CEO threatens layoffs if he is taxed any further

[Laize]

Actually the taxes on companies are VERY low. GE in 2010 actually paid ZERO in taxes and actually got money back.

Sorry man, but companies have learned to game that system to the extreme and it needs to have an overhaul so they can't avoid the taxes so much.

Another one, in 2010 (I think it was), google even said they only paid 2.4% on in taxes.

Um.

First off, in regards to GE, you're only taxed on money you earn in the country. Second, if you earned money last year and earned less (or lost) this year, you've technically overpaid and your tax burden will be significantly lower.

Second, in 2010, Google paid $2.29 billion in taxes on $10.8 billion in pretax income. 21% is slightly higher than 2.4%.

---------- Post added 2012-10-11 at 01:32 AM ----------

Neither of us think corporations are people Laize. And I don't care that corporations lobby. I care that they lobby with almost no meaningful restrictions or checks.

Do you think corporations should be allowed to leave a given state or country?

[Fugus]

Um.

First off, in regards to GE, you're only taxed on money you earn in the country. Second, if you earned money last year and earned less (or lost) this year, you've technically overpaid and your tax burden will be significantly lower.

Second, in 2010, Google paid $2.29 billion in taxes on $10.8 billion in pretax income. 21% is slightly higher than 2.4%.

---------- Post added 2012-10-11 at 01:32 AM ----------



Do you think corporations should be allowed to leave a given state or country?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...loopholes.html

Sorry if I misquoted, but that was what I was talking about. They ended up with a 2.4% tax rating overall by avoiding claiming income from its actual source and shuttling it across the nation to areas with lower tax rates.

And GE, they made buttloads of cash in the USA and paid ZERO in taxes that year, no way you can cut that man, they got over and actually got a tax refund.

[Laize]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...loopholes.html

Sorry if I misquoted, but that was what I was talking about. They ended up with a 2.4% tax rating overall but avoiding claiming income from its actual source and shuttling it across the nation to areas with lower tax rates.

And GE, they made buttloads of cash in the USA and paid ZERO in taxes that year, no way you can cut that man, they got over and actually got a tax refund.

I'm not sure what GE did. Considering I haven't heard any reprisals from the IRS I can only assume it was legit though.

There's all kinds of shit though. Remember when BP had the taxpayers foot half of their $20 billion Deepwater Horizon bill by claiming it as a business expense and receiving a $10 billion tax benefit?

Also that's their overseas tax rate. To the best of my knowledge that's money earned overseas as taxed here. I'm not very familiar with international tax code. But I can tell you that they paid FAR more than 2.4% of their income in taxes.

[Wells]

Do you think corporations should be allowed to leave a given state or country?

I'm going to assume that you have some point you haven't gotten to yet.

[Fugus]

I'm not sure what GE did. Considering I haven't heard any reprisals from the IRS I can only assume it was legit though.

There's all kinds of shit though. Remember when BP had the taxpayers foot half of their $20 billion Deepwater Horizon bill by claiming it as a business expense and receiving a $10 billion tax benefit?

GE has a whole department dedicated to finding loopholes and such. In 2010 they made a lot of headlines by that. They made billions that year but in the US paid zero in taxes and got a tax refund check instead. It was 100% legal though and needs to be fixed.

Was using that to point out to the guy I quoted that tried to say the companies paid a back breaking level of taxes.

Didn't hear that about BP though. All I kept hearing over and over and over again for a while was BP, after a while, it all just kinda blends into a nauseous mess that you just kinda tune out, kinda like the old OJ Simpson trial.

Won't be able to respond anymore, off to work. But will read what ya right next time I long in hopefully though. Later.

[Kraenen]

Entitlement to work in a workplace where your boss can't have a direct impact on the way you politically vote? Yeah, sorry I don't agree that he the right to impact the way I exercise my Constitutional right to vote.

Pretty soon you'll hear conservatives argue you're not entitled to not be raped, or you aren't entitled not to be stolen from and repaid somehow.

[Sunseeker]

Do you think corporations should be allowed to leave a given state or country?

And countries should be allowed to set tariffs on imports if they feel that products being imported are undercutting internal production.

[Kraenen]

Actually the taxes on companies are VERY low. GE in 2010 actually paid ZERO in taxes and actually got money back.

Sorry man, but companies have learned to game that system to the extreme and it needs to have an overhaul so they can't avoid the taxes so much.

Another one, in 2010 (I think it was), google even said they only paid 2.4% on in taxes.

