60% Of Corporations Didn't Pay Taxes At All

[Cyrus]

WASHINGTON - Dow Jones Newswires 04-06-04

More than 60% of U.S. corporations didn't pay any federal taxes for 1996 through 2000, years when the economy boomed and corporate profits soared, Tuesday's Wall Street Journal reported, citing the investigative arm of Congress.

The disclosures from the General Accounting Office are certain to fuel the debate over corporate tax payments in the presidential campaign. Corporate tax receipts have shrunk markedly as a share of overall federal revenue in recent years, and were particularly depressed when the economy soured. By 2003, they had fallen to just 7.4% of overall federal receipts, the lowest rate since 1983, and the second-lowest rate since 1934, federal budget officials say.

The GAO analysis of Internal Revenue Service data comes as tax avoidance by both U.S. and foreign companies also is drawing increased scrutiny from the IRS and Congress. But more so than similar previous reports, the analysis suggests that dodging taxes, both legally and otherwise, has become deeply rooted in U.S. corporate culture. The analysis found that even more foreign-owned companies doing business in the U.S. -- about 70% of them -- reported that they didn't owe any U.S. federal taxes during the late 1990s.

The basic federal corporate-tax rate for big corporations is 35%. But the federal tax code also offers many credits and loopholes that allow many companies to pay far less than that.

Despite the rising rate of tax avoidance among corporations, collections from the federal corporate income tax rose to more than $200 billion in 2000, from $ 171 billion in 1996. But over the next three years they fell each year, reaching $131.8 billion in 2003 -- the lowest annual total since 1993.

They are projected to reach $168.7 billion this year.


CNN Report (http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/06/news/economy/taxes_corporate.dj/index.htm?cnn=yes)

[Boris]

The taxes should be paid by stockholders when they receive dividends or realize a capital gain.

[superleeds]

I think you'll find that hardly any multi-national companies pay anywhere near the amount of tax they should to any country.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
More than 60% of U.S. corporations didn't pay any federal taxes for 1996 through 2000

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you going to blame Dubya for this one /images/graemlins/smile.gif? Economic growth was very strong during this period, there were record lows in the unemployment rate during this period, government tax revenues reached all time records during this period, and the feds eventually ran a budget surplus. Correlation or causation? The drawback of course is that people will say that if corporations don't pay taxes why should I? Don't worry Kerry's economic plan will fix everything /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[MMMMMM]

Individual stockholders pay taxes when they realize profits from stock; why should there be double-taxation?

Let's say you open Cyrus' Gourmet Pizza Emporium--a glorified pizza joint. The business structure is that of a partnership--you and Jokerswild are going to sell Triple-cheese pizzas with Texas barbecue sauce, made in the shape of Longhorn cattle heads, and call them W's. Would it be fair for your restaurant to be taxed on its net income, and then for you and Jokerswild to each be taxed again on your personal incomes from it? So why should corporate taxes exist at all? Just another way, IMO, for government to control and financially exploit its citizens, so that it can continue buying votes with expensive social programs which for the most part have very little real effect. So why should corporate income be taxed twice while income from a sole proprietorship or partnership is taxed once?

US corporations are also subject to double-taxation in some manner involving foreign countries (adios would probably know the details; I forgot). Why should US corporations be hobbled with double-taxation on the world stage and thus handicapped against foreign competition?

Methinks the problem is that these taxes were legislated in the first place; not that 60% of US corporations legally avoided paying such taxes.

Why too should there be a double-tax on inheritance? The income tax on the estate was already paid.

IMO it is primarily unprincipled politicians and delusional liberals who are in favor of such injustices.

This brings us to a philosophical/political essential question: are equal rights or equal results more important, and which is the more moral concern? IMO equal rights are FAR more important than equal results. Furthermore, equal results are unattainable no matter what you do or what artificial adjustments are made, because of the inherent complexity and diversity within the world. The world--and the universe--generally produce very unequal results in their countless creations and scenarios. Attempts to contrive equality of results are doomed to fail. Such contrived attempts generally don't work, and also tend to produce an insidious countereffect which creates more problems that surface later.

So as I've said before, we should cut taxes severely and cut the budget commensurately. By far the greatest number of federal programs now in existence should be eliminated. And the USA would function far more efficiently, and the poor would have far more money in their pockets.

