated Citizens for a Sound Economy, funded by the Koch family; <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">and Empower America, a lobbying firm, that had fought against healthcare and minimum-wage efforts while hailing deregulation.</SPAN>
Anti-tax "tea party" organizers are delivering one million tea bags to a Washington, D.C., park Wednesday morning - to promote protests across the country by people they say are fed up with high taxes and excess spending.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.</SPAN>
They covered their faces, massed in the streets, and destroyed the property of a giant global corporation. Declaring an end to global trade run by the East India Company that was destroying local economies, this small, masked minority started a revolution with an act of rebellion later called the Boston Tea Party.

On a cold November day in 1773, activists gathered in a coastal town. The corporation had gone too far, and the two thousand people who'd jammed into the meeting hall were torn as to what to do about it. Unemployment was exploding and the economic crisis was deepening; corporate crime, governmental corruption spawned by corporate cash, and an ethos of greed were blamed. "Why do we wait?" demanded one at the meeting, a fisherman named George Hewes. "The more we delay, the more strength is acquired" by the company and its puppets in the government. "Now is the time to prove our courage," he said. Soon, the moment came when the crowd decided for direct action and rushed into the streets.

That is how I tell the story of the Boston Tea Party, now that I have read a first-person account of it. While striving to understand my nation's struggles against corporations, in a rare book store I came upon a first edition of "Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773," and I jumped at the chance to buy it. Because the identities of the Boston Tea Party participants were hidden (other than Samuel Adams) and all were sworn to secrecy for the next 50 years, this account is the only first-person account of the event by a participant that exists. As I read, I began to understand the true causes of the American Revolution.

I learned that the Boston Tea Party resembled in many ways the growing modern-day protests against transnational corporations and small-town efforts to protect themselves from chain-store retailers or factory farms. The Tea Party's participants thought of themselves as protesters against the actions of the multinational East India Company.

Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against "taxation without representation," akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation that, by the 1760s, dominated trade from China to India to the Caribbean, and controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America, with subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown.

Hewes notes: "The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America..." allowing it to wipe out New England-based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America. "Hence," wrote, "it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity ... The colonies were now arrived at the decisive moment when they must cast the dye, and determine their course ... "

A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic "Rusticus." One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world: "Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them."

After protesters had turned back the Company's ships in Philadelphia and New York, Hewes writes, "In Boston the general voice declared the time was come to face the storm."

The citizens of the colonies were preparing to throw off one of the corporations that for almost 200 years had determined nearly every aspect of their lives through its economic and political power. They were planning to destroy the goods of the world's largest multinational corporation, intimidate its employees, and face down the guns of the government that supported it.

The queen's corporation

The East India Company's influence had always been pervasive in the colonies. Indeed, it was not the Puritans but the East India Company that founded America. The Puritans traveled to America on ships owned by the East India Company, which had already established the first colony in North America, at Jamestown, in the Company-owned Commonwealth of Virginia, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi. The commonwealth was named after the "Virgin Queen," Elizabeth, who had chartered the corporation.

Elizabeth was trying to make England a player in the new global trade sparked by the European "discovery" of the Americas. The wealth Spain began extracting from the New World caught the attention of the European powers. In many European countries, particularly Holland and France, consortiums were put together to finance ships to sail the seas. In 1580, Queen Elizabeth became the largest shareholder in The Golden Hind, a ship owned by Sir Francis Drake.

The investment worked out well for Queen Elizabeth. There's no record of exactly how much she made when Drake paid her share of the Hind's dividends to her, but it was undoubtedly vast, since Drake himself and the other minor shareholders all received a 5000 percent return on their investment. Plus, because the queen placed a maximum loss to the initial investors of their investment amount only, it was a low-risk investment (for the investors at least-creditors, such as suppliers of provisions for the voyages or wood for the ships, or employees, for example, would be left unpaid if the venture failed, just as in a modern-day corporation). She was endorsing an investment model that led to the modern limited-liability corporation.

After making a fortune on Drake's expeditions, Elizabeth started looking for a more permanent arrangement. She authorized a group of 218 London merchants and noblemen to form a corporation. The East India Company was born on December 31, 1600.

By the 1760s, the East India Company's power had grown massive and worldwide. However, this rapid expansion, trying to keep ahead of the Dutch trading companies, was a mixed blessing, as the company went deep in debt to support its growth, and by 1770 found itself nearly bankrupt.

