• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

How Do You Take Your Poison?

CityGirl

Silver Member
SUPER Site Supporter
We will all swallow our cup of corporate poison. We can take it from nurse Romney, who will tell us not to whine and play the victim, or we can take it from nurse Obama, who will assure us that this hurts him even more than it hurts us, but one way or another the corporate hemlock will be shoved down our throats. The choice before us is how it will be administered. Corporate power, no matter who is running the ward after January 2013, is poised to carry out U.S. history’s most savage assault against the poor and the working class, not to mention the Earth’s ecosystem. And no one in power, no matter what the bedside manner, has any intention or ability to stop it.

If you insist on participating in the cash-drenched charade of a two-party democratic election at least be clear about what you are doing. You are, by playing your assigned role as the Democratic or Republican voter in this political theater, giving legitimacy to a corporate agenda that means your own impoverishment and disempowerment. All the things that stand between us and utter destitution—Medicaid, food stamps, Pell grants, Head Start, Social Security, public education, federal grants-in-aid to America’s states and cities, the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program (WIC), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and home-delivered meals for seniors—are about to be shredded by the corporate state. Our corporate oligarchs are harvesting the nation, grabbing as much as they can, as fast as they can, in the inevitable descent.

We will be assaulted this January when automatic spending reductions, referred to as “the fiscal cliff,” begin to dismantle and defund some of our most important government programs. Mitt Romney will not stop it. Barack Obama will not stop it.

And while Romney has been, courtesy of the magazine Mother Jones, exposed as a shallow hypocrite, Obama is in a class by himself. There is hardly a campaign promise from 2008 that Obama has not broken. This list includes his pledges to support the public option in health care, close Guantanamo, raise the minimum wage, regulate Wall Street, support labor unions in their struggles with employers, reform the Patriot Act, negotiate an equitable peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, curb our imperial expansion in the Middle East, stop torture, protect reproductive rights, carry out a comprehensive immigration reform, cut the deficit by half, create 5 million new energy jobs and halt home foreclosures. Obama, campaigning in South Carolina in 2007, said that as president he would fight for the right of collective bargaining. “I’d put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll … walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America,” he said. But when he got his chance to put on those “comfortable pair of shoes” during labor disputes in Madison, Wis., and Chicago he turned his back on working men and women.

Obama, while promising to defend Social Security, also says he stands behind the planned cuts outlined by his deficit commission, headed by Morgan Stanley board member Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican. The Bowles-Simpson plan calls for cutting 0.3 percentage points from the annual cost-of-living adjustment in the Social Security program. The annual reduction would slowly accumulate. After a decade it would mean a 3 percent cut. After two decades it would mean a 6 percent cut. The retirement age would be raised to 69. And those on Social Security who continued to work and made more than $40,000 a year would be penalized with further reductions. Obama’s payroll tax cuts have, at the same time, served to undermine the solvency of Social Security, making it an easier target for the finance corporations that seek to destroy the program and privatize the funds.



But that is just the start. Cities and states are frantically staving off collapse. They cannot pay for most pension plans and are borrowing at higher and higher interest rates to keep themselves afloat. The country’s 19,000 municipalities face steadily declining or stagnant property tax revenues, along with spiraling costs. Annual pension payments for state and local plans more than doubled to 15.7 percent of payrolls in 2011 from 6.4 percent a decade ago, according to a study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. And local governments, which made some $50 billion in pension contributions in 2010, face unfunded pension liabilities of $3 trillion and unfunded health benefit liabilities of more than $1 trillion, according to The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. State and local government spending fell at a rate of 2.1 percent in the second quarter of this year, according to the Commerce Department. It was the 11th consecutive quarterly reduction in expenditures. And in the past year alone local governments cut 66,000 jobs, mostly those of teachers and other school employees, reported The Wall Street Journal, which accumulated this list of grim statistics.

The costs of our most basic needs, from food to education to health care, are at the same time being pushed upward with no control or regulation. Tuition and fees at four-year colleges climbed 300 percent between 1990 and 2011, fueling the college loan crisis that has left graduates, most of them underemployed or unemployed, with more than $1 trillion in debt. Health care costs over the same period have risen 150 percent. Food prices have climbed 10 percent since June, according to the World Bank. There are now 46.7 million U.S. citizens, and one in three children, who depend on food stamps. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency under Obama has, meanwhile, expelled 1.5 million immigrants, a number that dwarfs deportations carried out by his Republican predecessor. And while we are being fleeced, the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve Bank has since 2008 doled out $16 trillion to national and global financial institutions and corporations.

Fiscal implosion is only a matter of time. And the corporate state is preparing. Obama’s assault on civil liberties has outpaced that of George W. Bush. The refusal to restore habeas corpus, the use of the Authorization to Use Military Force Act to justify the assassination of U.S. citizens, the passing of the FISA Amendments Act to monitor and eavesdrop on tens of millions of citizens without a warrant, the employment of the Espionage Act six times to threaten whistle-blowers inside the government with prison time, and the administration’s recent emergency appeal of U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest’s permanent injunction of Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act give you a hint of the shackles the Democrats, as well as the Republicans, intend to place on all those who contemplate dissent.

But perhaps the most egregious assault will be carried out by the fossil fuel industry. Obama, who presided over the repudiation of the Kyoto Accords and has done nothing to halt the emission of greenhouse gases, reversed 20 years of federal policy when he permitted the expansion of fracking and offshore drilling. And this acquiescence to big oil and big coal, no doubt useful in bringing in campaign funds, spells disaster for the planet. He has authorized drilling in federally protected lands, along the East Coast, Alaska and four miles off Florida’s Atlantic beaches. Candidate Obama in 2008 stood on the Florida coastline and vowed never to permit drilling there.

You get the point. Obama is not in charge. Romney would not be in charge. Politicians are the public face of corporate power. They are corporate employees. Their personal narratives, their promises, their rhetoric and their idiosyncrasies are meaningless. And that, perhaps, is why the cost of the two presidential campaigns is estimated to reach an obscene $2.5 billion. The corporate state does not produce a product that is different. It produces brands that are different. And brands cost a lot of money to sell.

You can dismiss those of us who will in protest vote for a third-party candidate and invest our time and energy in acts of civil disobedience. You can pride yourself on being practical. You can swallow the false argument of the lesser of two evils. But ask yourself, once this nightmare starts kicking in, who the real sucker is.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_do_you_take_your_poison_20120924/
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I am a bit mistified buy this artical. factualy correct but I dissagree with conclusions based on an idea the the government should be incharge.

Whether anyone read that out of the piece, that is what it suggests.

In fact, our govenment should not be in charge. That is the problem. And that is Obama's master plan.

Whether thru corporattism or actual takeover, the overnmentof the United sttes of America should not be in charge of industry.

It should regulate it.
It shold protect it.
It should defend it.

Read the Founders words.

Read the Constitution.
Read the preamble to it which clearly states the purpose of our governmet and thelimit of it's scope.

But mostly the source of it's power. Which until most recentlywasnot the corporations, big business or even the government itself.


People own the right to influence the govenment
People own the right to influence corporations

They should not be in fear of either but, for years we have allowed a creeping loss of control for the pupose of comfort. it is not as though warnings weren't made. Since the time of our founding.

"The natural order of things is for Liberty to yeild and govenment to gain ground"

T Jefferson.
 

CityGirl

Silver Member
SUPER Site Supporter
The author of the article, Chris Heges, has sued the Obama administration over the NDAA. In a debate with Dinesh D'Souza regarding D'Souza's film Obama 2016, Hedges said

" I don’t support Obama. You know, I wish somebody would make a documentary on what Obama’s done. I just sued the president in federal court over the National Defense Authorization Act, the assault on civil liberties under the Obama administration. This should not be a left-right divide. It has been far worse under Obama than it was under George W. Bush. And yet none of that is in the film. Obama’s refusal to restore habeas corpus. Obama’s supporting of the FISA Amendment Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our constitution—and I assume Dinesh is a constitutionalist — has traditionally been illegal. Warrantless wiretapping, monitoring, and eavesdropping of tens of millions of Americans. The use of the Espionage Act, six times, to shut down whistleblowers who have exposed, in some cases, war crimes committed by the U.S. government. And finally, the NDAA, Section 1021, which authorizes the U.S. military to carry out detentions, seizures, on American soil, strip American citizens of due process, and hold them in their offshore penal colonies."

