In a Remarkable Show of Bi Partisanship... GE Pays No Tax on 14 Billion Profit.

[FayeforCure]

Faye,

I would argue your first point.   The federal budget in the mid 90's was about $1.4 Trillion dollars.  In 2010 it was about $3.5 Trillion dollars.  That is growth WELL beyond the rate of inflation.  It is my belief that we do indeed have a spending problem.

I do agree with your second point.

A pretty cool little pdf produced by the Clinton administration:


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy96/pdf/bud96g.pdf

Wow, how convenient for you not to mention our $3 trillion wars. It's killing us. Do you know how much one scud missile costs?

$1.2 million

We just used 60 of those in Lybia and have spent $800 million in one week protecting the people in Lybia (btw that is one effort I happen to agree with.........unless we become on occupying nation again, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan)

On Lybia, some more stats:

it generally costs $10,000 per hour, including maintenance and fuel, to operate F-15s and F-16s. Those costs do not include the payloads dropped from the aircraft.

http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/costs-of-libya-operation-already-piling-up-20110321?page=2

[Timkin]

1.2 million apiece... GOOD LORD

[NotNow]

"we" meaning the Government? or "we" the people ?

I think in this case it is the same thing.  We the people elect the government, and we are responsible for its debt.


Faye,

I am not trying to get into a partisian argument.  I am simply pointing out that government both in the State of California and the USG has grown well beyond the rate of inflation or population growth.  That would seem to me to equate to either needing more funding (higher taxes, or a growth in the economy) or a reduction back down to a size more in keeping with inflation and population.  

There is no doubt that our wars overseas are costing us a lot of money, and more importantly, lives.  What the real cost of those wars are, and whether they are justifiable or not, I will leave for another thread.  

I would point out though, that SCUD missles are Russian designs which are fixed site or mobile (truck or train) surface to surface missles.  The United States has never fielded these.  I believe you are refering to our Tomahawk cruise missles, which have been used in contested airspace to save pilots lives.  These have been used in Libya by both the British and the United States.  They actually cost $1.5 million apiece.  F-18's cost about $55 million apiece along with crew.  Both are worth twice that when you are on the ground waiting for them, trust me.

[FayeforCure]

"we" meaning the Government? or "we" the people ?

I think in this case it is the same thing.  We the people elect the government, and we are responsible for its debt.


Faye,

I am not trying to get into a partisian argument.  I am simply pointing out that government both in the State of California and the USG has grown well beyond the rate of inflation or population growth.  That would seem to me to equate to either needing more funding (higher taxes, or a growth in the economy) or a reduction back down to a size more in keeping with inflation and population.  

There is no doubt that our wars overseas are costing us a lot of money, and more importantly, lives.  What the real cost of those wars are, and whether they are justifiable or not, I will leave for another thread.  

I would point out though, that SCUD missles are Russian designs which are fixed site or mobile (truck or train) surface to surface missles.  The United States has never fielded these.  I believe you are refering to our Tomahawk cruise missles, which have been used in contested airspace to save pilots lives.  These have been used in Libya by both the British and the United States.  They actually cost $1.5 million apiece.  F-18's cost about $55 million apiece along with crew.  Both are worth twice that when you are on the ground waiting for them, trust me.

ooopsi, you are right. I meant to say Cruise missiles

Where were you when Bush grew our government beyond recognition?

[NotNow]

"Remember: Taxes are the price you pay to live and do business in a civilized society"

I understand that the government requires funding.  I am simply stating that we the people deserve a reasonable tax rate and fiscal responsibility from those that spend our money.  

And I don't care how they do it in Europe!  

[Timkin]

[FayeforCure]

"Remember: Taxes are the price you pay to live and do business in a civilized society"

I understand that the government requires funding.  I am simply stating that we the people deserve a reasonable tax rate and fiscal responsibility from those that spend our money.  

And I don't care how they do it in Europe!  

Well, someone in this thread said corporate taxes were lower in Europe., and tha might be true.............something I'm sure you'd find counter-intuitive in what rightists would call "socialist societies."

But none of this matters to the corporations and ultra-rich, as they'd rather pay 0 taxes, and they have the money to employ lawyers needed to help them do it.

[NotNow]

The increase in federal spending didn't just start with W.  As has been pointed out, the really large increases started during the Reagan administration.  I agreed with many of Reagans decisions (and still do) and I believe that he turned around the nation and won the cold war.  What he failed to do was to reverse the spending and return to a more normal spending policy once those goals were accomplished.  Clinton did an excellent job of matching spending with income during some pretty good years.  While W. Bush has some excuse because of 9/11, there is no doubt that federal spending was not controlled in the years following.  Obama has been a fiscal disaster so far, and has outspent his successors by a wide margin.  He still has some years before a final grade can be given though.

[buckethead]

It almost sounds like you are suggesting some sort of tax reform, Faye.

Are you advocating a tax on consumption? Wealth? Financial transactions? VAT? Tariffs?

Taxing the mega rich and corporations at 100% using the current tax code will not likely raise revenue.

To suggest that spending is too low is silly.

[NotNow]

Faye,

I believe that you will find that "total taxation" in Europe is well beyond what we have in the US.  France confiscates about 70% of peoples money.  That sounds like a lot until you realize that the US averages about 50%.  Both are too high for my taste.  

I agree that the tax loophole system is out of control.  We must demand that our politicians stop the practice.  There are several methods of doing so and those should be debated and employed ASAP.

[hillary supporter]

Faye,

I would argue your first point.   The federal budget in the mid 90's was about $1.4 Trillion dollars.  In 2010 it was about $3.5 Trillion dollars.  That is growth WELL beyond the rate of inflation.  It is my belief that we do indeed have a spending problem.

I do agree with your second point.

A pretty cool little pdf produced by the Clinton administration:


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy96/pdf/bud96g.pdf

Wow, how convenient for you not to mention our $3 trillion wars. It's killing us. Do you know how much one scud missile costs?

$1.2 million

We just used 60 of those in Labia and have spent $800 million in one week protecting the people in Labia (btw that is one effort I happen to agree with.........unless we become on occupying nation again, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan)

On Lybia, some more stats:

it generally costs $10,000 per hour, including maintenance and fuel, to operate F-15s and F-16s. Those costs do not include the payloads dropped from the aircraft.

http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/costs-of-libya-operation-already-piling-up-20110321?page=2

In agreement. One thing (just about?) all agree on is, from the beginning of civilization, war has been the most expensive proponent of government spending, by far. It alone, and in only considering its financial implications, has destroyed so many great nations over time.

[buckethead]

As a pragmatist, on would also agree that war is the most (potentially) profitable in terms of keeping the spoils.

Not so much what the US does.

[hillary supporter]

As a pragmatist, on would also agree that war is the most (potentially) profitable in terms of keeping the spoils.

Not so much what the US does.

Yes,that's a good point in historical terms, albeit long terms. Mexican war defined US in geographical terms. But not so within the 20Th century, and i doubt it in terms of the argument here, in terms of the federal deficit.
I dont see any realistic spoils for the US in our current wars.

[FayeforCure]

So Bridge Troll, I assume you will give this YOUR bi-partisan support:

Sen. Bernie Sanders.Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont
Posted: March 27, 2011 04:40 PM

End Tax Breaks for Profitable Corporations

Read More: , Budget Cuts , Corporate Greed , Federal Deficit , General Electric , Head Start , Healthcare , House Republicans , National Debt , Pell Grants , Social Security , Taxes , Politics News

Republicans in the House want to balance the budget by denying more than 200,000 little children the opportunity to receive an early education through Head Start; reducing or eliminating Pell Grants for 9.4 million college students; eliminating primary health care services to 11 million Americans; and delaying Social Security benefits to half a million eligible Americans, among other things.

Before Congress cuts funding for Head Start, Social Security, and financial aid for college, we have got to make sure that large, profitable corporations are paying their fair share of taxes.

At a time when we have a $14.2 trillion national debt and a $1.6 trillion federal deficit, it is unacceptable that Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Bank of America, Chevron, Boeing, and other large, profitable corporations are not only avoiding paying any federal income taxes at all but have actually received huge refund checks from the IRS.

Loopholes in the tax code, offshore tax havens, tax breaks to companies that export American jobs to China, and other tax breaks have allowed giant corporations in America to receive billions in refunds from the IRS.

Meanwhile corporations are sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash on hand, and big banks have nearly a trillion dollars in excess reserves parked at the Federal Reserve.

In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits. Not only did Exxon not pay any federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to SEC filings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/end-tax-breaks-for-profit_b_841173.html

Here is the kind of reverse shared sacrifice corporate America is making at the expense of maintaining the basics of a civilized society..........Head Start, Pell grants and Social Security:

Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, even though it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year, received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

In 2008, Goldman Sachs only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

Last year, Citigroup made over $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes, even though it received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS. According to a New York Times article, "G.E. is so good at avoiding taxes that some people consider its tax department to be the best in the world, even better than any law firm's."

Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year, even though it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, which made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

Ford's federal income tax rate was just 2.3 percent in 2009 even though it made $3 billion in profits.

Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made over $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Over the last five years, Southwest Airlines paid a federal income tax rate of 6.3 percent, Yahoo paid 7 percent, and Prudential Financial paid 7.6 percent.

Shared sacrifice means that corporate America must play its part in reducing the deficit.

The time has come for corporate America to start paying its fair share. We simply cannot balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the middle class, little kids and the most vulnerable people in our society.

How do we force corporate America to pay up..............or at least their fair share?:

1. End abusive and illegal offshore tax shelters.

Each and every year, the United States loses an estimated $100 billion a year in tax revenues due to offshore tax abuses by the wealthy and large corporations.

The situation has become so absurd that one five story office building in the Cayman Islands is now the home to more than 18,000 corporations. That is wrong.

The wealthy and large corporations should not be allowed to avoid paying $100 billion a year in taxes by setting up tax shelters in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Bahamas or other tax haven countries.



2. End tax breaks for big oil and gas companies. Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in the history of the world, not only paid nothing in federal income taxes in 2009, but received a $156 million tax refund from the IRS, according to their own shareholder report. Repealing tax breaks for big oil and gas companies as President Obama has recommended would raise more than $35 billion in revenue over the next decade.

3. Stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Today, the U.S. government is actually rewarding companies that move U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas through loopholes in the tax code known as deferral and foreign source income.

This is unacceptable. During the Bush years, the U.S. lost nearly 30 percent of its manufacturing jobs and since 2001, 50,000 manufacturing plants have been shut down. Today, corporations in this country are outsourcing jobs to China and other low wage countries where workers are paid pennies an hour. The last thing we should be doing is providing a tax break to companies that move jobs overseas.

Ending these tax loopholes could raise more than $400 billion over a 10-year period.

[BridgeTroll]

If you can convince Charlie Rangel... you have my complete backing Faye!

BTW... Please read...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp