• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

We need to focus more energy on getting money in the hands of the job creators...

Dale Mabry

Senior Member
Elite Member
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
15,354
Reaction score
381
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Elsewhere
30 Major U.S. Corporations Paid More to Lobby Congress Than Income Taxes, 2008-2010
By Ashley Portero
December 9, 2011 6:24 AM EST

By employing a plethora of tax-dodging techniques, 30 multi-million dollar American corporations expended more money lobbying Congress than they paid in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, ultimately spending approximately $400,000 every day -- including weekends -- during that three-year period to lobby lawmakers and influence political elections, according to a new report from the non-partisan Public Campaign.

Despite a growing federal deficit and the widespread economic stability that has swept the U.S since 2008, the companies in question managed to accumulate profits of $164 billion between 2008 and 2010, while receiving combined tax rebates totaling almost $11 billion. Moreover, Public Campaign reports these companies spent about $476 million during the same period to lobby the U.S. Congress, as well as another $22 million on federal campaigns, while in some instances laying off employees and increasing executive compensation.

29 Major Corporations Paid No Federal Taxes, 2008-2010

Of the 30 companies analyzed in the report, which include corporate giants such as General Electric, Verizon Communications, Wells Fargo (WFC), Mattel (MAT) and Boeing (BA), 29 of them managed to pay no federal taxes from 2008 to 2010. Only FedEx, which raked in about $4.2 billion in profits during that period, paid a three-year tax rate of 1 percent -- totaling $37 million -- far less than the statutory federal corporate tax rate of 35 percent.

The Public Campaign report expanded on a newly released analysis on corporate tax dodging by the liberal-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice, a non-profit research and advocacy group, as well as lobbying expenditure data provided by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Citizens for Tax Justice, the sister organization to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reports that 68 of the 265 most consistently profitable Fortune 500 companies did not pay a state corporate income tax during at least one year between 2008 and 2010, while 20 of them paid no taxes at all during that period.

"Our report shows these corporations raked in a combined $1.33 trillion in profits in the last three years, and far too many have managed to shelter half or more of their profits from state taxes," Matthew Gardner, Executive Director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the report's co-author, said in a statement. "They're so busy avoiding taxes, it's no wonder they're not creating any new jobs."

According to the report, titled "Corporate Tax Dodging in the Fifty States, 2008-2010," state corporate tax revenues have been declining for 20 years, due to the passage of multiple state tax subsidies, as well federal tax breaks that further reduce state corporate income tax revenues since states usually accept corporations' federal tax. Moreover, Gardner said multi-state corporations are constantly "devoting their money and legal firepower to coming up with tax avoidance schemes."

Between 2008 and 2010, the 265 companies analyzed paid state income taxes equal to only 3 percent of their U.S. profits, half of the statutory 6.2 percent state corporate tax rate. As a result, these companies avoided a total of $42.7 billion in state corporate taxes over three years.

"As recently as 1986, state corporate income taxes equaled 0.5 percent of nationwide Gross State Product (a measure of nationwide economic activity)," states the report. "But in fiscal year 2010, state and local corporate income taxes were just 0.28 percent of nationwide GSP, equaling the low-water mark set in 2002."

Companies' Laying Off Workers While Receiving Tax Rebates, Raising Executive Pay

Among the 20 companies who paid zero or less in state corporate taxes are utility provider Pepco Holdings, the pharmaceutical company Baxter International, and Intel Corporation (INTC).

Baxter International (BAX) and Intel are among the corporations that Public Campaign reports did not did not pay federal incomes during the same three-year period.

Of those companies, General Electric (GE) spent the most on lobbying, expending about $84 million on lobbying while paying a federal income tax rate of negative 45 percent on more than $10 billion in U.S. profits. PG&E Corp. followed General Electric, spending almost $79 million on lobbying, while paying a negative 21 percent tax rate on $4.8 billion of U.S profits, and Verizon Communications, which spent $52 billion on lobbying while paying a negative 3 percent tax rate on $32.5 billion of profits.

A negative effective tax rate means that a company enjoyed a tax rebate, usually obtained by carrying back excess tax deductions and credits to an earlier year, thereby allowing the company to receive a tax rebate check, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

U.S. House Deputy Whip Kevin Brady, R-Tex., is currently making a last-ditch effort to include a corporate tax repatriation holiday on legislation to extend a payroll tax cut, an extension that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said could put an extra $1,500 into the pockets of middle class families each year. While those in favor of the corporate tax repatriation provision -- which would give U.S. businesses a temporary tax break on as much as $1 trillion in overseas income -- insist it would boost the nation's sluggish economy and make it easier for corporations to create jobs, the Congressional Budget Office reports tax repatriation holidays ranks dead last among 13 policy options for creating jobs. The CBO estimates that over the 2012-2013 period, a repatriation holiday would, at best, create the equivalent of one-full time job for every $1 million in federal costs.

Even while dodging most of their state and federal taxes between 2008 and 2010, Verizon (VZ) laid off more than 21,000 U.S. employees, while Boeing, Wells Fargo, General Electric, American Electric Power, and FedEx also let go of thousands of workers. Because companies can be reluctant to make data changes in U.S. employment available, Public Campaign reports it was not able to find up-to-date employment statistics for many of the companies evaluated in the report.

Moreover, as it was laying off employees, General Electric gave their top executives a 27 percent pay raise between 2008 and 2010 -- executives received more than $75 million in compensation in 2010. Wells Fargo increased executive pay by a whopping 180 percent, upping executive compensation from $17.8 million in 2008 to almost $50 million in 2010, while Boeing, FedEx and American Electric Power also instituted lavish executive pay raises while laying off thousands of lower-level workers.

In fact, 2010 year was a record year for executive compensation. The CEO's of some of the largest U.S. corporations made, on average, $11.4 million in 2010, about 343 times more than workers' median pay, according to an analysis by the American Federation of Labor, the widest gap between executive and employee pay in the world. CEO pay has skyrocketed since 1980, when chief executives were only paid about 42 times more than the average blue collar worker.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the median household income fell $3,719 between 2000 and 2010, when measured in 2010 dollars.

Public Campaign released its report on Wednesday, just as thousands of unemployed Americans from across the nation swarmed K Street in Washington, D.C., the lobbying center for some of the world's most profitable corporations. The march was part of "Take Back the Capitol," a four-day series of events aimed at persuading Congress to pass comprehensive job creation measures that will benefit their constituents, rather than special interest groups.

30 Major U.S. Corporations Paid More to Lobby Congress Than Income Taxes, 2008-2010 - International Business Times
 
30 Major U.S. Corporations Paid More to Lobby Congress Than Income Taxes, 2008-2010
By Ashley Portero
December 9, 2011 6:24 AM EST

By employing a plethora of tax-dodging techniques, 30 multi-million dollar American corporations expended more money lobbying Congress than they paid in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, ultimately spending approximately $400,000 every day -- including weekends -- during that three-year period to lobby lawmakers and influence political elections, according to a new report from the non-partisan Public Campaign.

Despite a growing federal deficit and the widespread economic stability that has swept the U.S since 2008, the companies in question managed to accumulate profits of $164 billion between 2008 and 2010, while receiving combined tax rebates totaling almost $11 billion. Moreover, Public Campaign reports these companies spent about $476 million during the same period to lobby the U.S. Congress, as well as another $22 million on federal campaigns, while in some instances laying off employees and increasing executive compensation.

29 Major Corporations Paid No Federal Taxes, 2008-2010

Of the 30 companies analyzed in the report, which include corporate giants such as General Electric, Verizon Communications, Wells Fargo (WFC), Mattel (MAT) and Boeing (BA), 29 of them managed to pay no federal taxes from 2008 to 2010. Only FedEx, which raked in about $4.2 billion in profits during that period, paid a three-year tax rate of 1 percent -- totaling $37 million -- far less than the statutory federal corporate tax rate of 35 percent.

The Public Campaign report expanded on a newly released analysis on corporate tax dodging by the liberal-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice, a non-profit research and advocacy group, as well as lobbying expenditure data provided by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Citizens for Tax Justice, the sister organization to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reports that 68 of the 265 most consistently profitable Fortune 500 companies did not pay a state corporate income tax during at least one year between 2008 and 2010, while 20 of them paid no taxes at all during that period.

"Our report shows these corporations raked in a combined $1.33 trillion in profits in the last three years, and far too many have managed to shelter half or more of their profits from state taxes," Matthew Gardner, Executive Director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the report's co-author, said in a statement. "They're so busy avoiding taxes, it's no wonder they're not creating any new jobs."