The company turned to a strategy that multinational corporations follow to this day: They lobbied for laws that would make it easy for them to put their small-business competitors out of business.

Most of the members of the British government and royalty (including the king) were stockholders in the East India Company, so it was easy to get laws passed in its interests. Among the Company's biggest and most vexing problems were American colonial entrepreneurs, who ran their own small ships to bring tea and other goods directly into America without routing them through Britain or through the Company. Between 1681 and 1773, a series of laws were passed granting the Company monopoly on tea sold in the American colonies and exempting it from tea taxes. Thus, the Company was able to lower its tea prices to undercut the prices of the local importers and the small tea houses in every town in America. But the colonists were unappreciative of their colonies being used as a profit center for the multinational corporation.

Boston's million-dollar tea party

And so, Hewes says, on a cold November evening of 1773, the first of the East India Company's ships of tax-free tea arrived. The next morning, a pamphlet was widely circulated calling on patriots to meet at Faneuil Hall to discuss resistance to the East India Company and its tea. "Things thus appeared to be hastening to a disastrous issue. The people of the country arrived in great numbers, the inhabitants of the town assembled. This assembly, on the 16th of December 1773, was the most numerous ever known, there being more than 2000 from the country present," said Hewes.

The group called for a vote on whether to oppose the landing of the tea. The vote was unanimously affirmative, and it is related by one historian of that scene "that a person disguised after the manner of the Indians, who was in the gallery, shouted at this juncture, the cry of war; and that the meeting dissolved in the twinkling of an eye, and the multitude rushed in a mass to Griffin's wharf."

That night, Hewes dressed as an Indian, blackening his face with coal dust, and joined crowds of other men in hacking apart the chests of tea and throwing them into the harbor. In all, the 342 chests of tea-over 90,000 pounds-thrown overboard that night were enough to make 24 million cups of tea and were valued by the East India Company at 9,659 Pounds Sterling or, in today's currency, just over $1 million.

In response, the British Parliament immediately passed the Boston Port Act stating that the port of Boston would be closed until the citizens of Boston reimbursed the East India Company for the tea they had destroyed. The colonists refused. A year and a half later, the colonists would again state their defiance of the East India Company and Great Britain by taking on British troops in an armed conflict at Lexington and Concord (the "shots heard 'round the world") on April 19, 1775.

That war-finally triggered by a transnational corporation and its government patrons trying to deny American colonists a fair and competitive local marketplace-would end with independence for the colonies.

The revolutionaries had put the East India Company in its place with the Boston Tea Party, and that, they thought, was the end of that. Unfortunately, the Boston Tea Party was not the end; within 150 years, during the so-called Gilded Age, powerful rail, steel, and oil interests would rise up to begin a new form of oligarchy, capturing the newly-formed Republican Party in the 1880s, and have been working to establish a permanent wealthy and ruling class in this country ever since.
 
Last edited:

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
Thoughtone - I have yet to see any teabaggers give a damn about what went on at the actual Boston Tea Party.
The fact that some right wing guys planned this years ago escapes these fanatics too.


I wish the govt would get on corporate tax evasion. Not likely though.
 

dasmybikepunk

Wait for it.....
OG Investor
It seems a bit unfair but if a corporation creates 1000's or millions of jobs then I'm all for all the tax breaks they can get.

They still gotta pay insurance, workman comp and several other things....so I'm with Colin Powell on this.

Better to have a big company getting major tax breaks and a pass on some taxes than having millions of people out of work.;)
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
You do know that the Boston Tea party was a revolt against the largest COPORATION in the world, which was forcing local business to fail. Where is your outrage against that? Organize against that. The TRUE problem.

The True problem is the Federal Reserve / fractional reserve banking system, if you want 'real' regulation, it should start there, also support HR 1207! Don't worry, I got plenty of outrage bruh, I just don't fall for this left vs right BS!

I'm not tryin to pick any fights with anyone but honestly, Some are allowing their ideology to cloud the support of a righteous cause. Every muhfukah on this board want some relief from taxes but since you see FoxNews hijack the issue, now some of you stand down. This is not a left/right issue, this is a wallet issue and everyone is affected. It's power in numbers!
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
You're a single issue guy ? ? ?