Thomas Sowell makes an interesting point in a recent column: poverty in the USA is less today than decades ago--with no thanks to liberals--but the reason for this improvement is not because the poor are getting a larger slice of the overall pie. The poor are better off today because the pie itself is bigger, so the slice they are getting is bigger too. As Sowell so neatly puts it, wealth is the only cure for poverty.

[Ray Zee]

i bet a large % of that figure of 60% is s- corps. and others that pass thru their earnings directly to the principles who then pay taxes. and of course alot of corps. arent in business to make money or just dont.
it is easier said than done to make money in a corp and pay no tax.

[Cyrus]

"Let's say you open Cyrus' Gourmet Pizza Emporium. The business structure is that of a partnership--you and Jokerswild. Would it be fair for your restaurant to be taxed on its net income, and then for you and Jokerswild to each be taxed again on your personal incomes from it?"

A corporation is a stand-alone entity, a living being, in the financial world. Your example is amusing ("Longhorn cattle heads"!) but misplaced.

The real world analogy is this : I am John Corpo and I am earning $100,000 a year.

For some reason (there is no analogy in the biological world that I can think of), I have agreed to pass on (some or all of) my earnings to two individuals, Joe Stocko and Mary Stokee. The amount that I will be passing on to them from my earnings is decided by those individuals, for some reason (see above). This year, for example, Stocko and Stockee have decided that I should give them $20,000 to each one and keep the rest to feed myself, improve myself and save that money for 'em for the future.

Now I am a living person and they too are also living persons. In the financial world, I am treated as an individual that cannot be prosecuted criminally (corporations don't go to jail; their guardians aka officers go to jail) but has certain legal obligations, rights and liabilities, similar to biological citizens. The two individuals (aka stockholders) that share in my earnings are, in the same financial world, exempt from various obligations and liabilities as well (stockholders don't go to jail; stockholders cannot lose more than the capital they put up; etc).

Now then, on the basis of that set-up, is it or is it not fair, in the financial world of the above analogy and all those "individuals", that every one should pay taxes ?

[Cyrus]

"I bet a large % of that figure of 60% is S-Corps. and others that pass thru their earnings directly to the principles who then pay taxes."

I belive that the GAO referred to companies that should have been paying taxes but weren't. We can only wait for a fuller disclosure.

"A lot of corps. aren't in business to make money or just don't."

About those that didn't make any money, i.e. they were in the red, see my comment above about the GAO's examined population of corporations. About those companies that intentionally don't make money, I can only say that there's tax dodging afoot there.

"It is easier said than done to make money in a corp and pay no tax."

Yes, it is not easy making money (and creating jobs, creating wealth, etc). Far from easy! Be it as an individual or as a corporate entity. I know first hand and I agree. But about not paying taxes on your earnings? Sure, it "ain't easy" but that's why an army of tax lawyers ans "specialists" are at hand to help you.

And how about that bit from the report, how does that make you feel, dearl Americans? A little, shall we say, exploited? Makes a change.

"<font color="blue"> The analysis found that even more foreign-owned companies doing business in the U.S. -- about 70% of them -- reported that they didn't owe any U.S. federal taxes during the late 1990s.</font>"

[Cyrus]

"More than 60% of U.S. corporations didn't pay any federal taxes for 1996 through 2000. How are you going to blame Dubya for this one ?"

You missed one of the points in the report.

It has become endemic (if not systemic) for U.S. something for which not one President can be blamed directly. (Although, quite possibly, we can pinpoint Ronald Reagan as the man who ushered in an aggressively egoistical morality that did propel forward an attitude of "F.U." from the corporate world. An attitude that gutted for good industrial America, industrial production being the backbone of any serious economy, no matter what the heavily-suspendered bond trading big swinging dicks will tell ya.)

And you also missed one stinger for your man Dubya :

"<font color="blue">Collections from the federal corporate income tax rose to more than $200 billion in 2000, from $ 171 billion in 1996. But over the next three years they fell each year, reaching $131.8 billion in 2003 -- the lowest annual total since 1993.</font>"

So, you see, while Bill Clinton inherited a heavily pro-corporate legislation, legislature and climate, he did manage to "bleed" them corps to a heavier contribution towards society thah before - and since. Your man Dubya on the other hand, immediately started giving them back tax money.

No wonder his re-election "war chest" is puffed up to the hilt!

