Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
jfk 1964!really dumbfuk? Owning houses is a sign of upward mobility? Lol
how'd that work out for dubya?
you can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk
And yet, the economy sparkled under Eisenhower. What was the tax rate then?
Besides, you can only cut taxes to zero. Then you need another trick.
Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
actually right wingers don't claim Bush because he was not a right winger. Why not grow up?
You do little more than lie when you say Bush was a right winger.
jfk 1964!
And yet, the economy sparkled under Eisenhower. What was the tax rate then?
Besides, you can only cut taxes to zero. Then you need another trick.
That is such a bogus argument.
We've had 60 years of inflation eroding incomes since the 1950s. The high tax rates in that era were offset by more deductions. We didn't have the AMT. And most importantly of all, most of the developed world was reduced to rubble in WWII, with the exception of the U.S. We had very little competition in the world economy, which fueled a great deal of economic growth...benefiting those who wished to work.
Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
actually right wingers don't claim Bush because he was not a right winger. Why not grow up?
You do little more than lie when you say Bush was a right winger.
Oh, right, he wasn't a right winger from about 2007 on in conservatives 'world'... lol
The founders thoughts about a modern economy as we have today are completely irrelevant. As it is, the US economy has lifted more people out of poverty into relative prosperity (compared to the whole of the rest of the world), which is something the founders could not even imagine.I gave it to you, TWICE
No, you made some comment about my "model" (what??) and copied and pasted an irrelevant article. Twice.
Weird, so the Founders are irrelevant to why the US should create policy?
Oh, right, he wasn't a right winger from about 2007 on in conservatives 'world'... lol
They are part of the cost of doing business and are bona fide deductions.Are you proud to identify yourself as a moron?
1. Should we go after the owners of Exxon with pitchforks an firebrands?
Better not, after all they is us! Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobils shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html
2. And, of course, the antibusiness crowd loves stories about how much Big Oil is stealing from the American people! On the contrary, in 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxons earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Businessweek - Business News, Stock market & Financial Advice
3. The non-thinking segment of the public has been conditioned to hate the oil industry. Very few realize the extent to which they are subsidized by this industry.
According to the [Exxon] company's income statement, the amount of taxes it paid in 2008 was 2.5 times as much as its net profit. The $45.2 billion profit figure makes a snappy headline, but the $116.2 billion in taxes that it paid is relegated to a footnoteif that. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion. Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills - US News
If Exxons 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filers share would be $1,259/year. Still hate Exxon? Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million | Tax Foundation
4. " Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit" Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit - Forbes
No doubt you are the product of government schooling.
Weird, you bring up all the numbers THEN conflate it with individuals who don't pay INCOME taxes that are only 42% of federal revenues? lol
False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY tool conservatives EVER have
In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%, based on their U.S. pre-tax income of $7.5 billion. Literally half the standard corporate tax rate. Worse yet, in 2009, Exxon Mobil paid no U.S. federal income taxes. That‟s right, 0%.
This is because they took advantage of the federal subsidy that allows them to take foreign tax credits on royalties disguised as income taxes. These royalties are not taxes but are in exchange for the right to produce oil.
Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact
In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%, based on their U.S. pre-tax income of $7.5 billion.
They're in a very capital intensive business.
These royalties are not taxes
Substantively, how are they different?
WOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD ATTRIBUTE THAT COMMENT TO IGNORANCE OR JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY. The jobs lost during the great recession which came about in 2006 WERE NOT TAX POLICY PROBLEMS. They were totally, woo% caused by the housing crash. What caused the housing crash? Bad federal monetary and fiscal policies, starting off when Carter's administration passed the CRA, which incidentally was not enforced until Clinton's administration. Though CRA was not the main culprit, it had a part. The most important failure was the attempts to make housing available to many people who were not credit worthy and subsidizing EVERYONE with low interest rates and the pushing of ARM loans. Between the speculators trying to make a killing and got caught with their pants down at the first interest adjustment, and all the people who were pushed into the market because of the low interest, no down payments, and lax credit standards heated up the price to value ration starting in 1997, and wen the price to value started to stabilize in 2006 the housing bubble burst. That was the whole of the cause of the recession which ballooned from there causing many to lose their jobs, and houses. At least try to learn some facts before making stupid statements.The jobs lost in the recession were lost BECAUSE of Republican Policies, lies and fallacies- Can we say Trickle Down (Voodoo!) Economics? Hell, even Dubya's Dad knew that stuff was, uh, Bunk!Bush's tax cuts were across the board with the bottom brackets getting the most advantageous tax cuts. I do agree that the top brackets were cut too much, but you need to recognize IT WAS NOT THE TAX CUT WHICH CAUSED THE RECESSION.The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.In fact neither was correct. The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts.In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."