QueEx

I wouldn't say single issue but it holds a lot of weight with me. Shouldn't someone be acountable for all this money that was created "out of thin air"? Don't the people have a right to know where their tax dollars have gone?
 

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
It seems a bit unfair but if a corporation creates 1000's or millions of jobs then I'm all for all the tax breaks they can get.

They still gotta pay insurance, workman comp and several other things....so I'm with Colin Powell on this.

Better to have a big company getting major tax breaks and a pass on some taxes than having millions of people out of work.;)
You have it twisted. They PROFIT from the infrastructure and services of the US - they should pay their share.
If they can't afford the market let them leave the market and find somewhere they wont pay any tax. You know where that is? Nowhere but Monaco Dubai and other places trying to attract people cuz there isnt shit there and they make their money on tourism or services or somewhere else.

They want all the advantage and none of the downside.
Are people here to serve corporations or vice versa?
I have several expenses too that I need to pay in order to stay afloat, where is my relief? I surely am not better able to afford them than a company with billions in revenue.
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
the fed is the source of all problems to him

You name the issue and I guarantee I will tie it to the reckless monetary policies of Greenspan / Bernanke. I'll pass on 2 quotes:

"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." Nathan Rothschild

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." Nathan Rothschild
 

dasmybikepunk

Wait for it.....
OG Investor
You have it twisted. They PROFIT from the infrastructure and services of the US - they should pay their share.
If they can't afford the market let them leave the market and find somewhere they wont pay any tax. You know where that is? Nowhere but Monaco Dubai and other places trying to attract people cuz there isnt shit there and they make their money on tourism or services or somewhere else.

They want all the advantage and none of the downside.
Are people here to serve corporations or vice versa?
I have several expenses too that I need to pay in order to stay afloat, where is my relief? I surely am not better able to afford them than a company with billions in revenue.

:yawn::its a wrap:....tell that shit to folks in the unemployment line.

In addition all this rhetoric and back in fourth from armchair experts here on bgol....do you katz even realize that as you reply those corporations where just given 1 Trillion plus of your tax money or (DEBT) to stay alive....think about it....read this entire post then think about it!

It's like giving someone 100 bucks and then your children having to pay for it with interest.

Then complaining that the someone you gave the 100 bucks to owes you a fifty cents! :smh:

Seems like once again folks are beating the drum but fighting the wrong war!
 
Last edited:

Lamarr

Star
Registered
It seems a bit unfair but if a corporation creates 1000's or millions of jobs then I'm all for all the tax breaks they can get.

I agree only if the corporations employ American workers instead of using the money saved on tax breaks to chase after cheap labor in S. America or Asia.
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
I'm impressed.

A whole discussion about dollars, federal income tax, bailouts, and spending, and no one calls it money.

It seems everyone here knows dollars are not money.

Federal Reserve Notes are not money.
They are evidence of a debt or a money substitute.

The Federal government has no money.
It borrows from the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve does not create money.
They create bank credit.

Federal Income Tax is paid to the IRS almost exclusively in bank credit. So, who cares if companies get tax breaks and don't pay taxes or get bailouts?

It's all bank credit anyway, not real money. In the grand scheme of things, as long as you support the Fed/IRS regime, it doesn't matter what happens.

You're still screwed. :rolleyes:
 

dasmybikepunk

Wait for it.....
OG Investor
I'm impressed.

A whole discussion about dollars, federal income tax, bailouts, and spending, and no one calls it money.

It seems everyone here knows dollars are not money.

Federal Reserve Notes are not money.
They are evidence of a debt or a money substitute.

The Federal government has no money.
It borrows from the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve does not create money.
They create bank credit.

Federal Income Tax is paid to the IRS almost exclusively in bank credit. So, who cares if companies get tax breaks and don't pay taxes or get bailouts?

It's all bank credit anyway, not real money. In the grand scheme of things, as long as you support the Fed/IRS regime, it doesn't matter what happens.

You're still screwed. :rolleyes:


Good stuff:yes::yes::yes:
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Huffington Post

AIG, Chase, Citi Each Spent $1 Million To Lobby Government

Top Bailed-Out Firms Have Money For Lobbying

WASHINGTON — The top 10 recipients of the government's $700 billion financial bailout spent about $9.5 million on federal lobbying during the first three months of the year.

The biggest spender was bailed-out automaker General Motors Corp., which devoted $2.8 million to lobbying in the first quarter of 2009. It has received $13.4 billion in government loans and could get $5 billion more, according to a government report released Tuesday.

Failed insurance giant American International Group Inc. and banks Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. each reported spending more than $1 million to influence the government as they lived off federal money this year. AIG has gotten some $70 billion from the bailout fund _ including a fresh $30 billion infusion the government reported on Tuesday _ while Citigroup has received $45 billion and JPMorgan $25 billion.

The lobbying activity was revealed publicly in reports required to be filed with Congress. This year's first quarterly report was due Monday.

Other major recipients of money from the so-called Troubled Assets Relief Program also had substantial lobbying costs in the first three months of this year, including:

_Bank of America Corp., which reported spending $660,000 lobbying while receiving its $45 billion in help;

_Wells Fargo & Company, with $700,000 in lobbying costs and $25 billion in bailout money;

_Goldman Sachs, which spent $670,000 while receiving its $10 billion;

_Morgan Stanley, which spent $540,000 while also getting $10 billion in assistance;

_PNC Financial Services Group, spent $135,000 _ nearly double what it did at the end of last year _ on lobbying while receiving a $7.8 billion lifeline;

_U.S. Bancorp spent $170,000 on lobbying and got $6.6 billion in government aid.

"They say they're not using public money for these purposes, but in effect these companies are steering taxpayer funds to lobbying and campaign contributions," said Craig Holman of the watchdog group Public Citizen. "It's completely unjustifiable."

The reports suggest that most of the bailed-out companies have beefed up their lobbying at least marginally since last year. Seven spent more to influence the government than they did in the last quarter of 2008.

The largest increases apart from PNC were by Goldman, which spent 34 percent more on lobbying than it did at the end of last year; Wells Fargo, which spent about 21 percent more, and JPMorgan, which lobbied 19 percent more. AIG also devoted some 16 percent more money to interacting with the government, despite the "no-lobbying" policy it adopted late last year after receiving repeated bailouts.

AIG said in its filing that it still had to spend considerable resources contacting officials during the first three months of the year. The communication was "in response to requests and to correct misinformation," the company reported. "Consistent with AIG's lobbying policy, the company did not engage in any lobbying with respect to federal legislation in the first quarter of 2009."

Still, Public Citizen's Holman noted that the lobbying disclosure law exempts expenditures made to comply with congressional hearings or to respond to requests by government officials for specific information. "What AIG's reporting is, in fact, influence peddling," he said.

The disclosures also show that AIG has fired several lobbyists since the beginning of the year, including from the powerhouse firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the prominent Republican company DC Navigators and The Washington Tax Group.

Among the companies that reduced their lobbying activity were Bank of America, which slashed its costs about 20 percent, and GM, which spent 15 percent less than during the last quarter of 2008.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
It seems a bit unfair but if a corporation creates 1000's or millions of jobs then I'm all for all the tax breaks they can get.

What "creates 1000's or millions of jobs..." Have you been paying attention to the economic world lately? At this point the Kool Aid should be wearing off!
 

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
:yawn::its a wrap:....tell that shit to folks in the unemployment line.

Are you insinuating that taxes had a role in current unemployment statistics? If so you need to read more.


In addition all this rhetoric and back in fourth from armchair experts here on bgol....do you katz even realize that as you reply those corporations where just given 1 Trillion plus of your tax money or (DEBT) to stay alive....think about it....read this entire post then think about it!
Some corporations. Not most. Not all. SOME corporations were LOANED money so that you arent in the street fighting for moldy potatoes and so that your money still has value.
Read an entire tutorial on basic economics then think about it!



It's like giving someone 100 bucks and then your children having to pay for it with interest.