[MMMMMM]

I don't think there should be a gift tax.

If you earn 300K a year as a lawyer and give 25K of your after-tax income to your grand-daughter, she should not have to pay one penny of tax on it. The income was already taxed. If on the other hand you earn 300K and PAY your grand-daughter 25K for working weekends as your administrative assistant, your pre-tax income is 275K and you pay taxes on that and your grand-daughter pays taxes on the 25K.

A coproration does get certain benefits, but to argue those benefits merit double-taxation is going way overboard, IMO. An LLC or Limited Liability Company gets some benefits and protections quite similar to those a corporation enjoys but is not doubly taxed. Should you decide to go into the pizza business with Jokerswild, an LLC is the business structure I would advise you to adopt.

[MMMMMM]

"So, you see, while Bill Clinton inherited a heavily pro-corporate legislation, legislature and climate, he did manage to "bleed" them corps to a heavier contribution towards society thah before - and since."

Precisely the point and the problem. "Society" does not truly exist; it is just a covenient term; what is called society is actually a set of individuals. Forcing individuals to subsidize other individuals in immoral and should not be the primary role of government. Government should protect your basic rights, not be in the business of protecting your "rights" to buy a TV with someone else's money which they first confiscated and then gave to you.

"Your man Dubya on the other hand, immediately started giving them back tax money."

"Giving them back"--their own money! Can't have that now, can we? And..."Giving" them???

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
"Collections from the federal corporate income tax rose to more than $200 billion in 2000, from $ 171 billion in 1996. But over the next three years they fell each year, reaching $131.8 billion in 2003 -- the lowest annual total since 1993."

So, you see, while Bill Clinton inherited a heavily pro-corporate legislation, legislature and climate, he did manage to "bleed" them corps to a heavier contribution towards society thah before - and since. Your man Dubya on the other hand, immediately started giving them back tax money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you can deny that Clinton was a good friend to big business. The economy started going down hill in 2000 and then there was this thing called a recession you see and when recessions happen business activity contracts which means less sales which means less profits which means less taxable income for businesses. Fiscal policy during Dubya's administration enacted by Congress and endorsed by Dubya has provided corporate tax breaks mainly through accelerated depreciation. The idea behind accelerated depreciation is that it will spur business investment which will lead to more economic grwoth which leads to more employment. All of this is Fiscal stimulus meant to lessen the impact of the economic slowdown. Whether or not this policy was a wise one is open to debate. I believe that corporate tax revenues as a percentage of GDP is at some multi year low. So I do agree that corporations have a smaller tax burden in the aggregate.

[ QUOTE ]
No wonder his re-election "war chest" is puffed up to the hilt!

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry is getting a great sum of money from corporations as well.

You didn't address the main point of my post though Cyrus. It does seem like lessening the corporate tax burden brought about some impressive economic and financial results between 1996 and 2000. Then the economic slowdown came to pass. Perhaps we should discuss the reasons for the recession that officially started in March of 2001 but in actuallity the economy started going downhill in 2000. I've got a theory but should probably put it in another post.

[elwoodblues]

The double-taxation argument to me rings hollow. Individuals are taxed (not the money). Next time my money fills out its tax forms I'll be happy to argue that the money has already been taxed, until then I'll continue operating under the system where people (loosely defined) are taxed.

Would these be "double taxation"?
I, as an individual, hire a contractor to build a deck. The contractor (an individual) earns $3000. Should the contractor pay income tax on the $3000 or is that money that has already been taxed as income?

Aren't all sales taxes "double taxation"? (the money I made to make the purchase has already been taxed)

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I, as an individual, hire a contractor to build a deck. The contractor (an individual) earns $3000. Should the contractor pay income tax on the $3000 or is that money that has already been taxed as income?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not (assume that it enhances the value of your property) but a better example I would think would be paying a mechanic to fix your automobile so that you have transportation to and from a place of employment. I would consider the case of the mechanic to be double taxation.

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't all sales taxes "double taxation"? (the money I made to make the purchase has already been taxed)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep and pre 1986 tax legislation they were deductable against your Federal tax payments.

I'd point out that two wrongs don't make a right.

[elwoodblues]

Just so I understand the distinction you are trying to make regarding the automobile...does it matter, in your example, that the automobile was used to drive to work?

Paying the pool guy to open and close your pool every year (he shouldn't have to pay taxes because you were paying him with your income which has already been taxed)

How would any income be taxed (if the argument is that the money has already been taxed once). Corporations don't make money out of whole cloth. They sell products and/or services. The money used to purchase those products/services would have already been taxed as someone else's income --- and the cycle goes on (okay, now I'm getting a headache). This is exactly why the standard isn't (and shouldn't be) "the money has already been taxed once."

[Cyrus]

"Society does not truly exist; it is just a covenient term; what is called society is actually a set of individuals."

Of course, society exists, don't be silly. Where do you get such notions? Are you trying to do away with sociology and set theory in one stroke?

You are saying that a set is not a set and we cannot talk about it meaningfully unless we talk about its individual members. Bullshit. How about both? We can talk and analyze society as a whole and we can analyze individuals. (Note that, otherwise, it would be impossible to analyze even poker hands.)

"Forcing individuals to subsidize other individuals in immoral."

On the contrary, it is a basic human instict! While I agree about the limited role that governments should play in this, you are quite mistaken about Man's true inclinations.

Obviously you are not familiar with the groundbreaking work of various psychologists-cum-economists (Thaler et al) who demonstrated experimentally, and quite conclusively too, that "subisdizing others" (e.g. less fortunate or capable) comes naturally to Man. What you have in your mind as "fair" is actually at odds with the vast majority of humanity, if not with Homo Sapiens.

Check out what I'm saying, it will astound you. It is counter-intuitive, as a matter of fact.

As to your whining about corporate taxes, it is quite amusing to see you arguing for a better treatment of corporations that humans! ...Great tell.

[Cyrus]

"If you earn 300K a year as a lawyer and give 25K of your after-tax income to your grand-daughter, she should not have to pay one penny of tax on it. The income was already taxed."

They are not taxing the money itself. They are taxing transactions and generated income, if any. If they were taxing money as such, then that $300,000 would be taxed every year even if it is sitting idle under the bed.

If I am making money (as a lawyer or poker player) and I am also causing the generation of income for someone else (be it my son or my grand-daughter) than both incomes are taxable. And the tax rate varies only in relation to the "hardship" involved in the generation of that income -- that's why my son's income from a gift is taxed more onerously than his income from doing plumber's work.

You understand correctly the bit about taxing income from working, as your next example shows, but you haven't yet grasped the point about taxing income in general :

"If on the other hand you earn 300K and PAY your grand-daughter 25K for working weekends as your administrative assistant, your pre-tax income is 275K and you pay taxes on that and your grand-daughter pays taxes on the 25K."

That's right.

"A corporation does get certain benefits, but to argue those benefits merit double-taxation is going way overboard."

I mentioned the benefits that a corporation enjoys (e.g. not going to jail!) as a side point, in order to show that a corporation is treated by society as an individual, albeit one of limited responsibilities (liabilities). At least, limited as compared to "normal" individuals, i.e. humans.

If you start thinking of corporations as individuals (no matter that they are privileged individuals, as well), you will realize that the previously-mentioned examples apply : The taxmen are taxing both individuals' incomes, as they should.

A lot of countries don't tax both incomes, but this is going way overboard. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

Browse and peruse:

GAO Report on Corporate Tax Evation (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04358.pdf)

[MMMMMM]

M: "Forcing individuals to subsidize other individuals is immoral."

Cyrus: "On the contrary, it is a basic human instict! While I agree about the limited role that governments should play in this, you are quite mistaken about Man's true inclinations.
Obviously you are not familiar with the groundbreaking work of various psychologists-cum-economists (Thaler et al) who demonstrated experimentally, and quite conclusively too, that "subisdizing others" (e.g. less fortunate or capable) comes naturally to Man."

You apparently missed the significance of the word 'forcing' in my sentence. I agree that tendencies to aid others naturally exist in humans and that this is a good thing and that such tendencies should be cultivated. That however does not mean that subsidizing others should be forced.

"As to your whining about corporate taxes, it is quite amusing to see you arguing for a better treatment of corporations that humans! ...Great tell."

And you are failing to acknowledge that in the final analysis it is actually humans who are double-taxed through corporate double-taxation.

[MMMMMM]

But Cyrus, the fact that a corporation has certain benefits etc. may make it a special structure which is taxed "as an individual", but the actual human beings paying that tax are being double-taxed. Humans, not some machine, pay the corporate tax. Then those humans again pay tax on their profits as shareholders.

Just maybe shareholders actually shouldn't be totally exempt from liability if that is the main point which you feel merits such double-taxation.

[MMMMMM]

But elwood, the SAME INDIVIDUALS (shareholders) are being taxed twice in the corporate double-tax structure. That is why it is different from your examples where one person pays another who pays another.

First the shareholders' profits are diminished by paying corporate tax which is based on corporate income. The shareholders (corporation) have already paid tax on that income. Then when the shareholders withdraw their profits by cashing in stock they are taxed again. But their profits were actually already taxed in aggregate by paying the corporate taxes, which thereby reduced the inherent value of their stock. So when they sell stock they are selling stock which has been reduced in value by money taken out of the corporation to pay income taxes.

[Cyrus]

"Maybe shareholders actually shouldn't be totally exempt from liability."

No, that would cause the collapse of capitalism as we know it. Truly.

BTW, there's really little more that I can add on this issue. You are missing a lot of the points I made in this thread. Try and understand what is at issue here. It is more than double taxation.

And google some of the names I name-dropped. You never know.

[MMMMMM]

M: "Maybe shareholders actually shouldn't be totally exempt from liability."

Cyrus: "No, that would cause the collapse of capitalism as we know it. Truly."

I'll bet liability insurance would cost a lot less than double-taxation.

[elwoodblues]

Either a corporation is a distinct entity ("person") or it isn't. If it is a distinct person then the same individuals are not taxed twice. If it isn't a distinct person then many of the benefits that befall a corporation and its owners should come with the relevant responsibilities as well.

The double-tax argument isn't just used in the corporate sense. It is also used with the "death tax" as well. I just want to know what the standard is for when something is a double-tax and when it isn't.

[MMMMMM]

Well regardless of whether, legally speaking, a corporation is a distinct entity, it is obvious that the same individuals are collectively paying the corporate tax and again personal taxes on withdrawn corporate profits. I don't think it can be argued that that isn't a form of double-taxation.

[Gamblor]

Quit your communist "I'm too lazy to read the rulebook, so I'm going to blame everyone else for my miserable life and my high school beatings, instead of working hard (or working out) and taking advantage of rules designed to be taken advantage of" whining, and... incorporate.

[Cyrus]

"Quit your communist "I'm too lazy to read the rulebook, so I'm going to blame everyone else for my miserable life and my high school beatings, instead of working hard (or working out) and taking advantage of rules designed to be taken advantage of" whining, and... incorporate."

How prescient.

...Get a new act, is my suggestion. It's too late to get a new mind.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
An attitude that gutted for good industrial America, industrial production being the backbone of any serious economy, no matter what the heavily-suspendered bond trading big swinging dicks will tell ya.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Reagan might have been the bringer of vapid and aggressive moralizing, but he can't be held accountable for this one. Industrial America was on its way out well before Reagan rode into Washington, and not because of any sort of pro-corporate policy shift.

Whether industrial production is still the backbone of our economy is a debatable question. But it is certainly on the wane and, despite Kerry's rhetoric, that trend won't be reversed.

[Gamblor]

How prescient

Ah, you are indeed planning on taking advantage of these rules?

Good on ya. I'm sure that will be a well-run enterprise. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

The United States, as I understand it, is built on the premise that anyone is allowed to take use whatever rules are available to further selfish goals, no matter how inept at debate.

Ayn Rand would be proud of you.

[Cyrus]

"Ah, you are indeed planning on taking advantage of these rules?

Excellent read.

(This is on a par with my prescience comment.)

"I'm sure that will be a well-run enterprise."

You are somewhere in the formal education cycle of life, aren't you? You would be better served if you were to refrain from trying to pass as a judge of character or as an evaluator of things beyond your present state of knowledge.

For instance, that comment : Only the strongest sense of preserving my anonymity prevents me from exposing it (and its author) for its unfathomable silliness. If only you knew.

"The United States, as I understand it, is built on the premise that anyone is allowed to take use whatever rules are available to further selfish goals."

You are absolutely, 100% correct.

I mean, that's right, that's how you understand it alright.

"No matter how inept [I am] at debate."

