DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... President Obama, before you try that gun grab, I have a WARNING for you…

GE paid zero in taxes. How much more tax friendly could we possibly get?

Man y'all trippin hard.

Is that an exception to the rule?? The tax rates in this country for business's is the highest in the world...or one of the highest.

I dont agree with zero either Swish

Not even close to the exception to the rule.

There's a list of corporations who don't pay anything, or a lot less than what they're suppose to.

There was a recent article about some billionaire doner who hadn't paid taxes in 3 years.

A billionaire, FBH.

So we can debate what's fair or not, but for BP to say we aren't a business friendly country is not only completely false, but horribly wreck-less and irresponsible.

There's so many ways to play the system it isn't even funny

Ok I agree and with past discussions you know I'm not for 0 taxes...but can you agree our tax rat on Business is among the highest in the world??

I know you dont believe in trickle down theory...but the marginal tax rates for alot of business's is excessive..in my humble opinion and yes the it can be manipulated like putting your headquarters in a different country...I dont agree with that either.

Since the other thread got locked I'll put this here...did the FBI drop the ball?

http://www.breitbart.com/national-securi...ed-authorities/

GE paid 0 in taxes because the obummer administration set up a sweetheart deal for them. If you recall, the admin set up tax breaks for green energy research, and GE took full advantage of it. When you consider that GE, NBC, and MSNBC are all part of the same conglomerate, and NBC and MSNBC were key in pushing the AGW hoax, then you can get to the bottom of why GE paid 0 taxes. The entire GE conglomerate were behind the obummer administration push on climate change, green energy, and cap and tax.

Unfortunately, businesses without the R+D capabilities are unable to participate, therefore they got screwed by not being able to participate in the hoax. Energy companies that used coal were taxed to death. Small businesses were taxed to death. Mid sized businesses were taxed to death. This is why we need a flatter tax system, to prevent this favoritism and cronyism.

I was going to reference this same thing about GE but to be honest things just go in circles on here and it wont change anyones mind anyway.

I do agree for the most part Eric with what you wrote.

Of course you was gonna play the blame game on Obama.

Corporations have been pay way less in taxes before your favorite whipping boy was a factor.

The reality is that businesses do not pay their tax rates.

Once again, we can debate all we want about whether or not that's fair, which I'm fine with that discussion.

But to say we aren't business friendly is the biggest load of crap you guys have ever tried to push on this board.

If they're not even paying that rate, then it being one of the highest is a moot point.

Businesses never pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes.

The obummer administration did set up this sweetheart deal, so if you think I'm using him as a whipping boy, that must be because you're a fan boy.

This has gone on forever, which is why the tax code is such a mess that only the most meticulous lawyer could possibly understand. I don't even think our own government understands the tax codes. This again, is why we need a flatter tax system, or even a consumer tax system.

I dont find it moot at all...I was kind of speaking in broader terms then GE. But I do find Eric's post on point about GE.

I can say in 100% certainty it is not business friendly here..between EPA regs..the atrocity that the Affordable Care Act has done to a business owner with more the 50 employee's..and taxes of all kinds tallied up man I understand why someone or company would close shop and move.

I wish you and I was sitting in person where I could show you in blank and white just how bad its gotten in the last 5yrs for my side and other people I know.

Whats coming down the pike in 17' for healthcare costs alone is going to put us in a position of having to either kick the lower tier people to exchanges or pay about 15% of our contribution to their healthcare...and I cant find anything with out high as deductibles and if the projected increases are even close for next year..People are going to have sticker shock.

I'm just about done to being completely out and I'm happy about it...to sick to stay in the rat race and honestly I'm tired of stressing out over things that I'm self inducing.

can you explain this to me please Eric??

And I disagree.

We aren't even talking about corporations trying stay afloat.

We're talking lowering the tax rates that they already DONT pay, that way a multi billion dollar company can have more billions.

We're talking bending over backwards to greed. And I'll never be for that. You guys argue as if corporations have no hand in the state of our economy. I'm sick of this country having to beg corporations to be nice.

If you're all for that, then we don't have anything else to discuss. On to the next topic.

We can move on...I agree with some of what you say about this..just I disagree with more. But I like dissenting viewpoints and some things you've said in the past has made me think about one of my positions.

I'm heading out for the day anyway. Have a great day Swish

If you raise taxes(or any kind of operating cost) on a corporation, they will pass that cost on to the consumer by raising the price of their product.

Let's use sales tax as an example. When a business sells a product, it collects sales tax from the purchaser. The business then sends that tax money into the state.

The business "pays" the tax, but with the customers money.


Income tax. Same thing, basically. The business "pays" an income tax, but, the money to do so comes from the purchasers of the product or good - the consumer.

Thanks its what I thought but wanted clarification from him.

Thanks Arch...I have to go to the Airport now.

Have a great day everyone.

Others have already answered it for me. It doesn't matter if you have a tariff, tax, fee, or any other collection imposed by the government, to maintain a profit margin, the business will pass the costs on to the consumer.

As a matter of fact, the overall percentage of taxes paid by corporations has steadily decreased over the past 50 years.

The same is true of tariff revenue to the government. Open trade policies have hurt the American worker and the best the Dems offer is retraining programs.

Doing what is needed is not going to happen because of ideological difference.

A better example of this whole issue happens when the right to vote is contrasted against the right to bear arms.

Surprising to find how many times people are fine with strict voting laws and the inverse becomes true when arms are considered.

Sure lets have same day voter registration with no proof of residency.

I do think they are cracking down on gun purchasers. You have to have an i.d., you need to be a citizen, you get a federal background check.


On the other hand, there are some that think not even having to show a valid i.d. is just honky dory when it comes to voting.

So, yeah, you're right. People are fine with strict laws about buying guns, and people question why one needs not show an i.d. when voting.

The Left is concerned you will kill someone with your Guns while they kill our Nation with their Votes.

Ok, we give tax incentives to send jobs overseas, then complain when people don't have jobs and are in need of assitence? Got it.

This is what I truly hate about the far left and the far right. One wants to give everything away, the other wants to take everything away.

Brilliant, and they wonder why this country is in the mess it is. WE need to be more centered in this country and we need to stop listening to people that only want what they want but not what the country needs.

I don't think these attitudes come from the same group of people. I think most sensible people have no problem at all with showing id's at the voting booths. Reading recent polls suggests that a great many of these same people are ALSO interested in seeing some better measure of oversight where firearms are concerned.

It's not an either/or thing for most.

There is a solution to almost every problem, if folks of good mind and character are dedicated to finding it. Our decades of inaction about gun violence suggests that as a nation, we don't really see it as a problem at all.

Just heard an interview with Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's Chief of Staff. Dude said that he owns 12 guns, has hunted with his family since the age of 12.... and that high-capacity semi-auto firearms should only be in the hands of trained military or law enforcement personnel.

That sounds like a sensible p.o.v. to me. Too bad there is no room for it in our national discussion. Far leftists seem to want Australia. Far rightists seem to want no restrictions at all. As long as those two groups steer the discussion, the status quo is all we'll ever have.

Every single freedom and right we have comes with restrictions, qualifiers and compromises so that the majority can live with the results. I see no reason why firearm ownership shouldn't be treated the same.

Mr Clem, can you expound on why you think this point sounds like reasonable point of view please?? Not picking a fight I here people of umm...how do I say??? position of high importance say this also.

There was one time I wouldve voted Powell for POTUS if he ran..but always found something off about the guy..then when Obama ran the first round it all come out why I thought that way.

1 other thing Clem, IF you respond and I dont answer right away bare with me...kind of busy..and only have time to check in on posts..actually wasnt even going to post on this section..it was more for the Cavs thread..but saw your name on a post and read what you had to say.

Like I said if you respond, its a genuine curiosity to why someone feels that way...be palaverous please..I enjoy reading you..and would enjoy something more then 1 line as to why...NOT THAT YOU EVER HAVE THAT PROBLEM:)

I'll look back in when I recover from being comatose from celebrating..it might take a minute...so not hiding just dont care how quick you would like to do this...not enough we can go higher..I AINT SCURRED.

I'll only waste a minute or two on keeping guns out of the hands of lunatics. When I see a irresponsible gun owner I make a call.

I've heard more than one report of police officers and military folks saying they don't think that these rifles belong in the hands of civilians. That they don't have value. For some reason, you don't see a lot of that posted..

But walk up to a bunch of cops and ask them, I bet most would say they'd rather them not be sold.

Hey,, all you gotta do is follow the money. If we were to disallow the private ownership of these weapons, who's pocket gets kicked in the teeth? The makers of such weapons. Oddly, look who provides most of the funding to the NRA and candidates who support the second amendment! Yup, that's right, the gun makers.

The True damn shame of it is, it's all about the money.

Duh. That's because they're worried about those guns being used on them. I'd bet you most of them own one or one similar, though.

Maybe you haven't noticed but THEY ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT!!!

Who do you think it is that the American Citizens may have to defend themselves from some day?

That right there is what the 2nd Amendment is all about! The Founding Fathers knew where the real threat to freedom would come from, and guess what, your post confirms it.

Sorry but there's others out there, like myself.

I've owned weapons, and once again, I'd like to challenge anybody over a marksmanship contest, winner gets bacon pepperoni pizza.

But for people who claim they need a rifle like the AR-15 for home defense is full of it.

My opinion of course.

I have a much easier time "room clearing" in an apartment/house using a 9 or a shotgun than a rifle. Those two weapons are more than enough for effective home protection.

There's a good portion of the population who don't even know why there's two settings for the rear sight post. (The small hole is for aiming down range, the big one is for urban/close combat)

It's takes a lot of training to be able to effective in protecting your home with a rifle. You're more likely to shoot through the neighbors house when the adrenaline is pumping than your actual target.

Obama isn't gonna go around taking people's guns, just likes its just as stupid to seriously think someone is gonna round up 11 million illegals and deport them.

But there are sensible ways, which I've already gone through in this board, to at least use prevention methods of bad people getting guns.

Anybody on the terror watch/no fly list shouldn't be able to get a gun.

Sorry about it if you know somebody who "doesn't belong on there" no system is perfect, but I'm not willing to go off your word for somebody I know nothing about. Now, I think the tweak to that is the government must HASTLY notify someone once they are on the list, and the matter should be resolved first priority through the courts, I say a 60-90 day window. If the government doesn't prove the case, or even shows up, that name should be dropped from the list.

It's not perfect, but it's a start.

Also, the "responsible" gun owners who end up not being one.

Here's my list of irresponsible gun owners who shouldn't own guns

You're a gun loving person, but your 4 year old kid managed to shoot you in your minivan because you left it on the car floor? You lose you're right to own weapons.

Your kid managed to shoot himself or another person playing around with your unlocked up gun? You lose your right.

You got drunk and started popping rounds in the air, and the cops had to be called? You lose your right.

Your kid goes on a mass shooting rampage with your weapon? You lose your right.

You rigged your lawnmower with explosives, shot at it, and lost your leg? Let's add insult to injury, you lose your right.

And there's some other situations, but those prove you aren't a responsible gun owner. Not even remotely, and society shouldn't be at risk for your stupidity.

Other that that, own whatever the hell you want.

Well, that's not the point. But yeah, I imagine they are concerned about that.

The point was, professionals in military and law enforcement don't believe there is any reason for those guns..

Like it, or don't.

Wrong thinking! The AR is not for home defense, it is for Citizen defense from ALL threats, Foreign and Domestic!

Ok Johnny Reb.

There's a ton of your homeboys around the country claiming they need it for home defense bro. Stop playing games.

As far as all threats go, whatever conspiracy you think the government is running, they don't have to do it anymore.

We as Americans do a great enough job shooting each other, from gang violence to sleeping with someone else husband.

I'm more afraid of YOU than I am of some government takeover. We spread fear, hate, and violence amongst ourselves at such a rate, the government couldn't keep up if they tried.

There's plenty of your homeboys around the Country who suck at the government teat and care more about government green while shooting up the streets, putting a stain on the Red, White and Blue the rest of us stand to defend!

You stop with the games!

And which branch of service did you enlist in to stand and defend the Red, White, and Blue? Mmmmmm?

Suck the government tit? You mean your corporations taking welfa... I mean, tax subsidies?

I know and then they turn around and hire the likes of you thru expansion! There ain't no justice!