According to the report, titled "Corporate Tax Dodging in the Fifty States, 2008-2010," state corporate tax revenues have been declining for 20 years, due to the passage of multiple state tax subsidies, as well federal tax breaks that further reduce state corporate income tax revenues since states usually accept corporations' federal tax. Moreover, Gardner said multi-state corporations are constantly "devoting their money and legal firepower to coming up with tax avoidance schemes."

Between 2008 and 2010, the 265 companies analyzed paid state income taxes equal to only 3 percent of their U.S. profits, half of the statutory 6.2 percent state corporate tax rate. As a result, these companies avoided a total of $42.7 billion in state corporate taxes over three years.

"As recently as 1986, state corporate income taxes equaled 0.5 percent of nationwide Gross State Product (a measure of nationwide economic activity)," states the report. "But in fiscal year 2010, state and local corporate income taxes were just 0.28 percent of nationwide GSP, equaling the low-water mark set in 2002."

Companies' Laying Off Workers While Receiving Tax Rebates, Raising Executive Pay

Among the 20 companies who paid zero or less in state corporate taxes are utility provider Pepco Holdings, the pharmaceutical company Baxter International, and Intel Corporation (INTC).

Baxter International (BAX) and Intel are among the corporations that Public Campaign reports did not did not pay federal incomes during the same three-year period.

Of those companies, General Electric (GE) spent the most on lobbying, expending about $84 million on lobbying while paying a federal income tax rate of negative 45 percent on more than $10 billion in U.S. profits. PG&E Corp. followed General Electric, spending almost $79 million on lobbying, while paying a negative 21 percent tax rate on $4.8 billion of U.S profits, and Verizon Communications, which spent $52 billion on lobbying while paying a negative 3 percent tax rate on $32.5 billion of profits.

A negative effective tax rate means that a company enjoyed a tax rebate, usually obtained by carrying back excess tax deductions and credits to an earlier year, thereby allowing the company to receive a tax rebate check, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

U.S. House Deputy Whip Kevin Brady, R-Tex., is currently making a last-ditch effort to include a corporate tax repatriation holiday on legislation to extend a payroll tax cut, an extension that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said could put an extra $1,500 into the pockets of middle class families each year. While those in favor of the corporate tax repatriation provision -- which would give U.S. businesses a temporary tax break on as much as $1 trillion in overseas income -- insist it would boost the nation's sluggish economy and make it easier for corporations to create jobs, the Congressional Budget Office reports tax repatriation holidays ranks dead last among 13 policy options for creating jobs. The CBO estimates that over the 2012-2013 period, a repatriation holiday would, at best, create the equivalent of one-full time job for every $1 million in federal costs.

Even while dodging most of their state and federal taxes between 2008 and 2010, Verizon (VZ) laid off more than 21,000 U.S. employees, while Boeing, Wells Fargo, General Electric, American Electric Power, and FedEx also let go of thousands of workers. Because companies can be reluctant to make data changes in U.S. employment available, Public Campaign reports it was not able to find up-to-date employment statistics for many of the companies evaluated in the report.

Moreover, as it was laying off employees, General Electric gave their top executives a 27 percent pay raise between 2008 and 2010 -- executives received more than $75 million in compensation in 2010. Wells Fargo increased executive pay by a whopping 180 percent, upping executive compensation from $17.8 million in 2008 to almost $50 million in 2010, while Boeing, FedEx and American Electric Power also instituted lavish executive pay raises while laying off thousands of lower-level workers.

In fact, 2010 year was a record year for executive compensation. The CEO's of some of the largest U.S. corporations made, on average, $11.4 million in 2010, about 343 times more than workers' median pay, according to an analysis by the American Federation of Labor, the widest gap between executive and employee pay in the world. CEO pay has skyrocketed since 1980, when chief executives were only paid about 42 times more than the average blue collar worker.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the median household income fell $3,719 between 2000 and 2010, when measured in 2010 dollars.

Public Campaign released its report on Wednesday, just as thousands of unemployed Americans from across the nation swarmed K Street in Washington, D.C., the lobbying center for some of the world's most profitable corporations. The march was part of "Take Back the Capitol," a four-day series of events aimed at persuading Congress to pass comprehensive job creation measures that will benefit their constituents, rather than special interest groups.

