OT Are taxes killing us financially?

Well Ok but something very much like these sorts of sales has been underway in the States for several years now. BoneHead Kucinich is selling an $8.6 billion dollar revenue stream to Wall Street to cover his deficit. Ohio will be getting around $800 million. It's going to be done as a bond issue which means that if the bond is a 20 year note, somebody besides Ohio's tax payers will make a pile. Furthermore, if the revenue stream doesn't materialize the bond still has to be paid even without the cash flow. That's a pretty good deal when you consider that the State of Ohio really can't default. They shouldn't be discounting the cash flow beyond what the Federal Treasury does by much.

Reply to
John R. Carroll
Loading thread data ...

anecdotal. i've met a lot who don't believe this. either way, neither experiences count.

that's your opinion and why do you get to make this decision for the person earning the money?

again, opinion. there are a host of other alternative and rational decisions. for one example, look at money flight out of Great Britain or Scandinavia due to tax reasons. and again, who decides what that few percent may be, and what guarantees that it would remain a few percent?

Reply to
chaniarts

OK, I had one some years ago, and was NOT impressed with what she did for me. It took a lot of time to prepare info and go back several times with more info. She WAS a great help in SETTING UP my business, however, and getting me through all the procedures the first time.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson

I had one like that too, she only cared about getting a check from me.

This one, though, is very good, I had him for 10 years and I am very happy.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus24155

"Starve the government"? Christ on a crutch, Ig. The gov't could reduce spending on worthless projects and agencies, then start paying down the debt, balancing the budget, ending warfare, and still help the poor IF THEY WANTED TO. Please ask them why they don't want to.

Warren Buffett has just a -few- more rubles than you or I do, Ig. He can afford to do anything he wants to do, twice, including giving away a billion of them each time. I'm not in your class and you're not in his.

-- Make up your mind to act decidedly and take the consequences. No good is ever done in this world by hesitation. -- Thomas H. Huxley

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Because the poor, and the middle class, aren't the ones who pay the big chunks of money for their re-election campaigns, or provide lobbying jobs for them when they leave Congress.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

You can't explain a voting record like Chuck Schumer's or Chris Dodd's any other way. They aren't alone, of course, but well known examples of exactly how things work.

Reply to
John R. Carroll

Yeah, I'm still trying to imagine Chris Dodd as the head of the Motion Pictures Association. It should be funny.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

============ Indeed, and this seems to be a rampant and rapidly increasing problem, and a development/variant of the banned SILO/LILO abusive tax shelters.

For years the clamor has been for "government" to be run more like business, which in many cases is not a bad thing, but not when the businesses being emulated are Enron, General Motors, Global Crossing or IndyMac/Countrywide.

For example the city of Chicago sold the rights to its parking meter revenues.

formatting link
Wisconsin, with its recent public employees labor relations problems is another government that is seeking to sell off vital assets, AKA "eating the seed corn."
formatting link

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state-owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

also see

formatting link

While the distinction is seldom made in the US, this problem appears to be based on the failure to clearly differentiate between "government" and "state" in that the governments are selling what belongs to the state,as the government is technically the "administrator" for the state, with no clear title or mandate to sell or otherwise dispose of, i.e. fraudulent conveyance, and is yet another example of why it is no longer safe to rely on "ethics" and "social control" to limit our politicians actions, but detailed laws with severe criminal/civil penalties are now required.

formatting link
"SALE OR RECEIPT OF STOLEN PROPERTY"
formatting link

FYI

formatting link

-- Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

Reply to
F. George McDuffee

Government being run as a business isn't just a bad idea, it contravenes the purpose of government in a modern society. You end up destroying that which any government's are established to create, stable and broadly prosperous societies.

This is by design. "Cutting the Fat" in the corporate world equals the most inhumane disenfranchisement of the "unproductive" poor. Upward mobility wouldn't exist. You wouldn't want to take such an approach to its logical conclusion.

Not even "business" would be interested in investing in a country governed by corporate rules or driven by corporate purpose as policy.

