Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[Neotrotsky]

Papa Obama spends more on welfare, than Bush spent on entire Iraq war

 

[MikeK]

Not sure where you got your Exxon numbers, Yahoo Finance shows they had earnings before taxes of $52.9 billion and that they paid income taxes of $21.5 billion.
Looks like 40.6% to me.

XOM Income Statement | Exxon Mobil Corporation Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

If you have a link to the subsidy they supposedly received, that would be great.

Apologies for my (unintentional) chronological error. The Exxon zero tax was not last year but rather in 2009:

(Excerpt)

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein notes that, despite benefiting from corporate welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it threatens energy innovation research. Pat Garofalo at the Wonk Room notes that big corporations’ tax shelter practices similar to Exxon’s shift a $100 billion annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers. In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”
ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated) | ThinkProgress

(Close)

Re: the OilCo subsidies:

(Excerpt)

WASHINGTON — When he releases his new budget in two weeks, President Obama will propose doing away with roughly $4 billion a year in subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies, in his third effort to eliminate federal support for an industry that remains hugely profitable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/earth/01subsidy.html

(Close)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you see Paul Ryan's Medicare proposals as a way of enriching the same private insurance companies that fund his election campaigns?

"Physicians for a National Health Program, the movement of doctors and medical students for real reform, welcomed the national legislation.

“'At a time when the airwaves are filled with talk about cutting or even ending Medicare,' said Dr. Garrett Adams, PNHP president, 'Senator Sanders has boldly stepped forward with the seemingly paradoxical proposition that the best way to financially strengthen the Medicare program is to upgrade it and expand it to cover everyone.'”

Cut Medicare? No Way! Make It "Medicare for All"! | Common Dreams

I see Bernie's proposals as a way of bankrupting the country.

Bush beat him to it.

Bush didn't add a few hundred million people to Medicare.
I suspect Bernie's proposals would make things worse.

 

[oreo]

Not sure where you got your Exxon numbers, Yahoo Finance shows they had earnings before taxes of $52.9 billion and that they paid income taxes of $21.5 billion.
Looks like 40.6% to me.

XOM Income Statement | Exxon Mobil Corporation Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

If you have a link to the subsidy they supposedly received, that would be great.

Apologies for my (unintentional) chronological error. The Exxon zero tax was not last year but rather in 2009:

(Excerpt)

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein notes that, despite benefiting from corporate welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it threatens energy innovation research. Pat Garofalo at the Wonk Room notes that big corporations’ tax shelter practices similar to Exxon’s shift a $100 billion annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers. In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”
ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated) | ThinkProgress

(Close)

Re: the OilCo subsidies:

(Excerpt)

WASHINGTON — When he releases his new budget in two weeks, President Obama will propose doing away with roughly $4 billion a year in subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies, in his third effort to eliminate federal support for an industry that remains hugely profitable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/earth/01subsidy.html

(Close)

General Electric made 18.4 BILLION last year and didn't pay a penny in federal taxes. Of course Obama's new job czar is the CEO of General Electric.

Thread Obama's job czar CEO of GE made 18.4 BILLION dollars and didn't pay a penny in taxes | U.S. Politics Online | BoardReader

 

[Neotrotsky]

Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending

 

[Neotrotsky]

Gasoline Taxes Per Gallon Are Almost 7 Times ExxonMobil's Profit: 48 cents vs. 7 cents for QI

 

[Neotrotsky]

2/3 of families cut back on vacations

Well almost all families

President Obama, for the third straight year, is planning to return to Martha’s Vineyard for vacation this summer, according to a White House official.

The Obamas are scheduled to spend seven to 10 days on the island in mid- to late August, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of security concerns.​

Why doesn't Papa Obama just run on his record
After all, we see how "well" his policies are working for the middle class

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not sure where you got your Exxon numbers, Yahoo Finance shows they had earnings before taxes of $52.9 billion and that they paid income taxes of $21.5 billion.
Looks like 40.6% to me.

XOM Income Statement | Exxon Mobil Corporation Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

If you have a link to the subsidy they supposedly received, that would be great.

Apologies for my (unintentional) chronological error. The Exxon zero tax was not last year but rather in 2009:

(Excerpt)

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

We are one of the few countries that taxes our corporations earnings from overseas operations. That gives corporations an incentive to keep those earnings overseas.

Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein notes that, despite benefiting from corporate welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it threatens energy innovation research. Pat Garofalo at the Wonk Room notes that big corporations’ tax shelter practices similar to Exxon’s shift a $100 billion annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers. In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”

ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated) | ThinkProgress

Despite the highest corporate tax rate in the world? Hmmmmmm.......makes you wonder if we cut the rate to 15% would we collect more income tax from corporations?

