OT Are taxes killing us financially?

Yes it is.

I am. I studied it for six months, including several visits to the BEA and the Defense Department before writing about US trade in aerospace and arms it some years ago. Looking around, it appears that nothing much has changed.

Believe me, it hasn't changed a bit, and for an actual ( ie. good) reason.

Yes, but don't confuse the Peanut Gallery. d8-)

Its working fine for the already rich thank you so very much

Please exit on the throbbing yellow line.

Actually they do.

Dan

I should have said your comment is stupid, rather than say I did not understand it.

Dan

Like the VAT, which is doing so well in commie Euroville with their

50% tax rates?

Governments are always being efficient and lowering rates, aren't they?

Tell me again how this is a Libertarian idea, Rich?

-- Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens. -- Epictetus

Defense procurement certainly is stupid, but what I said is correct, and documented. What you've said about Lockheed Martin's contracting is stupid, and incorrect.

--It's not just taxes, which *are* bad; it's the double and in some cases triple whammy of taxes, health insurance and mortgage. Little did I know, ten years ago, that health insurance would cost more than my mortgage! It's like I'm paying for twice the house with half the money. Sigh. --OBTW I own the domain name fuckbluecross.com and if anyone wants to help me with content get in touch, bwahaha.

Over on alt.machines.cnc, Dobie Dave ("Why") is an enemy of Blue Cross, too. He calls them "Blue Screw." Maybe you can get him to help.

Ed,

Could we see the figures on this? If a major weapon system goes through a flyoff, (say the F-303 by Wombat Industries or the F-404 from Corpohell) the contractor with what is deemed the best value package gets a sole source contract. If the system chosen has a Woodchuck 2000 engine, Woodchuck gets a sole source contract for spares because they are the sole source. I would not term these "no bid" contracts. If there was competition, all the prospective supplier has to do is file a protest. The contract award is halted automatically, and the award has to be justified. Having been in the defense contracting business for the last couple of decades, I will make the statement that a sole source contract is a difficult thing to put in place, requiring a Justification and Authorization (J and A) signed off in the upper reaches of The Building. Those who initiate the contract will most assuredly have to answer to someone's congressman (for the district that didn't get the bucks). In war conditions, it sometimes has to be done. DoD goes to great lengths to preserve competition.

Kevin Gallimore

Sure. This study was done a few years ago by The Center for Public Integrity. It references DoD sources.

I ran into the same figures, generally, when I was researching the finances of arms trade a year or two earlier.

But that's just the first contract, and not even all of those. The follow-ups typically are no-bid, or "not full and open," as the Pentagon puts is, with no competition. And that's where, along with original no-bids, Lockheed Martin makes something like 74% of its defense-related revenue -- which is, in total, and curiously, is 74% of their total revenue.

Most of the contracts for the major prime contractors, in dollar terms, are no-bid. You can track back the sources from the article linked to above.

This is exactly the same thing that I was told by DoD when I was researching a similar subject.

I prefer to think that you, someone who studied the defense procurement for a good six months, do not have a clue. The defense contractors compete on many levels. Buying weapons systems is somewhat like buying a car. Most all cars will take 4 people down the road at 60 mph. But there is a difference between buying a Ford and buying a BMW or Mercedes. Some will perform better than the required minimum. Some are easier to maintain. Some will last longer than others. Buying a weapons system is not like buying bolts where every ones product is essentially fungible. The military contract specifications provide a minimum requirement.

Take a look at the thread on the C-130.

Boeing designed a cargo plane that out performed the current Lockheed cargo plane in almost every category. However the Lockheed plane could be loaded and unloaded much faster than the Boeing plane. So while the Boeing plane could fly faster and carry more, the Lockheed plane could make two trips for every one trip the Boeing plane could make and land on unimproved airfields closer to where the supplies were needed.

Dan

So when your Ford needs a major assembly, you are going to see if you can buy that part from GM? Of course the follow ups are not bought from someone that does not have the tooling to build the parts. But maintenance costs are taken into consideration when the original contract is let. The military know what the costs are for making parts. They can and do evaluate the costs for follow up purchases.

Dan

So, instead of taking care of yourself, you want all the other working stiffs to pay your bills for you?

Thanks, Rich

Howcome the liberals refuse to grasp the concept that Free Market Competition would solve that problem? If it weren't for all the regulations, the medical insurance companies would be airing the same kind of "SAVE HUNDREDS WITH US!" commercials that the car insurance companies are.

But as it stands, that's illegal, and the democrats have fought Free Market competition tooth and nail.

Thanks, Rich

Let's get back for a moment to the original point of contention. You showed that Lockheed Martin pays nearly 30% of their profit in income taxes. Aside from the suggestion that Lockheed Martin is truly stupid compared, for example, to GE, who pays no income taxes, one wonders what point you were making, given that we know that most companies pay far less.

I pointed out that they don't care how much tax they pay, because they're not really in competition for most of their contract dollars and they can just lay the taxes on top of their charges. They're easy to justify and no one is going to underbid them on that basis.

To which you said, my statements are stupid. To which I replied that your figures are cockeyed, starting with your initial claim that "Most of Lockheed Martin's defense work is on contracts which were competitively bid." This is patently false. Anyone who has dealt with the economics of defense contracting knows immediately that it's false. You can't spend any time investigating the defense industry and not learn that the big contractors derive most of their revenue from no-bid projects.

So are you now saying there are justifications for no-bid contracts? That's a separate issue. I'm not arguing with you about that. What I said is that the nature of the bidding and contracts that Lockheed Martin is awarded makes the taxes they pay a non-issue. They pay a lot of taxes -- with our tax money. And they have no incentive to minimize their taxes. because it's not a competitive issue for them. The taxes don't come out of their pocket, either directly or indirectly. They're just pass-alongs.

Now you're justifying no-bid again. I'm not arguing with you about whether it's justified. My point is that it's a FACT, and that the fact leads directly to another fact, which is that Lockheed Martin doesn't care what it pays in taxes, because most of their defense work -- in fact, most of ALL of their work -- is done on no-bid contracts.

Dan, the original contract for the C-130 was granted in 1951. Most of the money made on the C-130 has nothing to do with the original contract, and couldn't have been anticipated.

That's a figment of your libertarian imagination, Rich. I was Senior Medical Editor for Publicis Managed Markets. Do you know what "Managed Markets" are? They're HMOs, PPOs, Medicare and Medicaid.

What would you like to know about the health care insurance industry?

It's not illegal. They promote their competitive rates all the time. It's just that they don't want to promote them to YOU. They promote them to companies and institutions who buy group plans. That's where the money is. You, as an individual, are nothing but a headache to them.

Which regulations, specifically, do you think are keeping the health care insurers from competing on rates?