Why is it that when people complain about their tax dollars being eaten up by waste, fraud, and moochers, when it is intended to help the needy, do people like john stewart and jt (who has no idea how the business world works) run in and try to make it about corporations? When tax payers complain about moochers and people who work the system to their advantage, why do people like john stewart try to make it look like they are attacking the really needy people, the ones people want to help? When there are needy people in the country, why are we supposed to take on people from other countries and give them what our own people need? Why doesn't john stewart get upset when the government gives a "professor" three million dollars to study african grandmothers? A professor btw, that teaches at the college where michelle obama's brother coaches.

Why are churches allowed to rake in money, pay no taxes on it, and keep it to buy up more land and build bigger churches, while tossing out very few crumbs to the needy? 

Because people like to attack any flaw they can find in government, and say they want to operate government as businesses operate. There is no indication that business is any more efficient; it's just that government operations are mostly open for the public to view and analyze. For business, we are able to look that closely only when there is a major problem that affects thousands of people -- such as UPS's failure to deliver packages on time and the hacking of Target's system. If the postal service had performed as poorly as UPS, those who are eager to attack government for any flaw would have been saying we should get rid of the postal serivce and use UPS and FedEx.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Why is it if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman.  But, if you take advantage of something so as to not go hungry, you're a moocher.

Any comments

 


Apples to oranges comparison.  A business that takes advantage of a tax break is not breaking a law.  A person who takes advantage of the welfare system and illegally obtains assistance, they are breaking the law and they are in fact mooching off the tax payer.

 

Regardless of what percentage it is to their income/wealth, corporations and the rich pay most of the taxes that are used to run this country.  Corporations provide jobs and prosperity, what are the contributions to society from the truly lazy.....complaints on forum threads about evil corporations from their government supplied internet service (paid for by the taxpayer)? 

 

To Best, I may have a better grasp of how the corporate would works than you realize.  As far as working the system, who is working it better;  a corporate farm which gets thousands or millions from the government, or a corporation like GE, which paid no tax on billions of dollars of income and got hundreds of millions back in tax refunds or the needy person who got $150 per month of food stamps?

Those numbers are pretty accurate except for the $150 for food stamps.  In Tennessee, a single person who is retired and has an income of $1050 per month from social security draws $16 per month for food stamps.  They are really soaking it ain't they?

Mr Hooberbloob,  the rich may pay most of the income tax in this country, but I'm tired of people like Bill Gates having income of 400 million dollars and paying 15% and I pay 20%.  Please explain to me why he and others like him pay a smaller percentage than me.  Is it because they can buy the tax laws they want?

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Why is it if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman.  But, if you take advantage of something so as to not go hungry, you're a moocher.

Any comments

____________________________________________________________________

Some corporate tax breaks, such as accelerated depreciation, are to encourage businesses to invest in capital equipment. Such equipment is expensive and purchasing it creates jobs. 

 

Ask Jon Stewart why his company takes advantage of local tax incentives to keep the Daily Show in NYC.  Bit of a moocher, much, isn't he!

 

Originally Posted by Lionsfan:

Because people like to attack any flaw they can find in government, and say they want to operate government as businesses operate. There is no indication that business is any more efficient; it's just that government operations are mostly open for the public to view and analyze. For business, we are able to look that closely only when there is a major problem that affects thousands of people -- such as UPS's failure to deliver packages on time and the hacking of Target's system. If the postal service had performed as poorly as UPS, those who are eager to attack government for any flaw would have been saying we should get rid of the postal serivce and use UPS and FedEx.

______________________________________________
Nonsense, if business perform poorly, consistently, they go out of business.  Government possess printing presses and unlimited taxing authority.  So far, the website for Obamacare has spent about $667 million on the website ($one billion was appropriated).  Kayak.com performs nearly the same actions and cost about $10 million at most. 

 

Business provide revenue to government to keep it in business.  .

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

To Best, I may have a better grasp of how the corporate would works than you realize.  As far as working the system, who is working it better;  a corporate farm which gets thousands or millions from the government, or a corporation like GE, which paid no tax on billions of dollars of income and got hundreds of millions back in tax refunds or the needy person who got $150 per month of food stamps?

Those numbers are pretty accurate except for the $150 for food stamps.  In Tennessee, a single person who is retired and has an income of $1050 per month from social security draws $16 per month for food stamps.  They are really soaking it ain't they?

=============

Who says that single retired person even needs food stamps? I know retired people that have enough money to burn a wet mule, and they still draw their SS check. They sure as heck don't need even $16 per month worth of food stamps. Your post just shows once again, you have NO idea how business works. Man, I don't think you have a clue about anything at all.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Mr Hooberbloob,  the rich may pay most of the income tax in this country, but I'm tired of people like Bill Gates having income of 400 million dollars and paying 15% and I pay 20%.  Please explain to me why he and others like him pay a smaller percentage than me.  Is it because they can buy the tax laws they want?

______________________________________________________

Gates pays the capital gains rate from sell of stocks, which is a lesser rate.  Such investments provides business with funds to grow and hire more people.  Plus, the Gates foundation proves million in charitable contributions. 

 

You may not like him paying a lesser rate, but he contributes more to society in jobs, resultant taxes, and charity work.  All in all, a plus.

To Best, if I ever need to learn anything, would you introduce me to all those retired people, that you know, who only draw $1050 per month and have enough money to "burn a wet mule".  They can teach me how to have a clue.

To Dire,  Bill Gates is donating Billions to charity.  Warren Buffet is also doing this.  Keep in mind, they are keeping a few billion to sort of tide them over.  Seriously, they are doing way more global good than I could ever hope to do.  One question, when he takes money to third world countries, is that taking money away from america?  I still believe that if investment gains is what you use for living expenses, it should have the same tax percentage as wages,  

Well gee whiz sport, aren't you retired? Don't you get SS? Do you need food stamps? Ask the retired people on this forum. When did retired mean broke and only getting SS? IF they only qualify for $16.00 in food stamps that sure tells me they have assets somewhere. When we retire and start drawing SS we shouldn't need food stamps. but then again, who knows what it's going to be like if we can't get out of the democrats death grip. With every post you make it becomes more and more clear you don't have a clue.

I have news for you. I had health problems at 50 years old. Ihad been self-employed for 18 years before. I was entitled to $12.00 per month in SSI benefits before SS started. It took 6 months before I drew the first payment. A little to ADD TO THIS! I don't qualify for any other things because I make $28.00 a month above the poverty level. If you retire with a good pension or have BIG savings account, you are fine but if you are like me and had neither, you don't live very high on the hog..

Retired means someone worked until they retired, and became eligible for SS. Again, retired does not automatically mean broke as jt would have people believe. Yes jt, there are many many retired people who have money. They worked for it, invested to get it, saved to get it, have pensions/retirement plans from businesses to get part of it, inherited some of it. 

 

Pooh, We don't live high on the hog now. We know we will need an income when we're older and unable to work or decide to retire. We give up a lot so we can afford insurance in case one or even both of us, have an illness or health problem.  We give up a lot so we can educate our kids so they can earn a living, and again, with the country in the democrats death grip that is iffy too. I can't speak to your circumstance because I have no way of knowing anything about you, but at age 50 I would think you would be have been in a better position than someone younger and just starting out. HOWEVER, if you weren't, and you need help, you should have it. And that takes me back to my first post on the subject.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Why is it that when people complain about their tax dollars being eaten up by waste, fraud, and moochers, when it is intended to help the needy, do people like john stewart and jt (who has no idea how the business world works) run in and try to make it about corporations? When tax payers complain about moochers and people who work the system to their advantage, why do people like john stewart try to make it look like they are attacking the really needy people, the ones people want to help? When there are needy people in the country, why are we supposed to take on people from other countries and give them what our own people need? Why doesn't john stewart get upset when the government gives a "professor" three million dollars to study african grandmothers? A professor btw, that teaches at the college where michelle obama's brother coaches.

Why are churches allowed to rake in money, pay no taxes on it, and keep it to buy up more land and build bigger churches, while tossing out very few crumbs to the needy? 

To Best, why didn't you comment on corporate farm welfare and GE making billions and receiving hundreds of millions in refunds?  Go ahead and defend them, you always defend the millionaires.  By the way, I don't blame them for taking the money, I blame the ones who made the laws which allow this to happen.

Another thing, income inequality is going to have to be looked at and something done to help those at the bottom.  I don't mean a government program either.

When I was in school and in civics class, it was a different century, but I seem to remember "sometimes you need to do something for the good of the community".  The business community (not the government) needs to level the playing field.

Where do I "defend" them? It's your lack of understanding how the business world works that makes you think people are defending them. I wonder why it bugs you so bad that people who actually create jobs, and try to keep businesses in business, get the big bucks, while people who basically do nothing to get the big bucks don't bother you.  You didn't have a problem giving the unions that "protection money" did you? How about how the union leaders live and the money they make?  Did you complain about being overpaid for what you did? You have said you wouldn't have taken a pay cut so someone else could have had a job too. As I said, there are plenty of people who wouldn't feel like your paycheck was justified.

To Best.  In answer to your last post.

Yes you defend CEOs, in every case you have defended their compensation.  Even the ones who bankrupted the companies and received tens of millions in compensation.

And these job creaters, where are the jobs they create?  If the state will give enough tax breaks to them, they will locate a factory somewhere.  When the tax break is gone, the jobs are gone.

About CEOs, I have posted many times that a good CEO is worth a lot of money.  If he is paying his labor ten dollars per hour, I don't think he deserves fifty million.  I definitly don't think a CEO should be given a golden parachute separation when the company went bankrupt (yes this has happened)

What about unions "protection" money. I was represented by a union for 39 years and never heard about protection money.  Would you please tell me about it.  Also, the union leaders.  Where do they live, their salary?  A construction trades business agent makes about $60,000 per year, a state level union rep makes about $100,000 per year.The state rep is representing several thousand workers.  What would your average CEO, that represented thousands of workers make? How many million? You have posted that I don't have a clue about business, you have posted that I am stupid about business,  what about your knowledge of unions?

