It is a truism, but never-the-less true, that "everyone knows," and "they say" are the two least reliable source of information.
The problem is not that somehow you are a bad person, but rather that you are human. As Will Rogers remarked, "it ain't what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you know that just ain't so," and this applies even more to our policy makers and legislators as what "they know that just ain't so," not only hurts them [even if its just the loss of an election] but everybody.
The American news media bears much of the responsibility for this because of an almost total lack of fact checking and verification. As observed by US Senator and Ambassador Moynihan (1927-2003) "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
formatting link
This is an accelerating and increasingly serious problem in that what was largely or generally true, even a just few years ago, has become obsolete with the increasingly rapid changes in laws, tax codes, treaties, technology, etc., particularly in the fields of fiscal/financial policy and macro-economics, with the result that the Republic is currently hurtling toward a "train wreck" of epic proportions as the panaceas, nostrums, elixirs, "snake oil," etc. from the past are applied in ever increasing doses, even though the conditions/circumstances are completely different.
While it is time consuming, it is also highly instructive to try to verify many common assumptions and assertions, in that these frequently are found to be currently inaccurate/non-operational, although possibly valid when first formulated, and many more will be discovered to have no factual hard data basis, even if these sound plausible and appealing (and the way things otta' be).
-- 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).
But they cost us a lot of money just to support them, from transportation infrastructure, to communications, to a judiciary, to regulation of money, to military defense, to fire protection, etc., etc., etc.
Institutions, especially commercial ones, create social costs of their own. The individuals who collect the dividends ALSO create social costs of their own.
No, because the standard set for return on capital includes the cost of taxes. Decrease taxes across the board, and capital just demands a higher return -- across the board.
The stability that results from our enormous expenditures for corporations' benefit reduces interest rates at both ends -- in terms of their cost of money, and in terms of the accepted return on capital. In fact, they're two sides of the same coin.
Because it's more right-wing crapola, perpetuated by people who don't think much or study history at all.
Great. You could hardly come up with a better plan to destroy the US economy -- which is 70% consumption.
If you want to go for a VAT or a sales tax like the "National Purchase Tax," one big enough to replace all other taxes, you'd better first figure out how to make up a big chunk of it with exports. And here's a clue: If we tried it, our export markets would dry up faster than they could slam the doors.
It's an interesting fantasy, but the consequence would be nothing more than a shell game.
It is a truism, but never-the-less true, that "everyone knows," and "they say" are the two least reliable source of information.
The problem is not that somehow you are a bad person, but rather that you are human. As Will Rogers remarked, "it ain't what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you know that just ain't so," and this applies even more to our policy makers and legislators as what "they know that just ain't so," not only hurts them [even if its just the loss of an election] but everybody.
The American news media bears much of the responsibility for this because of an almost total lack of fact checking and verification. As observed by US Senator and Ambassador Moynihan (1927-2003) "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
formatting link
This is an accelerating and increasingly serious problem in that what was largely or generally true, even a just few years ago, has become obsolete with the increasingly rapid changes in laws, tax codes, treaties, technology, etc., particularly in the fields of fiscal/financial policy and macro-economics, with the result that the Republic is currently hurtling toward a "train wreck" of epic proportions as the panaceas, nostrums, elixirs, "snake oil," etc. from the past are applied in ever increasing doses, even though the conditions/circumstances are completely different.
While it is time consuming, it is also highly instructive to try to verify many common assumptions and assertions, in that these frequently are found to be currently inaccurate/non-operational, although possibly valid when first formulated, and many more will be discovered to have no factual hard data basis, even if these sound plausible and appealing (and the way things otta' be).
FWIW see
formatting link
giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders list By Lynn Sweet on March 27, 2011 9:54 AM | No Comments
WASHINGTON---With federal income taxes due in a few weeks, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent allied with Democrats, on Sunday released a list of ten big profitable U.S. companies paying little or no taxes. Sanders wants to close the loopholes that make this tax avoidance legal.
{Boeing is #5 on the list}
-- 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).
But don't stop a corporation from buying an election that would violate its first amendment rights.
Even when that is true (and to certain extent it is True) - so what? If you tax me (a private consultant) I just pass the bill on to my clients - So by your reasoning I should tell the IRS to piss off
It is more efficient to tax big corporations It would be most efficient to send the oil companies one whopping big tax bill than trying to collect it from millions as they purchase various petroleum products
If you tax workers that just means they need to have more pay and that aggregate upward pressure on wages just ends up as part of the cost of the product That fact is a basis for a good argument to tax the employer and not the employee, because taxing wages is one factor in driving jobs overseas.
Dunno, mebbe cause yu splain it fo weell???
Its called a Value Added Tax (VAT) VAT is what those socialist countries in Europe use as a major source of govt revenues It does a better job of keeping jobs because you collect a tax on the value added overseas as well as domestic production
It is not worth any effort to research this further. I am quite sure that Boeing did at one time deliver airplanes out of Washington State so that the purchaser did not have to pay state sales tax. It was fairly easy to get around paying the state sales tax, and the state probably made airplanes exempt because they were not getting any revenue from airplane sales anyway.
I never have thought I was a bad person even if I posted something that is not up to date as far as the tax code. I am pretty sure I read about how Boeing avoided sales tax in the Seattle PI or the Seattle Times when I lived in that area. I lived in Washington State for nearly forty years.
OK. While you do that, I'm going to beat Bilbray in CA 50.
Here is his latest brain child.
"H.R. 1036, The Job Creation and Innovation Investment Act of 2011, in the House of Representatives to encourage U.S. companies to bring home more than $1 trillion of their capital overseas. With one in ten San Diegans out of work, it is essential to note that this bill is very important to many San Diego companies. This legislation would establish a tax holiday from the current 35 percent repatriation tax U.S. companies pay when they bring home foreign earned assets. More specifically, it establishes a zero percent tax rate for funds brought back to the United States that are invested in research and development, new manufacturing and facility expansion. If companies wish to use the money they bring back entirely at their own discretion then they will be subject to a 5.25 percent nominal tax rate, which still amounts to a nearly 30 percent reduction."
My plan would be to tax them at 90 percent until they decide to bring their money back, taxed at prevailing rates. I think there is a candidate, based on the meeting I've just had with local business owners.
Oh, BTW. The local HS here has actually gotten two teams into some dort of national model rocketry competition that will take place in DC in a month. They need 20K to send the kids. I'm trying to touch base with my old friends at SouthWest to see about getting them out and back. Hopefully, Herb ain't dead. How's about you get of the dime and raise a dollar or two for this group of future Astronuts? Perhaps George could offer something beyond prolixity. I'm going to begin reminding GE of their obligation to America in the morning and the WH is still on my Rolodex...... Immelt has an office there and I can be both persistent, persuasive, charming and obnoxious depending on the circumstances.
Sorry, I must not be up to date. I believe this was true some years back. I do not suppose you know when commercial aircraft were made exempt from sales tax. Could it be that the exemption was made because the state was not collecting any sales tax on commercial aircraft because Boeing was making the sales outside of the state?
1979 ex.s. c 266 § 6; 1979 c 12 § 1. Prior: 1979 c 2 § 1 (Initiative Measure No. 345, approved November 8, 1977); 1977 ex.s. c 179 § 1; 1977 ex.s. c 166 § 6; 1975 1st ex.s. c 291 § 10; 1974 ex.s. c 185 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 11 § 1;
1970 ex.s. c 65 § 6; 1967 ex.s. c 149 § 20; 1967 c 87 § 1; 1965 ex.s. c 173 § 14; 1963 ex.s. c 28 § 3; 1961 c 293 § 7; 1961 c 15 § 82.08.030; prior:
1959 ex.s. c 3 § 6; 1955 c 137 § 1; 1951 1st ex.s. c 9 § 2; 1949 c 228 § 5;
1945 c 249 § 5; 1943 c 156 § 7; 1939 c 225 § 9; 1935 c 180 § 19; Rem. Supp.
1949 § 8370-19.] Repealed by 1980 c 37 § 81.
Actually, it's the unions that are buying the liberal/socialist politicians. The corporations are only trying to protect themselves from the institutionalized theivery.
========== Vietnam era adage which remains true "When elephants fight the grass gets trampled."
-- 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).
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:19:22 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
=========== As Robert Townsend observed in his management pop classic _Up the Organization_ "never attempt the impossible as you are bound to fail."
formatting link
There are two primary reasons why the "name and shame" approach is highly unlikely to have the desired, if any effect. Both appear to be equally important, so both are #1 below.
#1 General Electric is no longer an American corporation, but rather a huge transnational corporation domiciled in the US, more-or-less as an accident of history. Indeed, any effort to shame or require the corporation to meet their obligations may well result in relocation to / reincorporating in Aruba or the Bahamas.
A) The corporate culture of GE is highly labor adversarial, dating back many years to when they were a strictly American company, thus abandonment of manufacturing and the attendant blue-collar [union] jobs is consistent with the established corporate culture, where burning the barn down to get rid of the rats is SOP.
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
B) There is no reason to assume the [management of] GE corporation intends [it] to be an indefinite going concern, thus the normal considerations of good will, etc. may well be entirely subrogated to short-term profits and managerial bonuses. {I have no cites for this -- just a gut feel that keeps getting stronger}
#1 -- the WIIFM [What's In It For Me] factor. Why would the directors, officers and management want to change anything?
As it stands now GE pays no US income tax and got a "refund" of 1.1 billion$ in 2010, because of carry forward tax losses, after their bacon was saved by the TARP and other rescue programs using tax payer dollars.
formatting link
got 15.2 million$ in 2010 compensation
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
In many ways, complaining to or about GE is like complaining to or about mosquitoes because they are parasites, and frequently transmit malaria, Dengue and Yellow fever, etc. If mosquitoes could talk their reply would most likely be something like "tough darts Babushka -- that's the free market and that's what we do." The rational person when faced with a mosquito problem, with or without diseases such as Malaria or Dengue fever, does not waste time trying to reason with or reform the mosquito, but rather sets to work to eliminate standing/stagnant water where the mosquitoes breed, such as old tires or poorly maintained roof guttering, and where this is not practicable, applies a thin film or spray of mineral oil to the water to prevent the hatching of the mosquito larvae. As a last resort, periodic "fogging" may be an option to contain the problem.
Good luck on your efforts to name and shame, but IMNSHO far more will be required that an appeal to "do the right thing" and social control. Even successful political action is doubtful at this point.
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).
Don't sweat it Ed. I think George mistook my reference to his name when I meant Geotge Will. I can't put anything together for myself at the moment but these kids are going to travel. As you know, I contract from time to time with Nav/Global.
Reducing the _debt_ is politically difficult- Scrooge like behavior.
Increasing the debt is like getting a new credit card, you hardly notice the minimum payments for a while and the politicians can play Santa Claus, and they're long gone by the time the bills come due.
========= My bad -- not TARP but 139 billion $US taxpayer dollars through TLGP
formatting link
For more in-depth coverage of GE and the wave of corporationism now peaking in the US see
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).
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.