What people hear is that business executives are somehow better at governance. History leaves absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this is patently false. For one thing, CEO's that end up in elected office quickly learn that they need the cooperation not just of their like minded fellows but a certain willingness on the part of their political adversary's.

Very few are able to cope or adjust to that reality. A recent and notable example is Gov. Ahnahld here in California. The guy is one of the most astute players in the business world but didn't get a great deal done as Governor.

He's a wealthy, succesful, square head that resented the Legistlatures failure to march to his well orchestrated directives. The few things accomplished had the overwhelming support of his political opposites. There were a couple of exceptions but it's just a couple, as in maybe 2. Ahnald as deply offended that the rest of the world didn't percieve his genius.

Professional politicians, on the other hand, promising to bring the boardroom to office are promoting a deliberate misconception.

They are intending to bring privatization and not the discipline that voters believe they are casting ballots for.

In the end, what ends up being privatized are the big fat profits to be had. What is public remains public and that is the losses. That is exactly what you'd want if your name was Blankfein, Dimon, or Pandit. A CDS without premium payments.

The generation that preceded what has been called the "Greatest Generation" is very different than their sons and daughters. Truman, Marshall, FDR and even the likes of pols such as Rankin watched as prosperity in the land turned to ash in front of their eyes. Homes and farms were repossed right and left en mass. One third ogf the adult population roamed the country looking for work. "Big Government" picked up the pieces under their legistlative guidance in the form of Acts like the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944, the creation of the TVA and Rural electrification projects. Most people don't know it but Herbert Hoover created what became Fannie Mae. The generation of Truman, Rankin, George Marshall and FDR believed in government and were highly suspect of business. They rightly saw the results of the market's gone wild and appreciated that reality.

Their successors, on the other hand, knew their government largely through experiences in the armed forces. Endless attacks that weren't either explained to them and seemed pointless in many instances. Supply chain management that sent men into combat in the dead of winter without even basic necessities such as winter shoe packs. That generation saw their success not as the result of government efforts but in spite of same.

This is the great contraction of our times. A financial bounty the likes of which the world had never seen and hasn't seen since enabled a nation of renters to become homeowners. People with no hope whatever of furthering their educations went to college by the millions and entered the work force to build upon the inventions of war.

They created the greatest, most prosperous culture the world has ever known on the basis of huge government investments in them while nurturing a profound distrust not of the corporate world but of their own government. They knew the poverty of the 30's and had no experience beyond the "nobody had any money" culture. The knew nothing of the "Roaring 20's" and lost prosperity. They were too young to have such memories.

The "Greatest Generation" instilled this distrust of government in their children and it also pervaded their peer group. The result was Ronald Reagan first as Governor of California and then President of the United States.

Then in their progeny in the visage of George W. Bush. Neither man reduced either the size or scope of government and the mess W. left behind is truly a wonder to behold.

Think about that for a minute. American's elected a man to lead their national government whose philosophy espoused the following:

Reagan famously declared at his 1981 inauguration that "in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Reagan then went on to prove exactly that during the course of his two terms in office, not by fixing anything but with a huge demanstration that he was just correct. His governance was poor at best and a disgraceful failure of leadership at worst. The less said about Bush, the better but results count and America will be living with the fallout of the result George W. Bush delivered for a generation or more.

There you have it George.

Reply to
John R. Carroll

I would simply argue that the FRB is actually a fourth branch of government, George, and it's an argument I'd win.

The Congress passes laws allowing it. They just don't get much attention since we are no longer on a metallic standard and haven't been for some time.

Works for me!

Reply to
John R. Carroll

Funny like an old fool with a young wife. He's perfect for Lindsay Lohan. LOL

Reply to
John R. Carroll

Funny you should bring up this topic. The other week I added up all the federal, state, and local taxes, Social Security, Medicare, etc witheld from my pay check last year and divided that by my gross income. All those witholds cost me 34%, and I never qualify for a refund. and no I didn' t make a mistake in my taxes; they're done by an accountant.