30 Major U.S. Corporations Paid More to Lobby Congress Than Income Taxes, 2008-2010 - International Business Times
Another reason corporations are not fit to be our employers. It is time to break them up and run public own bussiness in this country. Everybody with fucntional limbs should get their fat ass off the couch and get back to work to build this country.:D
 
Another reason corporations are not fit to be our employers. It is time to break them up and run public own bussiness in this country. Everybody with fucntional limbs should get their fat ass off the couch and get back to work to build this country.:D


Yes, absolutely. Let's kill all the corporations, CEO's, Venture Capitalists and build a wall around North America. We are going to need this wall to keep all the people in who want to move to countries that have Corporations. We can use some of the military's assets to shoot people who try to leave...

YouTube Video
 
Last edited:
Yes, absolutely. Let's kill all the corporations, CEO's, Venture Capitalists and build a wall around North America. We are going to need this wall to keep all the people in who want to move to countries that have Corporations. We can use some of the military's assets to shoot people who try to leave...

YouTube Video

:jerkit:
 
Yes, absolutely. Let's kill all the corporations, CEO's, Venture Capitalists and build a wall around North America. We are going to need this wall to keep all the people in who want to move to countries that have Corporations. We can use some of the military's assets to shoot people who try to leave...

YouTube Video

Who is saying to get rid of them? I'd settle for them paying their taxes and not being handed money I pay in taxes interest free. Why do you right wing knuckleheads always portray anyone who may not be cool with free handouts to corporations as communist?
 
Who is saying to get rid of them? I'd settle for them paying their taxes and not being handed money I pay in taxes interest free. Why do you right wing knuckleheads always portray anyone who may not be cool with free handouts to corporations as communist?

Because that's what's been drilled into their heads.
 
Who is saying to get rid of them? I'd settle for them paying their taxes and not being handed money I pay in taxes interest free. Why do you right wing knuckleheads always portray anyone who may not be cool with free handouts to corporations as communist?

I quoted who said it. Also, I'm not even close to being a right wing knucklehead. I'm a Libertarian or Laissez Fair Capitalist...
 
Because that's what's been drilled into their heads.

Drilled? You'd only need a warm butter knife to slide anything through their heads, unless it's math or logic related. Then you'd need a nuclear weapon.
 
I quoted who said it. Also, I'm not even close to being a right wing knucklehead. I'm a Libertarian or Laissez Fair Capitalist...

So how can you be cool with anything in that article? I too consider myself libertarian.
 
Yes, absolutely. Let's kill all the corporations, CEO's, Venture Capitalists and build a wall around North America. We are going to need this wall to keep all the people in who want to move to countries that have Corporations. We can use some of the military's assets to shoot people who try to leave...

YouTube Video

By the way,who are these corporations going to be selling product to if they were banned from here? They need us more than we need them. If we weren't spending our paychecks on iPods I have a feeling they'd have a significant problem making a profit selling them to people making $50 a year.
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
By the way,who are these corporations going to be selling product to if they were banned from here? They need us more than we need them.

I agree with you. We need tax reform, but no government meddling with business.

I think a few people mistook my post for being any other than a sarcastic reply to the previous poster...
 
By the way,who are these corporations going to be selling product to if they were banned from here? They need us more than we need them. If we weren't spending our paychecks on iPods I have a feeling they'd have a significant problem making a profit selling them to people making $50 a year.

There you go, making sense again. Always gotta bring logic and brain power into everything... :winkfinger:
 
70% of the net new jobs (total jobs created after all gains and losses) in the US in the past 15 years or so are made in small firms. large firms do not create "new" jobs, it's total bullshit. the US gov doles out 1T a year in subsidy, tax breaks, etc. to large firms.

the US needs to go back to the small firm mentality, small firms have a positive impact on the local economy's while large firms and especially foreign owned MNE's have a negative impact. they basically suck the wealth of out of the local economy and it get's funneled up to the shareholders. there is simply a limited amount of large firms that an economy can "handle" before they start to have a overall negative effect.
 
70% of the net new jobs (total jobs created after all gains and losses) in the US in the past 15 years or so are made in small firms. large firms do not create "new" jobs, it's total bullshit. the US gov doles out 1T a year in subsidy, tax breaks, etc. to large firms.

the US needs to go back to the small firm mentality, small firms have a positive impact on the local economy's while large firms and especially foreign owned MNE's have a negative impact. they basically suck the wealth of out of the local economy and it get's funneled up to the shareholders. there is simply a limited amount of large firms that an economy can "handle" before they start to have a overall negative effect.

This is the absolute first thing you've written that I've read which makes sense.

There should be a 10% flat tax on all business and absolutely no Federal government subsidies for any business ever. Let the free market create jobs. Government job creation makes for fake economies which go bust, which is what we are going through now.

There should be zero capital gains tax, so that investors are rewarded for investing in the economy. Most tax should be consumer based and minimal from Employment. If tax is collected at the cash register, it cannot be evaded...
 
Let the free market create jobs. Government job creation makes for fake economies which go bust, which is what we are going through now.

There should be zero capital gains tax, so that investors are rewarded for investing in the economy. Most tax should be consumer based and minimal from Employment. If tax is collected at the cash register, it cannot be evaded...

it was the tax payer relief act of 1997 that removed the capital gains tax on residences that started the housing boom it had nothing at all to do with the government and everything to do with lobbying and the financial industry and de-regulation. there was no such thing as "flipping" houses prior to 1997.

you can look at the historical case/shiller index and see the effect of this and the median home value post 1997 to the banking collapse in 2007. it changed the home from being a long term assets to a short term commodity. lower taxes are not "always" good. home values are supposed to increase along with real income growth, not just supply and demand.

only the top income quintile in the US derives income from capital gains and they do not invest in small business, so that reduction would not have any positive effect on net job creation.

when you look at the 5 income quintiles in the US and the amount of income that is derived from capital as a percentage of income it looks like this:

1st income quintile = 0%
2nd income quintile = 0%
3rd income quintile = 0%
4th income quintile = 1-2%
5th income quintile = 27-33%
 
Last edited:
it was the tax payer relief act of 1997 that removed the capital gains tax on residences that started the housing boom it had nothing at all to do with the government and everything to do with lobbying and the financial industry. there was no such thing as "flipping" houses prior to 1997.

you can look at the historical case/shiller index and see the effect of this and the median home value post 1997 to the banking collapse in 2007. it changed the home from being a long term assets to a short term commodity. lower taxes are not "always" good.

only the top income quintile in the US derives income from capital gains and they do not invest in small business, so that reduction would have no effect on job creation.

Well, you are right back to talking nonsense...you had a moment at least.

Dropping capital gains did not cause the housing boom, don't be ridiculous. Once again you are cherry picking statistics and making a convenient correlation. Dropping the qualifying requirements for homes is what got us in this mess. Zero down mortgages and lending to people who were not credit worthy. There were cases of some mortgage companies approving loans to people on welfare. If the idiots where prevented from easily accessing credit, they would not have had the means to invest in real estate, house values would not have eccelerated nearly as fast. This is fact; unlike making economics a hobby, I actually get to sit through presentation, lectures, etc., by economists, analysts and portfolio managers. Have you actually shook hands with one of the major bank economists in North America? Have you actuall had a heart to heart with a top portfolio manager? Do you even have access to analysis from institutions like UBS, Credit Suisse or RBC Capital Markets? I do, every single week...

It's fine to have an oppinion or theory, but you represent theory as fact, you run the risk making yourself look like an idiot in the eyes of people who actually do economics for a living and work in the capital markets...

The top income quintile does not invest in small business??? Do you make this shit up? Because I actually know this not to be true. Sure the blue chips get lots of attention, bet there is a big small cap market and plenty of venture capital funds out there. Even the middle class can participate, my clients do.

A flat payroll tax and business tax would not only equal the palying field, it would make for smaller governement. A major consumer based tax system would eliminate the evaders and create a true consumer economy. People would buy what they could afford and businesses would supply what people can afford and demand...
 
Well, you are right back to talking nonsense...you had a moment at least.

Dropping capital gains did not cause the housing boom, don't be ridiculous. Once again you are cherry picking statistics and making a convenient correlation. Dropping the qualifying requirements for homes is what got us in this mess. Zero down mortgages and lending to people who were not credit worthy. There were cases of some mortgage companies approving loans to people on welfare. If the idiots where prevented from easily accessing credit, they would not have had the means to invest in real estate, house values would not have eccelerated nearly as fast. This is fact; unlike making economics a hobby, I actually get to sit through presentation, lectures, etc., by economists, analysts and portfolio managers. Have you actually shook hands with one of the major bank economists in North America? Have you actuall had a heart to heart with a top portfolio manager? Do you even have access to analysis from institutions like UBS, Credit Suisse or RBC Capital Markets? I do, every single week...