Re: the OilCo subsidies:

(Excerpt)

WASHINGTON — When he releases his new budget in two weeks, President Obama will propose doing away with roughly $4 billion a year in subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies, in his third effort to eliminate federal support for an industry that remains hugely profitable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/earth/01subsidy.html

(Close)

He wants to do away with the depletion allowance? How is that a subsidy?
Maybe you can explain the thinking behind that "idea"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not sure where you got your Exxon numbers, Yahoo Finance shows they had earnings before taxes of $52.9 billion and that they paid income taxes of $21.5 billion.
Looks like 40.6% to me.

XOM Income Statement | Exxon Mobil Corporation Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

If you have a link to the subsidy they supposedly received, that would be great.

Apologies for my (unintentional) chronological error. The Exxon zero tax was not last year but rather in 2009:

(Excerpt)

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein notes that, despite benefiting from corporate welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it threatens energy innovation research. Pat Garofalo at the Wonk Room notes that big corporations’ tax shelter practices similar to Exxon’s shift a $100 billion annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers. In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”
ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated) | ThinkProgress

(Close)

Re: the OilCo subsidies:

(Excerpt)

WASHINGTON — When he releases his new budget in two weeks, President Obama will propose doing away with roughly $4 billion a year in subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies, in his third effort to eliminate federal support for an industry that remains hugely profitable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/earth/01subsidy.html

(Close)

General Electric made 18.4 BILLION last year and didn't pay a penny in federal taxes. Of course Obama's new job czar is the CEO of General Electric.

Thread Obama's job czar CEO of GE made 18.4 BILLION dollars and didn't pay a penny in taxes | U.S. Politics Online | BoardReader

Yeah, the Obama subsidies for clean energy really worked, didn't they?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Comrades,

It is times like these, we must pull out our old songs
to help fight for the cause

Class warfare NOW- Class Warfare Forever!

Yes we must go after the rich! (never mind the gov't spending)
Please do not pay any attention to our performance or "ignore the man behind the curtain "


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPKH4GHiihg]YouTube - ‪Socialist World Republic - Sozialistische Weltrepublik‬‏[/ame]




As for the actual policies of Papa Obama and the Left just,,,,,


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE]YouTube - ‪Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.‬‏[/ame]

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

I know, let's destroy Medicare and cut taxes on the mega rich! How can people get so brainwashed...

 

[Neotrotsky]

I know, let's destroy Medicare and cut taxes on the mega rich! How can people get so brainwashed...

I hear you..

Next they will be saying that PapaObama Care was a bad thing

 

[Chris]

I know, let's destroy Medicare and cut taxes on the mega rich! How can people get so brainwashed...

It's pretty easy, just watch FoxLies.

400 individuals control HALF the wealth in this country.

The top 1% got 80% of the income increase in the last 40 years for the entire country.

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, said that the Reagan tax cuts were a "Trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich. This effectively transferred $13 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class taxpayer to the rich.

Now the Republicans want to shut the government down and ruin the economy rather than cut Big Oil company subsidies and raise taxes on the top 1%. They also want to kill Medicare and Social Security.

There is a special place in hell for Republicans. It's waiting for them.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Charles Krauthammer

He himself, as we just heard, said you can’t reduce the deficit to the levels we need without raising revenues. Then he talks about the [tax break for] corporate jets, which he mentioned not once but six times.

I did the math on this. If you collect the corporate jet tax every year for the next 5,000 years, you will cover one year of the debt that Obama has run up. One year.

To put it another way, if you started collecting that tax at the time of John the Baptist and you collected it every year — first in shekels and now in dollars — you wouldn’t be halfway to covering one year of the amount of debt that Obama has run up.

As for the other one, he mentions again and again, the oil depreciation tax break — if you collect that one for 700 years, you won’t cover a year of Obama deficits.

And then here’s my favorite. I worked it out in the car on the way here. If you collect the corporate jets and the oil tax together — get all the bad guys and the fat cats at once — and you collect it for 100 years, it covers the amount of debt Obama added… in February!

And he pretends that he’s the serious adult at the table.​

 

[Neotrotsky]

I know, let's destroy Medicare and cut taxes on the mega rich! How can people get so brainwashed...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwtiZkN2jps]YouTube - ‪The REAL Agenda Project America The Beautiful‬‏[/ame]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, let's destroy Medicare and cut taxes on the mega rich! How can people get so brainwashed...

It's pretty easy, just watch FoxLies.

400 individuals control HALF the wealth in this country.

The top 1% got 80% of the income increase in the last 40 years for the entire country.

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, said that the Reagan tax cuts were a "Trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich. This effectively transferred $13 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class taxpayer to the rich.