0% taxes are still too much. Now we need to pay them in our taxes because 0% taxes for them hurts growth.

[Dazzy]

Just take solace in the fact that his wife is out banging every pool boy in the neighborhood while he's off at work, with his saggy old wrinkly balls.

Ot: He could probably take a paycut too, even as accustomed to a 500 million dollar a year salary someone can become, they can do just as well with 450 million a year.

[Laize]

I'm going to assume that you have some point you haven't gotten to yet.

Well... you're decrying them leaving jurisdictions they disagree with and saying there needs to be restrictions on their lobbying.

I'm not sure what you think they should be free to do.

[daenerys]

It's basic logic, if costs of running a business go up, you have to find a way to recoup your losses. The business owners never really pay when taxes go up, it is just passed along. Taxes go up, price of his goods go up to compensate. His prices go up, less people want to buy at the higher price, less people buy them, he doesn't need/can't afford as many employees, he is forced to lay some off.

It's not just this guy who will have to lay off employees if his taxes go up, thousands of business owners will. He's just the first to outright say it.

[Wells]

Well... you're decrying them leaving jurisdictions they disagree with

Where did I say this?

[Laize]

Where did I say this?

You're right it was smrund.

So you're okay with a company packing up and leaving in protest of government policies?

[Sunseeker]

You're right it was smrund.

So you're okay with a company packing up and leaving in protest of government policies?

I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you can quote me?

[Decagon]

I'm almost positive this is not legal, I'm pretty sure it was made illegal (I THINK in the constitution) during the Reconstruction period to stop KKK members from influencing blacks, former abolitionists, and black rights supporters votes by intimidation, bribery, violence, or other methods of influence.

IMO, this guy and his entire family should be sterilized for forcing others to do what they don't want to do, and for being a douchebag.

[Laize]

I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you can quote me?

You said:

And that's crap too, it's part of this stupid system we have which favors massive conglomerate quasi-monopolies and market suppression over competition and free enterprise.

And I really hope you don't say that statement coming from me surprises you.

In response to me saying Microsoft threatened to pack up and leave Redmond if they passed some unfavorable policy.

[Sunseeker]

In response to me saying Microsoft threatened to pack up and leave Redmond if they passed some unfavorable policy.

Ah, I should have been more specific. I'm very pro-small-business, so once a company reaches a size where their money can effectively overrule the political process, that is what I think is crap. Furthermore, as someone who favors the good of the nation first, I find it wholly reprehensible that a company would use it's workers and all their jobs as leverage to get their way with the political process.

I mean, it's one thing to say "I'll give you a dollar if you give me a dollar.", it's another thing to say "I'll fire everyone in your constituency if you don't do what I want." Disregard for the well-being of others in favor of your own well-being is not something I tolerate, nor should we as a nation tolerate it. Self-interested altruism is one thing, but wanton disregard for other people and using them like bargaining chips is unacceptable.

I absolutely abhor how much of an effect money has on our political process.

[Laize]

Ah, I should have been more specific. I'm very pro-small-business, so once a company reaches a size where their money can effectively overrule the political process, that is what I think is crap. Furthermore, as someone who favors the good of the nation first, I find it wholly reprehensible that a company would use it's workers and all their jobs as leverage to get their way with the political process.

I mean, it's one thing to say "I'll give you a dollar if you give me a dollar.", it's another thing to say "I'll fire everyone in your constituency if you don't do what I want." Disregard for the well-being of others in favor of your own well-being is not something I tolerate, nor should we as a nation tolerate it. Self-interested altruism is one thing, but wanton disregard for other people and using them like bargaining chips is unacceptable.

I absolutely abhor how much of an effect money has on our political process.

Would you restrict a company's right to move to a new state/country if they didnt like the climate?

[daftone]

I'm almost positive this is not legal, I'm pretty sure it was made illegal (I THINK in the constitution) during the Reconstruction period to stop KKK members from influencing blacks, former abolitionists, and black rights supporters votes by intimidation, bribery, violence, or other methods of influence.

IMO, this guy and his entire family should be sterilized for forcing others to do what they don't want to do, and for being a douchebag.

Hes not forcing them to do anything. He's letting them know that obamas policies have hurt the company financially and if he is reelected and continues those policies the company will have to lay off some workers to recoup the loss. Its 100% true and nothing illegal about it. If this makes them change their vote then so be it but he's not forcing them to do it. He's giving them information that they can get themselves if they did some research on obamas new taxes.

[goobernoob]

Self-interested altruism.

what do you mean by that? it looks like its in conflict with itself.