No worries, mate. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Gamblor]

You would be better served if you were to refrain from trying to pass as a judge of character or as an evaluator of things beyond your present state of knowledge.

Now now, Cyrus. Don't get cocky, it doesn't suit you. I prefer the pithy Subject lines and subtle, yet amusing wisecracking Cyrus over the angry, vindictive, demanding Cyrus. At your age you never can be too careful with blood pressure.

Only the strongest sense of preserving my anonymity prevents me from exposing it (and its author) for its unfathomable silliness. If only you knew.

You're so serious now. You used to be fun to hang out with. Our relationship has changed /images/graemlins/frown.gif

We all know you're dyin to tell us, so I'm just gonna come out and guess, if that'll satisfy your need for attention:

Anna Nicole Smith?
/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Gamblor]

Incidentally, I am a Commerce (http://www.utoronto.ca/commerce) student.

[adios]

Here's a definition I found that applies to corporate earnings:

double taxation
Taxation of the same earnings at two levels. One common example is taxation of earnings at the corporate level and then again at the shareholder dividend level. Another example is taxation of foreign investments in the country of origin and then again upon repatriation, although many countries have signed agreements to prevent this latter type of double taxation.

Looking at the case of an individual and their income tax obligation. For a single taxpayer with no children and just receiving a W-2, they get $4750 as a standard deduction and $3050 as a personal exemption which means that $7750 is exempt from taxes. In my mind if their basic cost of living including domicile, food, and necessary expenses to maintain employment that enables taxes to be paid exceeds $7750 then taxes (income and sales taxes) on the amounts exceeding this value constitutes a double tax. The amount of $7750 amounts to about $630 a month. Not a lot to pay the expenses needed to live on and maintain employment. If memory serves me correctly I believe that Steve Forbes tax proposal attempted to reconcile the fact that people need a lot more money to live on and maintain employment than the standard deduction and personal exemption allow for. I believe he was stating that a family of 4 making $40,000 or less should pay no taxes whatsoever because this is the amount of money they needed to live on.

The question seems to always boil down to how is income defined. In my mind the government has recognized that fact that some income should not be taxed because there are legitimate living expenses and expenses incurred to maintain employment. They just have an unrealistic amount in the standard deduction and the personal exemption. Questions like what constitutes a legitimate business expense and what doesn't for various businesses IMO make the tax code very complicated. It's the reason d'etra for special interest group lobbying in Congress. It's a friggen mess and a nightmare but I digress.

[jcx]

The double taxation issue has been covered, but you are not considering other taxes corporations pay - They must match employees Social Security Taxes (Capped once the employee makes approx $84K), Medicare Taxes (No cap) and pay Federal Unemployment Tax. Depending on their line of business, it is quite likely the corporation has to pay Excise Tax as well. This is not taking into account what these companies are paying to state and local governments on top of their Federal obligations.

For large corporations that employ hundreds of thousands of people (GE, GM, etc) the tab for these taxes runs into the billions. Tax corporations to death and they will move their domicile to a place like Bermuda or spend precious resources trying to devise new tax loopholes. The end result is if you choke corporations with high taxes they will have less money to invest in expanding their businesses and will thus hire fewer people. This results in less tax to the government in the form of fewer workers paying income taxes (And thus none of the taxes I described above being paid, either). Overtaxed corporations will report lower earnings, which could depress their stock price, which will result in fewer capital gains taxes being paid. And if taxes and regulations are too repressive, people will be less able to start new businesses and employ new workers (Read TAXPAYERS). Or they will resort to the underground economy and keep earnings off the books.

Just a reminder to consider the big picture.

[Boris]

I'll browse the link later. My point was that from a political perspective, corporations should not pay income taxes. Individuals should pay income taxes.

[Cyrus]

"Don't get cocky, angry, vindictive, demanding."

I am ready to be whatever you don't like me to be.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

You seem to be thinking that my post showed "anger" or something like that. Think away. I submit that one has to employ levity and sarcasm in order to converse with an avowed fascist and supporter of terrorism, without losing one's sense of proportion.

I employ both - and it seems to be working : The fascist squirms.

"We all know you're dyin to tell us [what you do in life]."

Really? You believe that? Methinks you are talking about yourself.

"Incidentally, I am a Commerce (http://www.utoronto.ca/commerce/) student."