It's fine to have an oppinion or theory, but you represent theory as fact, you run the risk making yourself look like an idiot in the eyes of people who actually do economics for a living and work in the capital markets...

The top income quintile does not invest in small business??? Do you make this shit up? Because I actually know this not to be true. Sure the blue chips get lots of attention, bet there is a big small cap market and plenty of venture capital funds out there. Even the middle class can participate, my clients do.

A flat payroll tax and business tax would not only equal the palying field, it would make for smaller governement. A major consumer based tax system would eliminate the evaders and create a true consumer economy. People would buy what they could afford and businesses would supply what people can afford and demand...

it's not cherry picking at all, you just have no knowledge of that legislation or of that market. the graph I enclosed shows the direct effect of the removal of capital gains in the tax payer relief act of '97

LMI borrowers nor CRA banks caused the banking collapse it was the shadow banking sector. this is what all the reports from inside and outside the US from independent 3rd party's have shown. the IMF report showed that lobbying by subprime lenders in the years of 2000-2007 was a major contributing factor in the banking collapse.

IMF WP WP/09/287
A Fistful of Dollars: Lobbying and the Financial Crisis
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/wp09287.pdf

* you work in the industry, it is impossible for you to remain completely objective when analyzing data and events.
 
it's not cherry picking at all, you just have no knowledge of that legislation or of that market. the graph I enclosed shows the direct effect of the removal of capital gains in the tax payer relief act of '97

LMI borrowers nor CRA banks caused the banking collapse it was the shadow banking sector. this is what all the reports from inside and outside the US from independent 3rd party's have shown. the IMF report showed that lobbying by subprime lenders in the years of 2000-2007 was a major contributing factor in the banking collapse.

IMF WP WP/09/287
A Fistful of Dollars: Lobbying and the Financial Crisis
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/wp09287.pdf

* you work in the industry, it is impossible for you to remain completely objective when analyzing data and events.

:roflmao:

Where the fuck does it say on that graph, that the reduction in capital gains caused the housing boom? You used this graph to support your argument, not fact. Please show me reports from credible mainstream economists that indicate the lowering of capital gains is what caused the housing boom.

The people who are loosing their houses are predominately those who would not have qualified prior to loosening of mortgage regulations and people who had bad credit to begin with. You mean to tell me that these people bought homes because of the capital gains tax rate...are you fucking serious???

You make up these correlations in your head or they are supported by left wing media that you've read and you get all excited. Who the fuck cares about the IMF? They are not the authority on economics.

Tell me something. Canada lowered capital gains in the 90's as well. Why does Canada not have a housing or mortgage crisis??? If you can tell me why, I will eat crow and say you are the smartest hobby economist I've ever known...
 
Yes, absolutely. Let's kill all the corporations, CEO's, Venture Capitalists and build a wall around North America. We are going to need this wall to keep all the people in who want to move to countries that have Corporations. We can use some of the military's assets to shoot people who try to leave...

YouTube Video
Breaking up corporations doesn't mean adopting communism. I support more power to the people, less government involment and zero corporations.
 
Breaking up corporations doesn't mean adopting communism. I support more power to the people, less government involment and zero corporations.

The people have all the power they need and will have be able to attain, you live in a republic for fuck sakes. You have the right to vote any government into power that you choose. Unfortunatley, most people vote for the government that promises phoney jobs and protection from make belief terrorist...

I've read your other posts, you want the best of 2 sides. Unfortunately, societies and markets are either free or not, you can't have both.

You really want to empower the people, vote Ron Paul when he runs as an independent.
 
:roflmao:

Where the fuck does it say on that graph, that the reduction in capital gains caused the housing boom? You used this graph to support your argument, not fact. Please show me reports from credible mainstream economists that indicate the lowering of capital gains is what caused the housing boom.

why would a graph state that? it's the only piece of legislation or event that occurred in 1997. so it just a coincidence :roflmao::roflmao:...

* there are dozen's of reports out there, obviously you have read none of them..


World Review of Business Research
Vol. 1. No. 5. November 2011. Pp. 1- 11
www.wbiaus.org/1. Lim.pdf


Tax Policy & Housing Markets
dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/43728/259746581.pdf


Capital Gains Taxes and Stock Return Volatility:
Evidence from the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
w4.stern.nyu.edu/emplibrary/CapitalGainsTaxes.pdf
 
You really want to empower the people, vote Ron Paul when he runs as an independent.

this is what unionization did and the progressive movement after WWII until the 80's when the middle class in the US was the most healthy and prosperous and GDP growth was the greatest.
 
why would a graph state that? it's the only piece of legislation or event that occurred in 1997. so it just a coincidence :roflmao::roflmao:...

* there are dozen's of reports out there, obviously you have read none of them..


World Review of Business Research
Vol. 1. No. 5. November 2011. Pp. 1- 11
www.wbiaus.org/1.%20Lim.pdf


Tax Policy & Housing Markets
dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/43728/259746581.pdf


Capital Gains Taxes and Stock Return Volatility:
Evidence from the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
w4.stern.nyu.edu/emplibrary/CapitalGainsTaxes.pdf

You fucking Idiot (and it does slightly pain me to say that because I know you are a moderate, as am I).

This is one Economist opinion, 1. He said and I quote, "we postulate the following hypotheses". This research paper is not fact. It is one persons opinion and you have represented it as fact because it aligns with your views. In other words "Cherry Picking". He states right in the paper that other respected economists have opposing views of eachothers work.

He also states 5 contributing factors of which one he believes to be the greatest and that is your capital gains theory. This said, I would find it difficult to believe he would feel that it outweighs all the other factors combined. Even so, he postulates; he does not represent his hypotheses as fact.

So here is the major problem with his work. He uses Japan's tax legislation as an example. Well Canada has absolutley zero tax on your principle residence, whether 100k or 100mil and our capital gains tax was reduced in the late 90's. I flipped 5 house from 1999 to 2005, all of them I lived in for 1 year or longer and I paid zero tax. So tell me...why has Canada's housing market not burst??? Why has Canada not followed the same path as Japan and the U.S.???

I don't think you are used to people calling you on your bullshit. You cannot represent 1 research paper and a smattering of other left wing Hypotheses as fact. It makes you look like an Idiot to people who actually know.

Was the ability to deduct interest on your mortgage a contributing factor? yes. Were low interest rates a contributing factor? yes. Was capital gains tax a contributing factor, of course, but it was not the main factor. Would any of these poeple, who have lost or are losing their home, been able to even get a mortgage if lending criteria was not loosened throughout the period of tax relief and beyond. Absofuckinglutely NO!

I need you to answer my Canada question, there in lies the answer to whether your theory is correct or not...
 
Last edited:
this is what unionization did and the progressive movement after WWII until the 80's when the middle class in the US was the most healthy and prosperous and GDP growth was the greatest.

I will tear this theory appart as well, but we're not done with the first argument yet...
 
I will tear this theory appart as well, but we're not done with the first argument yet...

like I stated there are dozens of them out there. this stuff is from '97 and I don't have all my bookmarks from papers that I read years ago, as most of us are so far past this.

and as I have stated before you work in the industry, an unbiased opinion or objectivity is impossible, your livelihood depends on this industry while mine does not.

believe you what you want, quite obvious you are the fucking idiot. it's always the persons fault and never the legislation or market for lobbying to change the rules and regulations. that cheesy little series 7 license that you have doesn't mean squat and I know dudes that are half-retarded that passed that exam.
 
like I stated there are dozens of them out there. this stuff is from '97 and I don't have all my bookmarks from papers that I read years ago, as most of us are so far past this.

and as I have stated before you work in the industry, an unbiased opinion or objectivity is impossible, your livelihood depends on this industry while mine does not.

believe you what you want, quite obvious you are the fucking idiot. it's always the persons fault and never the legislation or market for lobbying to change the rules and regulations. that cheesy little series 7 license that you have doesn't mean squat and I know dudes that are half-retarded that passed that exam.
Yes, he has been brain washed by those pigs who teach others how to screw up the economy. It will be imposible for him to see outside of that box.:hehe:
 
Yes, he has been brain washed by those pigs who teach others how to screw up the economy. It will be imposible for him to see outside of that box.:hehe:
They're having a rousing debate.

Go try to suck cock somewhere else.
 
Back
Top