WHICH SIDE ENDED UP BEING CORRECT? LOLSometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends on the business cycle. The JFK tax cuts worked miracles. The Bush tax cuts did very little of anything. As bad as Bush was, the tax cuts were not the major issue.Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk
Some people can't stand disagreement with their precious positions. I looked at his link. It looked like left wing extreme propaganda to me.And you are a new nitwit on my Ignore list....and you're full of shit.
ROFL! That list is getting quite long, isn't it?
WOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD ATTRIBUTE THAT COMMENT TO IGNORANCE OR JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY. The jobs lost during the great recession which came about in 2006 WERE NOT TAX POLICY PROBLEMS. They were totally, woo% caused by the housing crash. What caused the housing crash? Bad federal monetary and fiscal policies, starting off when Carter's administration passed the CRA, which incidentally was not enforced until Clinton's administration. Though CRA was not the main culprit, it had a part. The most important failure was the attempts to make housing available to many people who were not credit worthy and subsidizing EVERYONE with low interest rates and the pushing of ARM loans. Between the speculators trying to make a killing and got caught with their pants down at the first interest adjustment, and all the people who were pushed into the market because of the low interest, no down payments, and lax credit standards heated up the price to value ration starting in 1997, and wen the price to value started to stabilize in 2006 the housing bubble burst. That was the whole of the cause of the recession which ballooned from there causing many to lose their jobs, and houses. At least try to learn some facts before making stupid statements.The jobs lost in the recession were lost BECAUSE of Republican Policies, lies and fallacies- Can we say Trickle Down (Voodoo!) Economics? Hell, even Dubya's Dad knew that stuff was, uh, Bunk!Bush's tax cuts were across the board with the bottom brackets getting the most advantageous tax cuts. I do agree that the top brackets were cut too much, but you need to recognize IT WAS NOT THE TAX CUT WHICH CAUSED THE RECESSION.The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.In fact neither was correct. The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts.In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."
WHICH SIDE ENDED UP BEING CORRECT? LOLSometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends on the business cycle. The JFK tax cuts worked miracles. The Bush tax cuts did very little of anything. As bad as Bush was, the tax cuts were not the major issue.Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk
All of the proposed "flat tax" concepts put forth by politicians exempt those at or near the poverty level. Taking $2 million from a rich man seems a little excessive.The fact that you think of progressive taxation as being "fucked over" demonstrates you are in need of some basic education and strongly suggests you've been brainwashed by such millionaire right-wing propagandists as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al. So let's start with a simple example.How about if we make everybody pay the exact same tax rate (percentage) and see what happens.
Or do you think some people should be fucked over simply because they make more money than you?
How is taking something from you that you have earned not fucking you over? I'm dying to know that.
so someone who was slightly above the poverty level is now slightly below the poverty level. What makes this "poverty level," which is an arbitrary number conjured up by government bureaucrats, so magic?
We can all speculate forever about how the Founding Fathers would view the situation. And the phrase "exploitive inequality" is utterly meaningless. It's a term of propaganda. The bottom line is that the Founding Fathers did not include such provisions in the Constitution, so all your speculation is utterly pointless.
Wrong. They made it by producing goods and services and trading them for cash. Nothing they consumed belonged to "this" nation that the government didn't receive compensation for.
They owe this Nation an equitable return in terms of a tax level which will serve the interests of the Whole, not just a One Percent segment.