Reply to
GeoLane at PTD dot NET

That's not in the Constitution, George. All it says is "coin," and Congress has the power to set the value of any coin. The gold and silver business applies to the states.

As for paper, that was settled in the "Legal Tender Cases": Knox v. Lee, (1871), and Julliard v. Greenman (1884). They were based largely on Congress's power to borrow "money" and to coin it. It's considered an inherent power.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

========= While technically correct, it is also a huge dodge to avoid the constitutional requirement than "money" issued by the government *MUST* be backed by gold or silver.

As the government no longer issues paper money, and the FRB is not officially part of government their notes don't have to be backed by anything.

I do question how the government is avoiding the gold/silver backed requirement for the coins they churn out at the mint. At this point they are attempting to get rid of the penny as the metal content, now mainly zinc, is at or above the nominal value of the coin. Solid copper pennies were withdrawn years ago. Compressed chicken $**t would seem to be a suitable and appropriate replacement material.

-- Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

Reply to
F. George McDuffee

Clearly you don't make enough money to get beyond regressive payroll taxes.

G.E.'s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI General Electric, the nation's largest corporation, had a very good year in

2010.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.'s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world's best tax law firm. Indeed, the company's slogan "Imagination at Work" fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

While General Electric is one of the most skilled at reducing its tax burden, many other companies have become better at this as well. Although the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.

In a regulatory filing just a week before the Japanese disaster put a spotlight on the company's nuclear reactor business, G.E. reported that its tax burden was 7.4 percent of its American profits, about a third of the average reported by other American multinationals. Even those figures are overstated, because they include taxes that will be paid only if the company brings its overseas profits back to the United States. With those profits still offshore, G.E. is effectively getting money back.

formatting link

Reply to
John R. Carroll

============ Ah the English as she is spoke...

This is correct assuming that the transnational "bad seed" spawned from corporate aberrations such as Gulf+Western [aka Engulf+Devour] with their "buy, ruin, sell" business plan represent "business," which most unfortunately they increasingly appear to do.

formatting link
I was referring to an earlier era where US companies made money by manufacturing things that people wanted/needed at a cost they could afford and developed/invested significant amounts in accurate cost accounting, inventory control [anyone remember MRP?], and methods/manufacturing engineering, not to eliminate employees, but rather to make them available for additional operations and expanded production as there was a skilled and unskilled labor shortage in the 1960 and early 1970s.

As I indicated in other postings, accurate data on governmental operations and spending is critical if any progress is to be made in resolving the current and continuing crisis. It was in the sense of collecting and collating data w/ accurate and timely reports that I suggested that government could be more like business. Additionally government needs to examine their operations, simplify these where possible, and introduce much greater use of computers/automation. The quill pens and parchment used to transcribe the same date over and over again have got to go. General Motors is a prime example of what occurs when an organization attempts to operate w/o accurate and reliable cost accounting and simply "wings it."

-- Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

Reply to
F. George McDuffee

Operationally yes, and now probably the most powerful of the

  1. Legally no, which shields them from several pesky requirements such as FOIA requests unless you are prepared [translation: have the money] to fight all the way to the SCOTUS.

-- Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

Reply to
F. George McDuffee

Another excellent argument for an AMCT [alternative minimum corporate tax] possibly based on total domestic gross sales rather than net domestic profit.

Another "buzz phrase" that resonates is "unitary taxation."

formatting link
many more

-- Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

Reply to
F. George McDuffee

We have that right now in Oregon and it taxes "C" corps on their gross sale= s in Oregon. This is the second year in force because the legislature back = dated the law! "S" corps and others pay a minimum of $150. I have had to bo= rrow that amount because my company lost money.

As many "C" corps as possible have changed to "S" corps. Many co-ops have g= one out of business. Many large wheat ranches, etc. have been sold to out o= f state corporations. They would have NO in state sales.=20

Of course, the lawyers, the "PC" professional corporations, are exempt!

What a screwed up mess.

Paul

Reply to
KD7HB

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.