Occupy Wall Street - Success

[Aadill]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/r...133707949.html

How Republicans are being taught to talk about Occupy Wall Street

Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'

[Shiftin]

I assume you mean depreciation on planes shouldn't be tax deductable like depreciation on any other asset, which I don't really understand. Can you explain why? What impact do you think that would really make on the budget?

[Shiftin]

Originally Posted by Klath [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again, the wealthy are able to game the system in their favor. Case in point:

Why are you equating GE to the wealthy? Because the people who run it are wealthy? Because the company as a whole is large? There is a problem with scale in general that comes up when talking about things like this, health care providers, etc. People see a massive company that employes thousands and thousands of people making profit in the "million" or "billions" and think it's unfair. They don't look at the actual profit margin that company is operating on. If a sole proprietership made those same profit margins, they would be out of business. When a corporation is doing the same thing on a larger scale at a lower margin, they're suddenly evil if their overall profit has the "illion" in it somewhere.

(No I don't think GE should be able to avoid taxes on foreign earned income, but now you're talking about tax treaty problems, which are even more complicated. This is why the discussion is difficult to have with most people.)

[pickled_heretic]

General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

LOL TAXES ARE HARD THATS WHY ITS OKAY FOR CORPORATIONS TO AVOID 100% OF THEIR TAX OBLIGATIONS

[Klath]

Originally Posted by Shiftin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why are you equating GE to the wealthy?

Because it's a huge company that wields massive amounts of money to solve its problems. They can afford lobbyists to bend the law to their favor. My small software company, on the other hand, is stuck with the laws as they are. People and companies with wealth can change the rules. The more they change them the more they entrench their position at the expense of the rest of us.

[Shiftin]

I'm trying to speak in general terms. If you don't like companies getting incentives for "going green" because it's not economically practical without incentives, that's fine. Personally, I don't either. You don't like the way our tax treaties work? That's cool too. I can dig it. Let's talk about those things like human beings.

How about we talk about a national VAT like every other modern country in the world has at this point? That way, you can greatly reduce the individual and corporate tax rates which are so easily manipulated and have the tax revenues be derived at the point of consumption of a good or service.

No? rather talk about GE and it's specific case that is fun to quote over and over?
You can tax GE 100% of it's worldwide earnings and it wouldn't matter at all in the grand scheme of the budget. Think beyond zero level talking points.

[Aadill]

Originally Posted by Shiftin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I assume you mean depreciation on planes shouldn't be tax deductable like depreciation on any other asset, which I don't really understand. Can you explain why? What impact do you think that would really make on the budget?

Fair enough. I can concede on that point. It's more symbolic than anything as it's a classic Robin Hood. As far as the second point about evading or misusing the tax code: any thoughts?

[pickled_heretic]

Originally Posted by Shiftin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No? rather talk about GE and it's specific case that is fun to quote over and over?
You can tax GE 100% of it's worldwide earnings and it wouldn't matter at all in the grand scheme of the budget. Think beyond zero level talking points.

you think GE is the only firm that is getting away with this? you are wrong... we only know some cases like GE, SC Johnson etc. because they are have corporate offices in states states where their financial information must be made public. legislated tax evasion takes place in virtually every corporation, whether the corporation literally funds the legislative effort itself or simply hires tax lawyers to exploit laws that are already on the books.

you can't trust the legislative process to fix any of this because the legislative process in many cases is what started it. who can you trust? the corporations? when can you ever trust a person to pay more taxes than they are required? our elected officials? nonsense, in many cases they were elected principally via large donations from corporate entities.

there's no purpose to think beyond "zero level talking points" because if the system is flawed on a fundamental level it doesn't matter how much shit you stack on a shitty foundation.

[Aadill]

oh and shiftin i'll use my ignorance of the details of that particular example to prove two points:

1) I don't have a CPA. I don't own enough to make that a priority. the concept however remains at point: not enough people can know about it because no one speaks up which leads to point 2:

2) the point of the occupation (which includes these forums and threads, now) is to have an open discussion. it's not about agreeing or disagreeing with a single message that can fit on a bumper sticker, it's about discussing the problems. thanks for the enlightenment. i never owe on taxes and end up taking the standard deduction which results in a few extra bucks per year. sometimes i get a $1.00 check. I got $15.00 once. I don't shake the tax code books to find the prize like it's a box of cracker jacks

[Shiftin]

I think the trademark stuff is a really interesting case, absolutely. It seems more like a state issue than a federal issue but I'd like to see more about it. The article suffers from the last section where it seems they can't and won't identify what it's actually costing them though. I'd like to see some more hard research. There are plenty of small and symbolic things you could change in the tax code to make people feel warm and fuzzy. My overall point is that those things don't really matter and it's confusing for people to take to the streets to fight for them instead of more concrete and meaningful changes.


I'm not trying to say that there aren't laws and riders to laws, and addendums that got slipped in at the last minute that don't grant special benefits to people all over the place. I *hate* the current rules of congress. I know firsthand how 1 politician can screw an entire industry to satisfy his donors when the UIGEA was officially added by Bill Frist to a bill about port defense literally minutes before it got voted on. I'm totally with you guys on the need for more transparency. Fight those fights and stay on message. Trust me, people will get behind you. Just don't take a scattershot approach at everything that has money, that isn't productive.