These are the issues of real import and if you haven't paid attention, maybe now you will notice that NONE of these attrocities are being attacked by Republicans during this election season. Now ask yourself why is that? Because Republicans have no intention of changing it and that is why I'm a third party puke.

(If you are inclined, you can listen to the debate here http://www.utne.com/politics/hedges-dsouza-debate.aspx or read it here http://www.alternet.org/chris-hedges-tells-dinesh-dsouza-his-obama-film-void-facts-reality-intellectual-depth?page=0%2C0)
 

Danang Sailor

nullius in verba
GOLD Site Supporter
... These are the issues of real import and if you haven't paid attention, maybe now you will notice that NONE of these attrocities are being attacked by Republicans during this election season. Now ask yourself why is that? Because Republicans have no intention of changing it and that is why I'm a third party puke.

So, you're actually voting for Obama. Got it.

 

CityGirl

Silver Member
SUPER Site Supporter
As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
 

Danang Sailor

nullius in verba
GOLD Site Supporter
As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

I would not presume to quarrel with Adams; nonetheless, things are not the same as in his time. Your vote for a third
party candidate in this year would not be a lost vote, simply one that would have the same effect as a direct vote for Obama.
This is not the way I would have things, but it is the way they are and wishing it otherwise will not make it so.

 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I would think not allowing BH Obama at our nation's soul for another four years would be principle enough.

Besides, Gary Johnson was a so so candidate for Governor, much less President. An absolute middle of the road RINO.
 

Kane

New member
I would think not allowing BH Obama at our nation's soul for another four years would be principle enough.

Well put, Franc. Mind if I repeat it?


[We] would think that not allowing Barack Hussien at our nation's soul for another four years would be principle enough.

Vote early. Vote often.

.
 

waybomb

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
WTF is this article saying? That corporations control obama and romney, and want to take over? Take over what? What corporation wants to do this? I thought corporations were not like individuals? Now the same people say corporations have free will? WTF??????? And who owns these corporations that have a vested interest to make money, for the shareholders (that would be anybody with any sort of savings).

Prices are going up because there is no regulation???????????? Jeezzzuuuuz christ what a bunch of crap. Regulation has blown out of proportion the last few years.

And the crap about greenhouse gases is a load of crap too. Been disproven so many times. All created by algore to enrich himself with a huge carbon credit scam. What a bunch of liberal drivel, intent on swinging undecidedes to vote for Obama via a third party candidate/
 

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Maybe dumb here...

One small problem with a Corperation is that, it is an entity, much like it is an individule. But yet vastly different. It cann't be sentenced to jail for instance. It's management maybe can. But the Corperation is in this case incapable of carring out a prison sentence, as obviously it is not a person per say...

You can punish a Corp with fines ect.. But in my mind there is a fundimental advantage for a Corp if illegal activites, or tax fraud for instance are committed. A Corp still stands regardless if all the management is jailed. This I suppose is to protect the innocent stock holder of a publicly held Corp. There in lies a very important advantage if Corperations are not fallowing the law...Am I wrong about this?? Corps also have indefinate life spans, and some are over 100 years old..unlike a privately held business that probably at some point will be sold off...and taxed on the sale...

Barry light? It sounds like this is what they are saying in the artical. That either or, come election day, the course has already been set by the Banksters and the big Corperatons for what the writer thinks is to come.

I think the writer maybe wrong...But intersting reading, from that perspective.

As much as I would like to vote for RP, I know is isn't to be. I have to vote for the only alternative to what we have that can win. I don't think we can afford four more years of incompetence and failer to deliver promises...

Regards, Kirk
 
Last edited:

waybomb

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
How can you saycorporations do not follow thelaw. Are corps any worse in this endeavor than citizens? Who hasmore rules and regulations, often not laws, but regulations.

You should know Kirk, it is relatively simple being a citizen. It is almost impossible being a corporation. We've had at least one member here exit the business world recently. At least another says within a year. I am guessing part of it is an increasing sense that compliance is impossible. When they don't comply, they become evil in the eyes of non business people.
I believe you are corporate, are you not?
 

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Yes I am,

But far from a multinational, well armed with tax lawyers that are those being discussed in the artical. I am not saying all corperations are decetefull. But I am saying those that break the law aren't punished the same as you or I could be as individules. And they last indefinately, again someting you or I cann't do. Yet they have many of the same privilages of an individule. Our family formed one years ago to assist in the passing of the value of the farm land from one generation to the next. It reduced the value of my parent estate, as 49% of the stock was given to the heirs. It has also had the advantage of a lower tax rate than we as individules had...As you are aware there are different types of Corps, depending upon what the owners intentions are. We are a C corp. Many more S corps in AG than C nowdays. S corps pass profit to individules for tax as ordinary income. C Corps pay directly to the Treasurey, and the individules are tax on their saleries from the Corp..

We don't have expence accounts or an account for entertaining clients and such. No golf games, private dinners, or frivolous "parties" and "deducted as expences, before taxes". No matching stock options for the CEO or the Board of directors. No international travel or domestic for that matter. No sky box at the super bowl to write off either...I deduct nothing for any of these types of things. Yet we have GE paying none. I am stock holder and understand why. (I am not sure I agree with their tactics as this moeny is off shore). We're a mear shell here, doing something simple, for the long term goal of sussecion to the next generation.

So I guess I don't think they are paying their fair share deducting all that they seem to do. They are living large at the tax payer expence, writing all this oof as a "business expence"...At our expence. So, yes I have a small axe to grind here. They need to take away LOTS of deductions...

Regards, Kirk
 
Last edited:

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Yes I am,

But far from a multinational, well armed with tax lawyers that are those being discussed in the artical. I am not saying all corperations are decetefull. But I am saying those that break the law aren't punished the same as you or I could be as individules. And they last indefinately, again someting you or I cann't do. Yet they have many of the same privilages of an individule. Our family formed one years ago to assist in the passing of the value of the farm land from one generation to the next. It reduced the value of my parent estate, as 49% of the stock was given to the heirs. It has also had the advantage of a lower tax rate than we as individules had...As you are aware there are different types of Corps, depending upon what the owners intentions are. We are a C corp. Many more S corps in AG than C nowdays. S corps pass profit to individules for tax as ordinary income. C Corps pay directly to the Treasurey, and the individules are tax on their saleries from the Corp..

We don't have expence accounts or an account for entertaining clients and such. No golf games, private dinners, or frivolous "parties" and "deducted as expences, before taxes". No matching stock options for the CEO or the Board of directors. No international travel or domestic for that matter. No sky box at the super bowl to write off either...I deduct nothing for any of these types of things. Yet we have GE paying none. I am stock holder and understand why. (I am not sure I agree with their tactics as this moeny is off shore). We're a mear shell here, doing something simple, for the long term goal of sussecion to the next generation.

So I guess I don't think they are paying their fair share deducting all that they seem to do. They are living large at the tax payer expence, writing all this oof as a "business expence"...At our expence. So, yes I have a small axe to grind here. They need to take away LOTS of deductions...

Regards, Kirk

When did following tax laws become the equivalent of deceit.

In truth most tax laws are one of two things. An attempt to generate revenue from an activity that will consistantly provide it as part of use of the nation's resources
Or
As part of an incintive to promote or discourge an activity in the same nation.

For instance, Income taxes are derived fromthe production of goods and services which require the Government to "promote the general welfare" and create conditions where such economic activity can occur.

Incentive taxes are things such as tax credite for expansion of a business, purchase of equipment, perhaps the hiring of specifc groups denoted as disenfranchised.
Disincentives are placed on items to discourge their use. Luxury taxes on large recreationsl items,boats planes, jewelry.

Tax lawyers advise their clients on what practices will generate the most profit from their activities based on what is the Leagl tax code. And also what not to do to become a subject of an IRS look over.


Tax loophole and deduction are very hard to seperate one from the other. It takes a keen legal mind to do it well. But, agood rule of thumb in the political world is very simple.

A tax exemption is what a person does to reduce his tax burden it is a legitimate deduction. When someone else does it, particularly if they are rich, and especialy if they are a conservative, it is a loophole.

If a Corporation does it they are greedy SOB's concerned only with taking money from the poor.:w00t2:
 

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
I see your point here franc, and wonder some times about what I do think. I also realize those deductions that have me conserned are also economic activity for those on the recieving end of a purchase of a good or service. I secretly wish in my line of business that it was an accepted practice to golf at the club, and dine, and pay for it all with the company check book. Those things are not what farmers like me are doing here, unless yet again I am unaware.....

Marketing and adertising are not common expences here either. Not sure my tax guy would sign off on many expences such as those common, or so I think in the Corperate world. I am not sure he would know what is allowable and how to exicute it properly on my return. Yet I think Multinationals expence more in entertainment and travel than most individules make in a year or more.....daily....

The tax code is an abomination and eveyone knows it, yet it still stands. Why is that? Cause someone wants the way it is.....from both parties.

Regards, Kirk
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I see your point here franc, and wonder some times about what I do think. I also realize those deductions that have me conserned are also economic activity for those on the recieving end of a purchase of a good or service. I secretly wish in my line of business that it was an accepted practice to golf at the club, and dine, and pay for it all with the company check book. Those things are not what farmers like me are doing here, unless yet again I am unaware.....

Marketing and adertising are not common expences here either. Not sure my tax guy would sign off on many expences such as those common, or so I think in the Corperate world. I am not sure he would know what is allowable and how to exicute it properly on my return. Yet I think Multinationals expence more in entertainment and travel than most individules make in a year or more.....daily....

The tax code is an abomination and eveyone knows it, yet it still stands. Why is that? Cause someone wants the way it is.....from both parties.

Regards, Kirk
I would guarrenttee that as a farmer there are many opportunities for you to "game" the system.

Not long ago you could by a brand new toy truck and have it all expensed off on your taxes. Called the HUMMER, is was one of the greatest giveaways in recent times. And anyone with a farm, construction firm or who traveled a lot could literaly get their Hummer paid for throught tax deductions. While I can take a gold game expense off the books, I could not justify a HUMMMER.
BTW;
Were it not for this program, the Hummer wouldhave died it's first year.
Then there is this;
Golfers could get a free electric cart if they played it right.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_...but-call-it-a-low-speed-neighborhood-vehicle/

So could farmers. Ride tio the south forty or the rural mailbox at the end of the drive.

These are not good things but the tax code was amended to include them for what was originaly considered to be good ideas. Leaving it up to the individual to see a program as a bad thing and have the priciples to reject it is an unfair expectation.

Corporations are in the business of making money, making a profit. That is their stated purpose. In point of fact, if one does not, the IRS will disenfranchise your charter.

We have been scolded by the IRS for not taking advantage of tax exemptions for hiring the handicapped and paroles. Thereby allowing us a profitable (and therefore taxable) year.

I reject the premise that we must. But then I am an odd, old bird.

We need to reject the entire Taxc code. It is not only too complicated, it is rife with this kind of potential for abuse. Of tghe two tax purposes, we need to get rid of tax incentivisation. It is our money the government is giving away. Not just to Corporations but to people smart enough to game it.
 

waybomb

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
Kirk, you are disappointing me with rhtoric. You are repeating what you've been told and did not research. A cursory look at the condensed GE income statement shows <INCOME TAXES> for last year at $5,732,000,000. That's a hundred million PER WEEK. One company. And this does not include fica taxes paid, UC taxes paid, a myriad of other taxes such as energy and general services taxes, Sales taxes on non income producing items, the never ending "fees" for every type of permit imaginable, and on and on. All told, GE's customers hand cash over to GE that hands over cash as taxes and fees to the tune of probably TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PER WEEK. WEEK is the operative word.
One company.
And this administration is outspending that!

Stop picking on corporations for acting as revenuers, and start thinking about vastly reducing the out of control spending this administration had been doing.

And don't tell me you don't get deductions and attempt to use the tax code to legally avoid taxes; I know better. You would be a very naive individual in your own matters and in the matters of the business of you did not explore every opportunity to preserve cash for your family.
 

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Yes the problen is truely run away spending, we can all agree with that. But these little items of business expences are still hanging out for all to see. You can spend $3K on a business meating at home or 10K and do it in Las Vegas and write off the $10K as an expence. This isn't right.

As for GE they took the loss on their home motgage unit and spread it out over three yeras. I read that this year they still are writing down their losses, and payed no direct income tax this year. Yes they paid other taxes as well. But don't you think that a mulitinational with 75 tax lawyers scouring the globe for tax breaks is a bit more than I as an individule can do? I have their annual report, some time I will sit down and read more of it....I admit the story of GE and taxes this year came from an NPR artical...