So, they owe the government money for not being rapped as badly as they could have been raped? That's the logic of a thug.
As a shorthand reference, keep in mind that during the most prosperous and productive decades in American history, the 40s to the 80s, there was a 91% progressive tax rate. And America was strong!
Those weren't the most prosperous decades in American history. What about the 1920s?
1840s, 1850s, 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s? On the other hand, we had a tax rate above 90% for most of the 1930s.
The empirical evidence doesn't support your theory.
In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%,
Nope! As a business consultant with an MBA with a major in economics I came to that conclusion on my own. In researching the issue with other economists and their studies it was determined that my conclusion was correct.If you really believe that you have been effectively brainwashed by the millionaire propagandists who serve the interests of the One Percent.Yet since wealth is not a zero sum figure, The 20% DOES NOT DETRACT $.05 FROM THE REST OF SOCIETY.
Wealth is not a zero sum issue as increased production increases total wealth.Fiat wealth appears to be infinite -- until the bubble bursts.
The wealth in one second of time can be deemed finite. In the next instant in time it may grow or decrease, depending on the business cycle. I have not suggested our physical resources are infinite, but their VALUE DEFINITELY INCREASES DEPENDING ON HOW WE EXPLOIT THOSE PHYSICAL RESOURCES. In so far as human resources are concerned, that is based on the total production of those human resources plus the improved production of automation. It is ignorant to believe otherwise or listen to the left wing extremist propaganda which tries to convince the sheeple that the rich are taking away part of the wealth they are due.Real wealth is finite. It represents the material, administrative, and the human (citizen) resources of this Nation. To suggest these resources are limitless is plainly ignorant.
We all have the pursuit of happiness as a right. What we do with that right is our own responsibility. (given there are people who can't)That's not what the United States Constitution says or implies either implicitly or explicitly at all.
And it seems you have an rather large issue with one of the major founders of America.
Actually, it pretty much does say that, but when did the Constitution become the ultimate authority on the purpose of government?
The Declaration has the "pursuit of happiness" as one of the purposes of government, but then as I keep saying the Declaration was a form of propaganda.
I have given you a positive example several times now. JFK's TAX CUTS OF 21% OFF THE TOP BRACKET, 5% OFF THE BOTTOM BRACKET AND REDUCTION IN CORPORATE TAXES. Can you read?MORE right wing nonsense./ I'm shocked. No seriously, I am
Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...
The Republican sham of lower taxes and less regulation doesn't help anyone but the richest Americans and Big Business and kill jobs and opportunity for almost everyone, especially in the middle class and poor.
The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.
CONservative economic theories have never worked and never will. You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk.
Total U.S. taxes are barely progressive, as shown in this table and chart from Citizens for Tax Justice. The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice.
The share of total taxes paid by each income group is similar to that groups share of total income.
Who Pays Taxes in America? | CTJReports
It is obvious you know nothing about economics, taxation, wage determination and wealth. So why should I bother? I doubt you have learned anything today.
You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk
OK, you gave us some statistics. Do you understand what they mean? If you did, you wouldn't be making such ignorant noises. Money spent to make money is deductible. When there is no net profits, THERE ARE NO TAXES. Royalties paid to produce are part of the costs of production and are reasonably deductible. Can you understand that simple truism? Instead of believing the propaganda of sites which tell you only part of the truth, you should research the why those statistics are what they are. You haven't, you just repeated left wing extreme propaganda.Weird, you bring up all the numbers THEN conflate it with individuals who don't pay INCOME taxes that are only 42% of federal revenues? lol
False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY tool conservatives EVER have
In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%, based on their U.S. pre-tax income of $7.5 billion. Literally half the standard corporate tax rate. Worse yet, in 2009, Exxon Mobil paid no U.S. federal income taxes. That‟s right, 0%.
This is because they took advantage of the federal subsidy that allows them to take foreign tax credits on royalties disguised as income taxes. These royalties are not taxes but are in exchange for the right to produce oil.
Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact
"This is because they took advantage of the federal subsidy that allows them to take foreign tax credits on royalties disguised as income taxes. These royalties are not taxes but are in exchange for the right to produce oil."