LOL

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Gamblor]

I submit that one has to employ levity and sarcasm in order to converse with an avowed fascist and supporter of terrorism, without losing one's sense of proportion.

Perhaps in the modern United States everyone is equal, but unfortunately, it don't work that way back home. Not when 300 mil. ain't happy to have you around, and 3k years or so of history have shown that the rest of the world feels pretty much the same way. Now, I'm all for pluralism and coexistence, but I maintain that jews ain't never herded the gentiles into concentration camps and gassed em up like a Weber. And Jews ain't never published no Protocols, and Jews ain't never claimed the Muslims were pure evil (http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD69104).

Really? You believe that? Methinks you are talking about yourself.

I've heard that one before... 'cept it was a long time ago, and 'twas a little different:

"I know you are but what am I?"

[Cyrus]

Let me clarify that I am not against corporations, in principle. (Corporations are the basic tenet of capitalism, and capitalism may be bad in many ways but that's the best we have come up with so far, without a doubt.) I am against excess government subsidization of corporations, against unfair competition and against treating corporations better than humans.

"You are not considering other taxes corporations pay - They must match employees Social Security Taxes, Medicare Taxes ..."

Isn't this the same line of taxes as a (human) individual employer would have to pay as well? Why the different treatment for corporations?

"Tax corporations to death and they will move their domicile to a place like Bermuda."

The World Bank has come out recently with a nice term about tax havens. It calls them "the termites of world economy".

"If you choke corporations with high taxes they will have less money to invest in expanding their businesses and will thus hire fewer people."

This is correct. It is a systemic weakness. Until univerasl rules apply, what you described is what will happen. (And, by the way, this is why big corporations are strong supporters of States' Rights in the U.S. It's not the spirit of '76! They wanna have States competing against each other for a corporation's favors, ascountries do in the Third World.)

"This results in less tax to the government in the form of fewer workers paying income taxes."

Corporations are great for creating jobs. A corporation is essentially a lessening of personal reposnsibility. By decreasing risk, we are more ready to create things - and jobs.

But this blackmail about no corporations = no jobs has gone a little too far in this day and age.

[Cyrus]

"300mil.ain'thappytohaveyouaroundand3kyearsofhistor yhave shownthattherestoftheworldfeelsprettymuchthesamewa y blah blah blah."

Save us the paranoia. The Holocaust is no excuse for its victims' subsequent barbarism. Go sell crazy elsewhere.

"Between Recess and Lunch."

I am guessing the Outhouse.

...Which would put your brown shirt to good use, if you get my drift, and if you're outta paper.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps in the modern United States everyone is equal

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif Good One /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Gamblor]

So judgemental! Not a good trait for someone who is supposed to accept all people as equals. I know you've been losing weight and you're cranky, and let's be honest, your show did suck. DVD sales must be disappointing. Don't worry, you'll pull through.

Save us the paranoia

It wadn't your grandparents, and it wadn't your neighbours.

Maybe you haven't heard what's gone on in Toronto and Montreal the last couple weeks. Germany started the same way - knocked over gravestones, graffiti on Jewish buildings, firebombs in libraries... It just doesn't ever end.

That's okay now though. Cause now there's another option. I don't have to live here if it gets too dangerous.

[Cyrus]

"I know you've been losing weight and you're cranky, and let's be honest, your show did suck. DVD sales must be disappointing."

What are you talking about now? Is this a call for sympathy?

Because, normally, one would feel sorry for you going off the deep end like this. But not for avowed fascists and supporters of terrorism, no. Happy Easter - with your demons.

[Gamblor]

But not for avowed fascists and supporters of terrorism, no.

Labels, labels. Calling me names don't make ya sound any smarter than a liberal commie pinko... Are you suddenly a fan of weak generalizations now that you're throwing them around?

Happy Easter - with your demons.

We're resurrecting that old canard are we? Perhaps you might want to read the Nostra Aetate.

[Cyrus]

"Calling me names don't make ya sound any smarter than a liberal commie pinko."

You would be hard pressed, as the saying goes, to prove this, no matter how hard you were to try or test your wild imagination. (You would have come closest with the "pinko" attribute if I had fallen victim to current fashion but alas no luck there either. Sorry.)

But your posts, set in cyber stone, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a fascist, a supremacist and a supporter of terrorism. Don't be scared of labels, if the labeling is accurate.