You're insane. There are two types of bailouts going on. One kind gives taxpayers (the govt) stock for loaning cash to corporations that we don't want to fail- banks, GM etc - that is because if these companies fail the economy will be much worse. When the companies recover the government is paid back.
The other type of bailout is what's going on at AIG. If AIG wasn't bailed out, the entire economic system has a good chance of collapsing. Good you say? Lets start over!? No. Not good. Your jobs? Gone. Money? Worthless. Civil unrest? You bet. Troops in the streets? Yup. Martial law? Yeah. Starvation? Yeah.
You're worried about debt that might be around for your kids when they grow up rather than if your kids get to grow up.
Get it?
Oh its not that serious? Read up. Economies are all built on confidence. No AIG payouts, no confidence in institutions who had AIG as their only protection against total collapse. No confidence in them, equals everyone running to pull their money out of every publicly traded financial institution and bank. It doesnt even take everyone doing it. It only takes the biggest players. Your dollar becomes worthless overnight.
You can't patch that kind of collapse. You dont just start over. That is judgement day.

You're funny. You think taxes are too big a burden for corporations and you dont want to risk jobs but you think somehow those same corporations - not any of those being bailed out even- would somehow survive a financial apocalypse?


Seriously bruh read more. Those big tax evading corporations don't employ or run America - small business does. The same small businessmen and women that are stuck with tax burden as sole proprietors while big corps buy shell companies on islands to get out of paying their fair share.



Then complaining that the someone you gave the 100 bucks to owes you a fifty cents! :smh:

Seems like once again folks are beating the drum but fighting the wrong war!

Bruh you're beating your own self in the head with this crap. On the one hand you want to be free of the yolk of the federal reserve and the influence of financial corporations and with the same breath you regurgitate the worst slave nonsense about corporations being frail like little flowers.



And dont forget -------small businesses are America's backbone. They employ the most people.
 

sean69

Star
BGOL Investor
It seems a bit unfair but if a corporation creates 1000's or millions of jobs then I'm all for all the tax breaks they can get.

They still gotta pay insurance, workman comp and several other things....so I'm with Colin Powell on this.

Better to have a big company getting major tax breaks and a pass on some taxes than having millions of people out of work.;)

^^^ An exceedingly simplistic bifurcated argument.

Some people talk about tax breaks for corporations like they're one big homogeneous (reducible) entity.

Who exactly get the tax breaks.

When the math is all said and done, who's the resultant benefactor of the transduced wealth?



I'm impressed.

A whole discussion about dollars, federal income tax, bailouts, and spending, and no one calls it money.

It seems everyone here knows dollars are not money.

Federal Reserve Notes are not money.
They are evidence of a debt or a money substitute.

The Federal government has no money.
It borrows from the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve does not create money.
They create bank credit.

Federal Income Tax is paid to the IRS almost exclusively in bank credit. So, who cares if companies get tax breaks and don't pay taxes or get bailouts?

It's all bank credit anyway, not real money. In the grand scheme of things, as long as you support the Fed/IRS regime, it doesn't matter what happens.

You're still screwed. :rolleyes:

Money? WTF is money anyway? :confused:
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
^^^ An exceedingly simplistic bifurcated argument.

Some people talk about tax breaks for corporations like they're one big homogeneous (reducible) entity.

Who exactly get the tax breaks.

When the math is all said and done, who's the resultant benefactor of the transduced wealth?





Money? WTF is money anyway? :confused:

Money. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition

"In usual and ordinary acceptation it means coins and currency used as circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate."

The Federal government does not create money nor wealth.

The US government simply TRANSFERS wealth.

It does this through the creation of bank credit via the sale of Treasury debt to the Federal Reserve.

When Bush/Obama talk about bailing out the banks or increasing the national debt by $1-$5 trillion dollars... what that means is...

the government is transferring $1-$5 trillion dollars from us (the public and user of Federal Reserve Notes) to private interests, the banks.

Take a look at THE DEFINITION OF "Money"
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Money. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition

"In usual and ordinary acceptation it means coins and currency used as circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate."

The Federal government does not create money nor wealth.

The US government simply TRANSFERS wealth.

It does this through the creation of bank credit via the sale of Treasury debt to the Federal Reserve.

When Bush/Obama talk about bailing out the banks or increasing the national debt by $1-$5 trillion dollars... what that means is...

the government is transferring $1-$5 trillion dollars from us (the public and user of Federal Reserve Notes) to private interests, the banks.

Take a look at THE DEFINITION OF "Money"


To the Top 5% of so called "money earners." Money thieves.
 

nittie

Star
Registered
80/20 rule. 20% will do all the work, 80% will complain and do nothing. More people have got to get off their asses and get involved. Corporations rule because the public is lazy and scared.
 

sean69

Star
BGOL Investor
80/20 rule. 20% will do all the work, 80% will complain and do nothing. More people have got to get off their asses and get involved. Corporations rule because the public is lazy and scared.