The Joint Committee on Taxation found that the second-largest deduction was for modifications of foreign tax credit rules applicable to major integrated oil companies which are dual capacity taxpayers. This provision is worth $7.5 billion over 10 years. Seth Hanlon, former Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress, best describes why this tax break is unwarranted:
Our tax system allows companies that do business abroad to reduce from their tax bill any income taxes paid to other governments. The rules are supposed to prevent oil companies from claiming credit for royalty payments to foreign governments. Royalties are not taxes; they are fees for the privilege of extracting natural resources.
oil companies have been permitted to claim credits for certain payments to foreign governments, even in countries that generally impose low or no business tax (suggesting that these payments, or levies, are in fact a form of royalty). Dual capacity taxpayer rules, therefore, are a subsidy for foreign production by U.S. oil companies.
With Only $93 Billion in Profits, the Big Five Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks | Center for American Progress
HONESTY, TRY IT BUBBA!
Foreign Governments have changed the term Royalty to Income Tax.ALL COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS SHOULD BE DEDUCABLE. I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY CALL IT, HONESTLY!
They are part of the cost of doing business and are bona fide deductions.Weird, you bring up all the numbers THEN conflate it with individuals who don't pay INCOME taxes that are only 42% of federal revenues? lol
False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY tool conservatives EVER have
In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%, based on their U.S. pre-tax income of $7.5 billion. Literally half the standard corporate tax rate. Worse yet, in 2009, Exxon Mobil paid no U.S. federal income taxes. That‟s right, 0%.
This is because they took advantage of the federal subsidy that allows them to take foreign tax credits on royalties disguised as income taxes. These royalties are not taxes but are in exchange for the right to produce oil.
Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact
In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%, based on their U.S. pre-tax income of $7.5 billion.
They're in a very capital intensive business.
These royalties are not taxes
Substantively, how are they different?
OK, you gave us some statistics. Do you understand what they mean? If you did, you wouldn't be making such ignorant noises. Money spent to make money is deductible. When there is no net profits, THERE ARE NO TAXES. Royalties paid to produce are part of the costs of production and are reasonably deductible. Can you understand that simple truism? Instead of believing the propaganda of sites which tell you only part of the truth, you should research the why those statistics are what they are. You haven't, you just repeated left wing extreme propaganda.
"This is because they took advantage of the federal subsidy that allows them to take foreign tax credits on royalties disguised as income taxes. These royalties are not taxes but are in exchange for the right to produce oil."
The Joint Committee on Taxation found that the second-largest deduction was for modifications of foreign tax credit rules applicable to major integrated oil companies which are dual capacity taxpayers. This provision is worth $7.5 billion over 10 years. Seth Hanlon, former Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress, best describes why this tax break is unwarranted:
Our tax system allows companies that do business abroad to reduce from their tax bill any income taxes paid to other governments. The rules are supposed to prevent oil companies from claiming credit for royalty payments to foreign governments. Royalties are not taxes; they are fees for the privilege of extracting natural resources.
oil companies have been permitted to claim credits for certain payments to foreign governments, even in countries that generally impose low or no business tax (suggesting that these payments, or levies, are in fact a form of royalty). Dual capacity taxpayer rules, therefore, are a subsidy for foreign production by U.S. oil companies.
With Only $93 Billion in Profits, the Big Five Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks | Center for American Progress
HONESTY, TRY IT BUBBA!
Foreign Governments have changed the term Royalty to Income Tax.ALL COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS SHOULD BE DEDUCABLE. I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY CALL IT, HONESTLY!
THEY WRITE IT OFF NOT AS AN EXPENSE, BUT A TAX, WHICH LOWERS THEIR US TAX BURDEN. Willful ignorant?
I have given you a positive example several times now. JFK's TAX CUTS OF 21% OFF THE TOP BRACKET, 5% OFF THE BOTTOM BRACKET AND REDUCTION IN CORPORATE TAXES. Can you read?It is obvious you know nothing about economics, taxation, wage determination and wealth. So why should I bother? I doubt you have learned anything today.
You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk
