If you paid a single dollar in Federal Income Taxes....Follow

But! I bet they didn't get any EIC dollars!

I know you want to ***** and moan when corporations don't pay any taxes, which I'm fine with myself, but really, is there any point in including Boeing?

Let's give them money in subsidies, then tax them, taking back that money, so that we'll have to give them more money next time. Brilliant!

That is not what it means.

Um, actually yeah, it is. Writing off losses to avoid taxes (which you could do as well, if you invested any money that didn't work out well) means more cash on hand, which means fewer lay-offs. Also, it encourages the investment in the first place, which leads to additional jobs.

I can attest to this. GE has awarded my company even more business. At the current rate of expansion, the building in which I work, (at a facility with 4 buildings), will all be a GE account. That would give us 2 of our 4 buildings full of GE accounts.

LOL. "I'm guessing that all that saved money went to employees who all paid more taxes on it than they would have gotten if it was taxed corporate income"? Well, as long as you admit that you're just blindly guessing.


Really? You're fine if people (or corporations) skirt the law? Does this flippant attitude towards the law only apply to following the tax code or can we apply it to raping women as well?

Hahahahahaha... I slay myself.

So you're in favor of all government employess of having a totally tax-free income?

Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 5:48pm by Deathwysh

Oh, you're one of those.

Pass.

I've never known you to make a distinction when you're blindly guessing to make a point.


The question is, are you right? You have yet to give any evidence of this aside from pretending that you're reading the "odds" when you pull numbers out of your ***.


Did I say "breaking" the law? What? No?

Thanks for proving my point, though!

There is a difference between subsidies and salary.

There's also a huge difference between corporate "profits" and "income". When you understand that a corporation is simply a pool of money people have put together for common business cause, this makes sense. A corporation does not benefit from gaining profits the way a person benefits from gaining income. If you get paid, you have that money. You can spend it on whatever you want. When a corporation gains money, it may have come from a variety of sources, not all of which we agree should be taxed.


Let me give you a very simple example. You and your 9 friends form a corporation. You each invest a thousand dollars into the corporation. The corporation, therefore is worth $10,000. The corporation "gained" $10,000 in value as a result of your collective investment. But should that be taxed? Of course not. No more than you would expect to have to pay taxes for simply putting your money into a bank account. All you did was move money from one place to another, with ownership staying the same.


What's actually funny about this argument is that most corporate profits should *not* be taxed anyway. Until someone realizes the profits (ie: It's paid to someone in the form of income or dividends, or they sell stock that has increased in value), why should there be any taxes? More to the point, in every one of those cases in which we do collect taxes, the money is *also* taxed as either income or capital gains for the individual who got the money. Meaning that those "profits" are actually taxed twice.

Look at it another way. If you and your 9 friends each ran your own businesses with your own money, you'd pay taxes when you make a profit because it's your money. But that's all the taxes you'd pay. So you each put in a thousand dollars, and let's say that you each make $500 in profit. You'd pay taxes on the $500 dollars, right? But if you formed a corporation with the collective $10,000 and gained the same relative profit ($5,000 in this case), and then dispensed the profits in the form of dividends to each of you ($500 a piece), the corporation as an entity has to pay taxes on that $5000. Then, each of you have to pay additional taxes on the $500 you each got. So the exact same money, used by the exact same people, making the exact same profit, is taxed more simply because they decided to form a corporation instead of each running their own business directly.

Does that make any sense? Not at all. Yet, that's how corporate taxes work. They shouldn't be taxed at all. The fact that people complain that they're only taxed a small amount on the total "profits" shows just how completely oblivious to the absurdity of corporate taxes most people are in the first place. The only taxes that should be paid should be when individual take profits from the corporation (in any form), and they should be paid by the individuals, not the corporation. Zero taxes should be paid simply because the total value of the corporation itself increased.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 5:38pm by gbaji

Well, I suppose that's one way to avoid having to provide any actual numbers.


More than zero? I guess so. Unless their tax rate is actually set to zero. Use of overseas subsidiaries and offshore tax havens isn't quite the intent of "the tax law" but then you threw a giant hissy fit at trying to help 9/11 responders by closing tax loopholes as well so at least you're a consistent tool.

But good work at typing lots of words and still providing zero support for your claims?

Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 7:49pm by Jophiel

Try and keep up. That was a lot of words for not even knowing what's going on.