Bottom line is 2 trillion in offshore corp profits that aren't going to come home unless something changes. I would like to see that money here instead. Maybe a tax holiday? These US corps are trotting the globe making money for other people as well as the stock holders. They seem to have no alegence to the country they were founded in. Is that really the right way to be? If they consider themselves "bigger" thatn any Government, and able to out wit any country on the globe to their advantage. Yes it is all "legal", I suppose. I feel it cost them dearly in political capital to have the law crafted such that what they do is legal.

Gotta go harvest, and contemplate....

Regards, Kirk
 

waybomb

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
So you've never claimed a loss, and if large enough, carried it over? Never taken a "subsidy"? Farmers get all sorts of breaks, plus you take corporate breaks, and you've shielded assets from taxes as well. Just like a giant company.What's legal for you is legal for them. Look in the mirror man. Well, after you take a shower and get all the grime of from all the work you do (my belly appreciates it).

How are you different than GE, other than size?

So if GE is supposed to pay for US taxes for all business in the world, and only to the US, then all the foreign companies and concerns here should do the same? Or should GE pay all the taxes, say from an operating unit in say England, pay all those taxes, pay taxes to all the countries they ship their English unit's items to, and then also pay taxes on all of it here?

CHRIST - $100,000,000 per week in taxes, and only one company? Per week. One company. And it is a giant, but one of among many.
 

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Waybomb,

I have carried over a loss and am still carring a small one...And I have taken a subsidy...So you have me there...

Large Corps scare me in some ways. I rememer my history classes that were about why people were leaving Europe to come here. Religion was one reason but Corperations in England were in the mix as well.. When so many large ones exist. It becomes hard for money out side of their walls to be enough for the common man to have enough to live on. Their sheer scale as you pointed out about GE and so many of them that are huge. Only so much money in the economy ( until Brenanke came along ) and when a high percentage is in Corperate control, this leaves less for the general economy to operate with. I just know you will disagree with this simple logic...

Oh here is a history lesson I "stumbled" upon...It is a history of our country from where we started, to what we have with regards to Coprs. Interesting reading.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/

That word accountabilty...it is a sticky one when it comes to a Corperation isn't it? I know of some less than savory folks around these parts who use Corps and dummy companies to sheild their assets from law suits. They are going to get sued, and they know it, someday as they operate on the edge of the law, and cross it regularly. They are in short "crooks" who use the Corperate laws to evade being caught, and having to pay for their misdeeds by shieilding their assets. Two people immediately come to mind...So it's not all roses out there...

Regards, Kirk
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Yes the problen is truely run away spending, we can all agree with that. But these little items of business expences are still hanging out for all to see. You can spend $3K on a business meating at home or 10K and do it in Las Vegas and write off the $10K as an expence. This isn't right.

Regards, Kirk


I take exception to your premise Kirk.

Why isn't that right?

What about the expense of a Company Chritmas party.

Or a weekend of employee bonding having fun at a seminar?

Running a business isn't a mechanical thing. It is a lifestyle.

Only Scrooge squeezes the lost drop from the fruit and puts it all away in the bank. Employees need encouragment and rewards. And that includes the owner(s)
 

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Good and fair question, but why should they be able to expence the Vegas gig and write off the extra $7K in pre tax expences so they pay less tax and get a free vacation, food and booze for the weekend to boot. What's wrong with that??

Is it soo hard to see?

Regards, Kirk
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Good and fair question, but why should they be able to expence the Vegas gig and write off the extra $7K in pre tax expences so they pay less tax and get a free vacation, food and booze for the weekend to boot. What's wrong with that??

Is it soo hard to see?

Regards, Kirk

Because
1) the tax law allows for any business expense to be written off as a cost of doing business.
2) because as the owner or director of a business they get to choose what constitutes a legitimate expense for the profitable purpose of the entity. That may include a stress reliever at the casino. If they can connect it to operating the business. canthey really? Seldom.
3) this is America which until recently allowed for free enterprise. Which means if money is wasted on a trip to Vegas, and they lose profit, or even viability, it is on the balance sheet as a loss. Ya See, here people are allowed to be stupid and fail.
4) However, if they are successful, why can they not spend the wealth they created in the way they feel is appropriate, not how you feel they should spend it.

The IRS has guidelines on what is and is not exceptable. It is not a free willy nilly. For instance, I cannot have my company buy my groceries just because I feel it to be necesary for me to eat so I can operate the business.
I cannot by a piece of equipment that does not pertain to the business operations. An expresso machine for my home,,,,no. But I can give one as a performance incentive to an employee. (Though, he might have to pay income tax on it's value.)

You likely have trouble with corporate jets and the free(sorta) travel big shot business exects get. Yet no company likely has a corporate jet that it cannot justify. And if it is used for pure personal use,the IRS frownsuponthepractice. don't get caught.

You are beginning to sound like a social justice kinda guy. This despite making money on the agri business. Are you saying there isn't one piece of equipment you own that isn't a little bit of a toy. Like say a Snow Cat or a Four Runner. Did you build a pond for cattle and stock? You can take that capital expense off your P&L. Do you also use it to fish?

Yes that is a matter of scale as compared to a Corporate jet. But, it is exactly the same thing.

All I am saying is be careful where you point your finger at excesses on tax deductions. You may be incriminating some of your own practices.
 

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
-

No not really franc my tax guy is very conservative on what is allowed. (Nope not the Snow Trac, or snow mobiles either) This is also not a good time for a farmer to get audited....

Ok I'll give you your arguments. But what other unfair advantages do large Corps have? Lets take health care for instance. They have large numbers of people. I don't. They pay a small fraction per person as I do as an individule. At my home it is now $2K/Mo.. They are paying what for their employes? Lots less, much much less.... Tell me how right this is. The insurance companies cost share my primiums to large policy holder, ie. Corps. Large numbers is where there is competition. They get the Holy grail of premiums and individules like myself get the bill. At my level one agent one policy holder there is little competition, or reason to keep my costs in line with those large companies.

Corps have distinct advantages, and yet you do not acknowlege them. Even those I point out. If they didn't we wouldn't bother to have them. They were created to create an advantage when you look at their history. This is why our fore fathers were leary of them in the first 100 years of our history. Some times they can get to big for the good of the country.

Regards, Kirk
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
-

No not really franc my tax guy is very conservative on what is allowed. (Nope not the Snow Trac, or snow mobiles either) This is also not a good time for a farmer to get audited....

Ok I'll give you your arguments. But what other unfair advantages do large Corps have? Lets take health care for instance. They have large numbers of people. I don't. They pay a small fraction per person as I do as an individule. At my home it is now $2K/Mo.. They are paying what for their employes? Lots less, much much less.... Tell me how right this is. The insurance companies cost share my primiums to large policy holder, ie. Corps. Large numbers is where there is competition. They get the Holy grail of premiums and individules like myself get the bill. At my level one agent one policy holder there is little competition, or reason to keep my costs in line with those large companies.

Corps have distinct advantages, and yet you do not acknowlege them. Even those I point out. If they didn't we wouldn't bother to have them. They were created to create an advantage when you look at their history. This is why our fore fathers were leary of them in the first 100 years of our history. Some times they can get to big for the good of the country.

Regards, Kirk

So what do you propose? that we discourage corporations.

Every small business suffers the same disadvantage you describe. With regard to health care, the big Corporatis love Obamacare, As does the insurance industry. Why? Because once again it makes it harder for the startup guys. I amup against the big guys every day. I do acknowledge their advantages. Just not the ones you exampled.

Instead of fixing the problem by allowing trade groups to buy insurance better, our legislatures actually make it harder for individuals and small companies to buy insurance well. On this you and I agree. On corporate travel expenses, not so much.


But all of it relates back to the TAX Code. If it were not for the progressive and complicated tax code, if it were not for the incentives involved in the application of taxes, if all people and all corporations paid on a simple, undefeatable, non exemptive, and very level tax rate structure, you and I would not care what Donald trump spent on his Jet plane or the Casino bill in Vegas.

Recent polls report that 79% of Americans feel that every American should pay taxes. I believe even if just a little amount, no one should be exempted, for any thing.

But then Congress would have little power over our daily lives, and likely less money to waste getting our attention, pleasing campaign donors, and whoring for our votes.
 
Top