Uhm, yeah. OK. Bullshit.


Money. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition

"In usual and ordinary acceptation it means coins and currency used as circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate."

The Federal government does not create money nor wealth.

The US government simply TRANSFERS wealth.

It does this through the creation of bank credit via the sale of Treasury debt to the Federal Reserve.

When Bush/Obama talk about bailing out the banks or increasing the national debt by $1-$5 trillion dollars... what that means is...

the government is transferring $1-$5 trillion dollars from us (the public and user of Federal Reserve Notes) to private interests, the banks.

Take a look at THE DEFINITION OF "Money"

So where does the wealth come from, before it's "transferred"? :confused:
 

Lamarr

Star
Registered
The Federal government does not create money nor wealth.

The US government simply TRANSFERS wealth.

Agreed, the govt is broke, they can't create wealth, they can only confiscate it through interest on your debts, income taxes, and inflation
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
Uhm, yeah. OK. Bullshit.




So where does the wealth come from, before it's "transferred"? :confused:

Just to be consistent...

Wealth. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition

"Large quantity of possessions, assets, securities, and the like. State of having abundant financial resources and properties. All material objects, capable of satisfying human, wants, desires, or tastes, having a value in exchange, and upon which human labor has been expended; i.e. which have, by such labor, been either reclaimed from nature, extracted or gathered from the earth or sea, manufactured from raw materials, improved, adopted, or cultivated."

Wealth comes from us, the people. The wealth of this country is represented by the land, labor, and resources available.

The government seizes our wealth, keeps a big chunk of it, and transfers the rest to its preferred interest (e.g. national banks, the military, Israel, jails/prisons, etc.).

The government seizes our wealth either through taxation (IRS) or through inflation (the Fed).

Either way, we have no recourse and no protection, as long as we use Federal Reserve Notes.

Agreed, the govt is broke, they can't create wealth, they can only confiscate it through interest on your debts, income taxes, and inflation

Basically. :cool:
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Agreed, the govt is broke, they can't create wealth, they can only confiscate it through interest on your debts, income taxes, and inflation

You people and your right wing arguments. It's a moot point to suggest that the government cannot create wealth. The only people that have every made this statement are the right wing/conservatives. The government sets the rules, provides common resources to aide in commerce, such as road ways, sea ports, organized and safe air routes and enforces and protects the processes and wealth such as regulations, standards, police, military and fire fighting, just to name a few. Corporations have always wanted to have it both ways. Make the public expend their resources while big business reaps the largess of the tax paying society.

Examples: Most pharmaceutical breakthroughs are made by government and university research with the aide of government funding. Who reaps the economic windfall? Corporations.

Many scientific breakthroughs are made by government sponsored university and research laboratories subsidized by your tax dollars. Who reaps the profits when the technologies are brought to bear in the commercial consumer realm? Corporations.

You corporatist continue to change the argument because you know that the main reason why the economy is fucked up is that corporations want something for nothing and damn the country as a whole
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
You people and your right wing arguments. It's a moot point to suggest that the government cannot create wealth. The only people that have every made this statement are the right wing/conservatives.

You are missing the point. Government is a legal fiction. People, land, and resources exist in the REAL WORLD.

How can something from fiction (the government) create something REAL.

By logic, it cannot.

The only thing a government can do is transfer WEALTH from one REAL person to another REAL person, in the REAL world.

Hopefully, this logical basis describes why this is not a political argument.

The government sets the rules, provides common resources to aide in commerce, such as road ways, sea ports, organized and safe air routes and enforces and protects the processes and wealth such as regulations, standards, police, military and fire fighting, just to name a few. Corporations have always wanted to have it both ways. Make the public expend their resources while big business reaps the largess of the tax paying society.

All of this requires REAL people in REAL time, and REAL resources. The uniforms, oil, buildings, airplanes, and skilled labor don't just come out of thin air because the government says so (like so-called creating new money for bailouts).

If the WEALTH does not exist or cannot be produced by REAL PEOPLE and taken from them, none of what you posted is possible by the government.

Examples: Most pharmaceutical breakthroughs are made by government and university research with the aide of government funding. Who reaps the economic windfall? Corporations.