Now the Republicans want to shut the government down and ruin the economy rather than cut Big Oil company subsidies and raise taxes on the top 1%. They also want to kill Medicare and Social Security.

There is a special place in hell for Republicans. It's waiting for them.

The country doesn't have income, how can the country's income increase?
Lowering the top rate from 70% to 28% was a Trojan Horse to lower taxes for the rich?
Someone sounds confused about what the Trojan Horse was.
Allowing the rich to keep more of their own money transfers money from the middle class to the rich how exactly? Please run thru the steps if you could?
What oil company subsidies are you talking about? Be specific.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I know, let's destroy Medicare and cut taxes on the mega rich! How can people get so brainwashed...

It's pretty easy, just watch FoxLies.

400 individuals control HALF the wealth in this country.

The top 1% got 80% of the income increase in the last 40 years for the entire country.

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, said that the Reagan tax cuts were a "Trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich. This effectively transferred $13 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class taxpayer to the rich.

Now the Republicans want to shut the government down and ruin the economy rather than cut Big Oil company subsidies and raise taxes on the top 1%. They also want to kill Medicare and Social Security.

There is a special place in hell for Republicans. It's waiting for them.

The country doesn't have income, how can the country's income increase?
Lowering the top rate from 70% to 28% was a Trojan Horse to lower taxes for the rich?
Someone sounds confused about what the Trojan Horse was.
Allowing the rich to keep more of their own money transfers money from the middle class to the rich how exactly? Please run thru the steps if you could?
What oil company subsidies are you talking about? Be specific.

The Left views in their radical approach, that all money belongs to the gov't.
Therefore, any money you keep that you earn is out of the "kindness" of the gov't's heart

I am surprised the Left is pulling out the Class warfare card so soon. Before you know it the race card is bound to come out....

One has to wonder why they just can run on Papa Obama's record to convince the American people he knows what he is doing on the budget

 

[FA_Q2]

Specially I think the change in social contract would entail the basic premise that the PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT is to serve ALL the citizens, not just those who have the money to buy our politicians

It would have to accept the fact that corporations are NOT citizens.

Corporations are not and never have been citizens and that is not what that ruling by the SCOTUS entailed. We could debate the finer points about the ruling but this is not the thread to do it in. I will simply say that while I agreed with the ruling it is only because it singled out a single entity (corporation) and was not a blanket restriction like it should have been. You and I would likely see things in a similar light when it comes to campaign financing just differ on the delivery. I do believe that much of the problem is in the flow of cash to politicians but that is more a symptom of the apathetic attitude of the voters. Voters that could make those cooperate dollars useless if they were willing to spend the time knowing what their politicians are doing.

You mention that government should serve all people equally and I would agree with that though I think that our definition of 'all people equally' would be vastly different. What the left often misses is that the ONLY way for this to occur is for the federal government to stop giving things away. From corporate tax breaks, cooperate subsidies, special interest funding of alternative energies, personal tax breaks, EIC, to special interest group rewards (like federal education grants to minorities) and a million other things that need to be dealt with, ALL of it needs to go. As long as the government is in the business of providing things to one group of people that they do not provide to others they are doomed to be in the situation that we are in now. On top of that, we need to redo regulation to serve the purpose that is intended, protect people. Regulatory institution breed cooperate involvement. Why can the FDA pass a regulation that has the force of law when not ONE SINGLE REPRESENTATIVE WAS VOTED IN. That is the job of congress and they have passed it on so that they can have more time to enjoy the gifts from lobbyists. All those regulations serve just ONE single outcome: the ever decreasing amount of competition and ever increasing size of big business. You rail on big business and their influence in government throughout your post yet fail to realize that the government has not only created a situation that encourages such business but that is demands it. Want proof. How many agricultural companies exist today and how many existed 50 years ago? Where have the subsidies and regulations gone in the same time frame? How many banks existed 10 years ago compared to today? When the finical crisis hit, the big issue was that banks were 'to big to fail.' How big are those institutions today? What does the financial reform bill do to address this fact? How were Fanny and Freddy able to grow to the size they were and own almost 80 percent of the market? Did they do this on their own?


In EVERY SINGLE CASE you will find that it is not just the republicans behind the closed door creating this supreme land of perfection for large business but democrats as well. It is not a matter of what side you are on or who is writing regulations. It is a matter that we are doing it at ALL. None of it should be done. Regulations should serve one single purpose, the protection of the consumer. All the extra crap does nothing but serve the bigger businesses and limit competition.


Whew, I think you got me off on a tangent. Now that I go back, all that came from a single line If it sounds like an attack, please do not take it that way. I am quit passionate about this particular subject...

It would have to start out with the premise that ECONOMIC rights are no less important to maintaining a democractic republic than political rights.

