'Occupy' types

Apparently Milk is starting to get pissed too:

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2011/10/I-am-the-2-percent-500x666.jpg

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/I-am-the-2-percent.jpg

Biggest Public Firms Paid Little U.S. Tax, Study Says - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Biggest-Public-Firms-Paid-nytimes-969088864.html?x=0&.v=1)

Any opinion on these FACTS. I have to emphasize facts in this thread. Little to none seem to be found other than NCSkins is an aggressive a$$hole. Just playin NC

Preview: Ganging Up on the One Percent (Season 15, Episode 12) - Video Clips - South Park Studios (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/398503/preview-ganging-up-on-the-one-percent)

No, but you have implied that the vast majority are either vagrants looking for handouts or are just a bunch of jobless folks without a point.



It's quotes like the above (and others, I just wasn't going to cut and paste them all) that stereotype "99%" of the protestors as, essentially, dummies, ne'er-do-wells or people who either don't want to work or are living off others.

Obviously, many people involved are out of work which is part of the reason they are protesting, many people are part of SmootSmack's "Hey I am cool cause I am protesting" group, many - and I would suggest much more than the 1% you imply - are dedicated people with high ideals who are making real sacrifices to be there. What is clear from the various news outlets is that there are a wide wide spectrum of people involved and to lump them all in one category - either favorably or unfavorably - is wrong.


Thats not true they do have a point. The other stuff is just true.

<sigh> You have been reading to many liberal blogs and accepting their statements as fact. Fox news is not and has never been "banned" in Canada:

“[November, 2004] The conservative-leaning Fox News Channel will soon be coming to Canadian digital television channels. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approved an application Thursday to bring the Fox News Channel, one of the highest-rated news channels in the United States, onto Canadian digital airwaves. The Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association (CCTA) applied to the broadcast regulator in April. Canadians already have access to the main Fox network, but not the right-leaning, 24-hour news channel, with its trademarked slogan of ‘fair and balanced.’ ”

There was a point when Fox News had it’s application denied by the regulatory authority, but not due to any content related issues:

“The CRTC rejected a CCTA application to bring Fox to Canada last November [2003] because Fox News U.S. and Winnipeg-based Global Television were planning to create Fox News Canada, a combination of U.S. and Canadian news. However, in March, a Fox U.S. executive said there were no plans to create the combined channel.”

CRTC approves Fox News for Canada - Canada - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2004/11/18/fox_crtc041118.html)

In Canada, the Fox News Channel is currently available on: Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV.

You don’t like the way Fox presents facts. Got it. At the same time,
You have to learn to take out the Repub vs Dem bullshit out to get the grit of the story.
By the way, to be clear, when I use the word “you” in responding to your posts – I mean you, NC_Skins. Just as I believed that, when you used the term “you” above, you were referring to SS33 and implying he was either incapable of seeing or choosing not to see beyond “the Repub vs Dem bullshit”. Since this is the common use of English and the natural implication of your word and contextual placement, I suggest you clarify in the future if it is your intent to insult the general public when you say “you” rather than the particular poster.

By the way, just for clarification, in the post referenced above, which was the manner you intended: Were implying you’re smarter than everyone else b/c they can’t see beyond the bullshit or just smarter than SS33?

Biggest Public Firms Paid Little U.S. Tax, Study Says - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Biggest-Public-Firms-Paid-nytimes-969088864.html?x=0&.v=1)

Any opinion on these FACTS. I have to emphasize facts in this thread. Little to none seem to be found other than NCSkins is an aggressive a$$hole. Just playin NC

The problem with articles like that they give numbers and not many facts. They say that 280 of the biggest Corporations paid lower taxes but how many Corps did they actually review and how many paid more. Also how many cut their tax rates by doing things like Boeing did by hiring 9000 American workers (that's why I'm for taxs breaks for corps that hire because its more effective then just trying to dump 700 billion into creating jobs).

"Boeing officials said they, too, had paid some federal taxes, but would not say how much. They said they had lowered their rate by taking advantage of tax breaks intended to encourage hiring. Chaz Bickers, a company spokesman, said Boeing hired 9,000 American workers this year"

I don't have a problem making corps pay their far share and I don't have a problem hitting corps who move their office over seas to avoid paying taxes. I personally don't even understand how corps are taxed. I know they pay payroll taxes, and other taxes on purchases and stuff but if the corp passes the profits over to the stock holders what is left to tax? I've tried to look it up but never found anything that explains how they are taxed. I do understand how S corps are taxed because I am an S corp.

Apparently Milk is starting to get pissed too:

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2011/10/I-am-the-2-percent-500x666.jpg



The capri sun is really bothering me here. unless it was a roommate who did it to piss off his other roommate. then its pretty funny. their fridge is pretty cool.

Biggest Public Firms Paid Little U.S. Tax, Study Says - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Biggest-Public-Firms-Paid-nytimes-969088864.html?x=0&.v=1)

Any opinion on these FACTS. I have to emphasize facts in this thread. Little to none seem to be found other than NCSkins is an aggressive a$$hole. Just playin NC

Good article. Several of the 280 corporations referenced appeared to have legitimate reasons for paying less taxes - deferred taxes to be paid in the future or significant business losses resulting in write-offs. At the same time, it is clear that the for ~ 25% of the corporations studied, the US's 35% corporate tax rate is just an illusion.

Obviously, through the elimination of inappropriate shelters/loopholes, the "real" corporate tax rate needs to be brought in line with that of other western nations. At the same time, the US rate of 35% is higher than any other comprable nation so part of any reform would require a lowering of the 35% rate across the board so that companies currently complying (again, about 25% per the article) would not be competitively penalized.

As with most things economic, the problem and/or solution can rarely be fully elicited in a blurb headline - hey, people need to get to the "grit of the story". [In so asserting, and as you, Chico, voiced no opinion on the matter, I am in no way asserting that you, Chico, are unable to do so - I do, however, w/hold judgment on NC_Skins' ability to do so - - ;)].

The problem with articles like that they give numbers and not many facts. They say that 280 of the biggest Corporations paid lower taxes but how many Corps did they actually review and how many paid more. Also how many cut their tax rates by doing things like Boeing did by hiring 9000 American workers (that's why I'm for taxs breaks for corps that hire because its more effective then just trying to dump 700 billion into creating jobs).

"Boeing officials said they, too, had paid some federal taxes, but would not say how much. They said they had lowered their rate by taking advantage of tax breaks intended to encourage hiring. Chaz Bickers, a company spokesman, said Boeing hired 9,000 American workers this year"

I don't have a problem making corps pay their far share and I don't have a problem hitting corps who move their office over seas to avoid paying taxes. I personally don't even understand how corps are taxed. I know they pay payroll taxes, and other taxes on purchases and stuff but if the corp passes the profits over to the stock holders what is left to tax? I've tried to look it up but never found anything that explains how they are taxed. I do understand how S corps are taxed because I am an S corp.

Although I see where your confusion comes from about how many companies were studied - the opening line of the article lumps all 280 companies as failing to meet the 35% rate.

Here is the actual study and makes it clear that the study was of 280 companies - some of which paid the full 35% and some of which did not (I think the 18.5% was apparently an average of all the companies): http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf

Okay, so here is where I am on the whole "Corporations Bad" thing:

1. Corporation's legal "personhood" needs to be re-examined. The US Code needs to be modiifed to differentiate between the practical need for corporations to have the ability to act as a "person" in the business world and the fact that doing so should not neccessarily entitle these companies to certain Constitutional rights which were intended to attach to the person (assembly, speech, search & seizure restrictions). Further, in light of the SCOTUS' rulings on this issue, a carefully crafted Constitutional Amendment is needed that sets forth the rights of "artificial persons". Not sure exactly how this should look - but I'll get right on it and have something we, The Warpath, can submit to our various representatives. Is next Friday good for everyone?

2. The US corporate tax law needs serious revision. Corporations should be paying taxes in line with other countries that offer the same comparitive economic security as the US (i.e. there is a benefit to doing business in the stable political/economic climate of a Germany, US or Britain as opposed to Mexico, Columbia or Angola). Based on the study Chico referenced, it would appear that this would require closing certain loopholes and shelters while, at the same time, lowering the statutory rate to one comprable to other western nations. Any volunteers to draft a revised corporate tax code for us? Anyone? Anyone? How about a committee of SS33, Lotus and NC_Skins? Get back to us with your result by next Friday please.

3. Executive pay: Somehow this needs to be addressed. The fact that, for many corporations, executive compensation is divorced from the success or failure of a company (i.e. the "Moral Hazard" mlpertert referenced earlier in the thread - I think it was mlpertert). Not sure, this is a tricky one for a lot of reasons. I suggest a working group of Smootsmack, Chico, saden1 and mlpertert analyze the problems and come up with possible proposals and come back to the group with a working solution by next Friday.

Firstdown, your job is just to keep bitching about the vagrants and hippies in Zuccotti Park.

Thanks everyone for playing. Let's work the problem boys. I want the Occupy Warpath Movement up and running by Thanksgiving.