Many scientific breakthroughs are made by government sponsored university and research laboratories subsidized by your tax dollars. Who reaps the profits when the technologies are brought to bear in the commercial consumer realm? Corporations.

I don't know if this is true.

From my understanding, most pharmaceutical breakthroughs come from small private companies or individuals. Usually, the government (which is controlled by corporations) provides funding to research that only advances corporate interests.

You corporatist continue to change the argument because you know that the main reason why the economy is fucked up is that corporations want something for nothing and damn the country as a whole

Everyone in this country wants something for nothing. It is the "white" way.

When you have people thinking the government can create MONEY and WEALTH out of nothing and give it to us, you know people are living a FANTASY and FICTION that only exists in the world of governments and corporations (which are both legal fictions).

In the REAL world, the WEALTH has to be taken from us, REAL people.

Our standard of living will experience a sudden drop in the upcoming years because of this huge transfer of WEALTH to the banks.

Corporate taxes will be meaningless by comparison.

Besides, would you believe, most corporate taxes go to pay the military anyway. So, if they are not paying taxes, it just means a smaller military.

It's not as if anyone else's Federal income tax burden will decrease. Just a thought.
 
Last edited:

nittie

Star
Registered
Wealth. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition

"Large quantity of possessions, assets, securities, and the like. State of having abundant financial resources and properties. All material objects, capable of satisfying human, wants, desires, or tastes, having a value in exchange, and upon which human labor has been expended; i.e. which have, by such labor, been either reclaimed from nature, extracted or gathered from the earth or sea, manufactured from raw materials, improved, adopted, or cultivated."


This is true. So the real issue is power, who has the right to carve up and distribute nature's wealth. We concede power to the govt and if the govt goes too far it's up to us to set it str8. So far we haven't done that and our country is collapsing. What started as a system of checks and balances doesn't work anymore. Now it keeps us divided and conquered because representatives are only liable to their constituents. So they will be in power as long as their state's voters want them there. The rest of us have to put up with it. We have to find a way to restructure the govt in a way that will give power back to the people.
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
Corporations don't pay taxes, thier customers (you and me) do. It get's put in our costs directly or indirectly. The members of the corporation pay taxes, and benefit from the profit. They actually do get taxed, either by income or capital gains. This whole nonsense about "taxing" corporations is nothing but another smokescreen socialist shibboleth to hide the fact they want yet another way to your wallet. It's fucking bullshit. Most don't want an honest debate and do nothing but label, misunderstand, and filibuster in order to cover the hollowness of thier claims. By using class warfare tactics, as well as "progressive" thinking, along with needless greed (not just by the officers, but the insututional investors like unions), we are driving business out of the country. But most don't care - like thoughtnone - as long as those types can keep finding ways to tell you and me that we should be happy to surrender the fruits of our labor to those that haven't produced so that they can use it to thier ends, the further towards collapse we will go. I've never read about a society that is as guilty as ours in being successful.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
You are missing the point. Government is a legal fiction. People, land, and resources exist in the REAL WORLD.

You as usual are mudding the arguments. Things are tangible. Putting value on things is man made. Example, gold and diamonds. Government as a concept was conceived by man to establish order. Just like the concepts of family and law. Without order there is chaos and we revert to animalistic law.

How can something from fiction (the government) create something REAL.

You keep trying to argue a moot point. Government supplies the common duties that we as a society deemed as too important to allow profit making entities to take on as well as making sure that standards are adhered to. The common defense, the safety of our food and drugs as well as the work place and communities, contracts are enforced and interpreted, rights are respected to name a few. These tasks are not inexpensive to perform. Business won't do them for free. They require taxes, the cost of for the tasks. Because the government enforces these standards, we have a high standard of living as a country as compared to those countries that don't assign these duties to their governments.

By logic, it cannot.

You don't sound as if you are being logical. You think the barter system is still in effect and party to party contracts will be enforced just by shaking hands.

The only thing a government can do is transfer WEALTH from one REAL person to another REAL person, in the REAL world.

Again, your issue is with taxes in general. I can't help you there. Do you want a flat tax? I would guess that you wouldn't mind an across the board 15% tax on your income, period, but many millionaires and billions wouldn't want that. As was stated, most don't pay any taxes. Taxes are the cost of society with high standards of living. How about no taxes. Will business build costly infrastructures? Will they pay to educate the skilled work force they want and need? Argue theory with economists. This is the real world.