What economic rights do you speak of. This is all sounding good but I see no substance in that statement. The left is rarely speaking of fair and equitable economic rights. They are usually talking about the exact opposite as they want to take more and more. Redistribution is not economic rights. It is the exact opposite. The only economic right that you need is the right to work for and earn your living. That you have the right of your labor and ownership of its fruits. That does not entail taking from one and giving to another as that is NOT having ownership if either your labor or its fruits but supposing that it belongs to everyone.

So as a nation we would have to accept that developments like massively unequal distribution of wealth and income between the classes are antithetical to maintaining a democratic republic.

Basically we'd have to conclude about the growing CORPORATE FACISM, that it is the same damned problem that our founding fathers understood about the MONARCHICAL FASCISM that they were dealing with.

Democractic Republics HAVE a middle class or no real democracy is possible.

Where we are headed is more akin to a BANANA republic, much thanks to government policies that constantly give aid and comfort to the SUPPLY side (read big capital) without protecting the demand side (read the citizens) from the INSECT LOGIC of PURE capitalism.

We CAN have honest capitalism that serves us all, or we can continue to allow the NEW PEERAGE, the mega-capitalists to become our NEW MASTERS.

That is true. The only problem is that government involvement NOT lack thereof is what creates that imbalance. It is there BECAUSE of the government getting involved. Take the government out of business and the entire issue of corporate control, political funding and the like vanishes in a puff of smoke.

Look, sport...the END GAME of pure capitalism is MONARCHISM, not freedom.


Think I'm wrong?

The underpinning of MONACHISM is the basic premise that the KING OWNS the nation, and that everybody else is merely a TENANT on HIS LAND.

You see the basic premise of monarchies is REALLY private property.

Now that is exactly where CORPORATISM is also leading us.

The elevation of private property from a good idea to a RELIGIOUS devotion is why I often note that the REAL religion of this nation is MAMMON.

That last part is contrite bullshit and you know it. Monarchies have nothing to do with ownership, they have to do with rights. In a monarchy, the king has overruling rights with nobles retaining a slight semblance of power and the people have zero rights to anything. It actually is not the king that owns the land anyway but the nobles that own the land. Usually granted by the king after he conquers it. As a condition of getting that land they declare fealty to the king. None of this has and barring on what we consider property rights. Private property is not a 'good idea.' It is a damn right. No different than any other right you have and no less important.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you have any proof of your 7% claim, please post a link. Thanks.

The following are just a few examples but the diminutive post-loophole rates are fairly typical. The average is 7%. The main point is to discard the notion that any corporation or individual capable of hiring a good accountant or tax lawyer is not paying the full 35% rate -- or anywhere near it. In fact, Exxon/Mobil not only paid zero tax last year, they received a subsidy from government.

(Excerpt)

[...]

At larger companies, which are better positioned to find tax havens in foreign countries or to take generous deductions for aging equipment, the tax bill can be substantially less. Over the past five years, Boeing paid income taxes at a rate of 4.5 percent; Southwest Airlines, 6.3 percent; and Yahoo, 7 percent.

And those payments keep getting lower. Over the past three years, Google has slashed its tax payments by more than $3 billion, paying just 2.4 percent in taxes last year, after shifting most of its non-U.S. profits to Bermuda. Facebook is planning a similar strategy, according to corporate filings.

[...]

(Close)

Lowering corporate tax rate may raise taxes - SignOnSanDiego.com

So, your first supposition is that the rich only pay 7% income tax and then you switch stories (without acknowledging it) that COMPANIES pay that. And then your quote even mentions that some of that is because of deductions on things like ageing equipment. In other words, depreciation in value. Should a company not be able to claim its expenditures?

Perhaps going along with the people here that have called for a simple tax code would make sense. Hmmm....

 

[georgephillip]

Well, if you DON'T BELIEVE the rich have EARNED all that money, you could call Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and a few others who are the RICHEST Democrat Representatives, AND ASK THEM.
You are showing your Liberal Red my dear.

From the OP:

"The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds..."

There is no shortage of millionaires in the US Congress.
On both sides of the aisle.

My solution is to FLUSH Republicans AND Democrats from DC by the hundreds (starting in the White House) in November of 2012.

What's yours?

If you want to flush all R's and D's and the President, which is impossible, who do you propose to take their place?

I didn't say all the Republicans and Democrats.

I said "...FLUSH Republicans AND Democrats from DC by the hundreds (starting in the White House) in November of 2012."

Many states already have established third party candidates appearing on their ballots.
For many voters a Green or Libertarian candidate would replace a Democrat or Republican incumbent.

I'm clear on the fact it's a leap of faith, politically speaking.

I'm also clear about how "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in hopes of affecting fundamental political change only confirms Einstein's theory of insanity.