Hopefully, this logical basis describes why this is not a political argument.

This is extremely political. 30 years ago the finical sector was less than 5% of the GNP and our dept was less than $1 trillions. Today it is about 40% of the GNP and we have over a $10 trillion debt and rising. The tax burden has sifted from the investor class to the working class.

All of this requires REAL people in REAL time, and REAL resources. The uniforms, oil, buildings, airplanes, and skilled labor don't just come out of thin air because the government says so (like so-called creating new money for bailouts).

Again, this country was formed because the founders did not want the privileged to take advantage of the masses. We did not have massive inheritance until the robber barons of the late 1800s, at which point we formed an income tax and disallowed monopolies.

If the WEALTH does not exist or cannot be produced by REAL PEOPLE and taken from them, none of what you posted is possible by the government.

Wealth is not created in vacuum. Remember the Roaring Twenties, the stock market crash and the bank runs?

I don't know if this is true.

From my understanding, most pharmaceutical breakthroughs come from small private companies or individuals. Usually, the government (which is controlled by corporations) provides funding to research that only advances corporate interests.

What? Sounds as if you answered your own question.

National Institutes of Health

United States Department of Energy

Everyone in this country wants something for nothing. It is the "white" way.

That's why there is government to make sure the rules are protected.

When you have people thinking the government can create MONEY and WEALTH out of nothing and give it to us, you know people are living a FANTASY and FICTION that only exists in the world of governments and corporations (which are both legal fictions).

You are stuck on this moot point! However in times we do run debts. Wars, economic down times, when we drained the treasury to fight the cold war, cut taxes for the top 5% while raise taxes for everyone else. Are these not political?

In the REAL world, the WEALTH has to be taken from us, REAL people.

Are you in the top 5% of income earners? Making over $250,000/yr? Obama just gave most taxes payers an income tax cut.

Our standard of living will experience a sudden drop in the upcoming years because of this huge transfer of WEALTH to the banks.

Our standard of living has dropped since Reagan’s supply side debacle.

Corporate taxes will be meaningless by comparison.

Oh yea! Everyone must pay their share. If they paid their fair share in the beginning we would not have many of this problems.

Besides, would you believe, most corporate taxes go to pay the military anyway. So, if they are not paying taxes, it just means a smaller military.

Good, because the military is now over 50% of government spending. Not counting all of the secret projects hidden under classified expenditures. Would we be any less safe if the military was 50% less than it is now? It would still be larger than any other nation’s defense budget.

It's not as if anyone else's Federal income tax burden will decrease. Just a thought.

The average person pays more in federal taxes than the top 5%. The conservatives/right wing never include FICA taxes in the tax argument. If you make over $95,000 you pay none.

Could you imagine if we had implemented the Bush social security privation that the republicans/conservatives/right wing wanted back in 2003/2004? You think we have problems now.

Just a thought
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Corporations don't pay taxes, thier customers (you and me) do. It get's put in our costs directly or indirectly. The members of the corporation pay taxes, and benefit from the profit. They actually do get taxed, either by income or capital gains. Individuals fool. If you incorporate you are not the company This whole nonsense about "taxing" corporations is nothing but another smokescreen socialist shibboleth to hide the fact they want yet another way to your wallet. It's fucking bullshit. Most don't want an honest debate and do nothing but label, misunderstand, and filibuster in order to cover the hollowness of thier claims. By using class warfare tactics,:lol:Class warfare? Who has been demonizing the workers/unions for the last 30 years? The business/investor class. as well as "progressive" thinking, along with needless greed (not just by the officers, but the insututional investors like unions), we are driving business out of the country. What’s driving business out of the country is the race to the bottom for labor costs, while businesses are allowed to hide in tax shelter countries. But most don't care - like thoughtnone - as long as those types can keep finding ways to tell you and me that we should be happy to surrender the fruits of our labor to those that haven't produced so that they can use it to thier ends, the further towards collapse we will go. I've never read about a society that is as guilty as ours in being successful.


I thought we ran your ass out of BGOL since your Bush/Reagan economic model blew up. Pay your fuckin’ taxes!
 
Top