You posted that I said I would not take a pay cut to allow another person to be hired.  I have never said that.  That statement is an untruth.  

 I was represented by a union for 39 years and never heard about protection money.  Would you please tell me about it.  Also, the union leaders.  Where do they live, their salary? 

 

------------------------

You paid that union "protection money". What made YOU worth $30.00 an hour? As for the rest of it, if you don't know where they live and what they earn, I'm not surprised, because as I've posted before, you don't have a clue.

If you would read the last post, it will tell what local and state union leaders earn.  I am not sure where they live or how big of a house they live in.  If you wish, I will find out and get back with you on that.  You can be assured that it is nowhere near what the average CEO of a national corporation makes.  The reason I made $30.00 per hour is because I have a skill. Do you have a skill that is in demand.  If not, why not go to school and learn a valuable skill.  Every time I went on a job to make a critical weld, my skill was retested.  This was to insure that the job was done properly.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

To Best.  In answer to your last post.

Yes you defend CEOs, in every case you have defended their compensation.  Even the ones who bankrupted the companies and received tens of millions in compensation.

And these job creaters, where are the jobs they create?  If the state will give enough tax breaks to them, they will locate a factory somewhere.  When the tax break is gone, the jobs are gone.

About CEOs, I have posted many times that a good CEO is worth a lot of money.  If he is paying his labor ten dollars per hour, I don't think he deserves fifty million.  I definitly don't think a CEO should be given a golden parachute separation when the company went bankrupt (yes this has happened)

What about unions "protection" money. I was represented by a union for 39 years and never heard about protection money.  Would you please tell me about it.  Also, the union leaders.  Where do they live, their salary?  A construction trades business agent makes about $60,000 per year, a state level union rep makes about $100,000 per year.The state rep is representing several thousand workers.  What would your average CEO, that represented thousands of workers make? How many million? You have posted that I don't have a clue about business, you have posted that I am stupid about business,  what about your knowledge of unions?

You posted that I said I would not take a pay cut to allow another person to be hired.  I have never said that.  That statement is an untruth.  

Do you have a problem with Matt Damon making $15m for a movie role when others on the movie set make $10 an hour? What about Lebron James making $25m a year and the concession stand worker making $10 an hour? By your rationale they should be paid less so others can make more.

I have never watched a Matt Damon movie.  Not because of his pay.  I don't watch Lebron  James either.  It's not because of their salary, it's because I just don't like it.  I don't mind anyone making a good living.  If they don't do a good job, why should they be paid millions?  If they do a good job, let the market place determine the pay, not Fox ora right wing blog.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I have never watched a Matt Damon movie.  Not because of his pay.  I don't watch Lebron  James either.  It's not because of their salary, it's because I just don't like it.  I don't mind anyone making a good living.  If they don't do a good job, why should they be paid millions?  If they do a good job, let the market place determine the pay, not Fox ora right wing blog.

Whether you watch Matt Damon or Lebron is irrelevant to the discussion. You just said that a CEO should not get paid a lot if their employees are paid $10 an hour. My question to you is does this random rule of your's apply to people in other fields or just to the business world? 

 

Also, how does Fox or a right wing blog determine pay?

 

 

Also, how does Fox or a right wing blog determine pay?

 

-----------------------------

I'd like to know that too. BTW jt, it may be impossible to know exactly what the union leaders make, since they don't have to disclose the full amount anymore. You know as well as anybody they wouldn't be "union leaders" if the money wasn't there.

---------------------------

From 2010

The Department of Labor has made no effort towards making labor unions more transparent. In fact, it has made them less transparent while holding up transparency laws for private businesses and corporations that choose not to unionize.

Just last week the Department of Labor made another move confirming its labor union favoritism. The department rescinded the T-1 form requiring labor unions to disclose information about their trusts to their members and the general public.

A summary of the Department’s action stated, “the trust reporting required under the rule is overly broad and is not necessary to prevent the circumvention and evasion of the Title II reporting requirements.”

This gives labor unions another way to hide behind their collected member’s money.

“Union employees don’t want their members to know how much they’re making even though the members are the ones paying their salary,” says Don Todd, former Department of Labor official and current research director at Americans for Limited Government (ALG).

While Todd served at the Department of Labor under Secretary Elaine Chao during the Bush Administration, the LM-2 form, which disclose the salaries of union officers and employees, underwent some changes to make them more transparent.

“As it was, union officers had to list their gross incomes, but didn’t have to list any other benefits,” Todd says. “The benefits were listed on the very bottom of a form, but nowhere connected to the union employee’s name.”

The new LM-2 form created under the Bush Administration changed all that and forced employees of labor unions to list all benefits and salaries next to their name. Benefits include such items as disbursements for life insurance, health insurance and pensions. “We ran into one union guy whose benefits contributed more to his salary than his actual gross income amount, but since he only had to list his gross income, union members would have no idea of how much he was making,” Todd says.

The new LM-2 disclosure form was approved and scheduled to go into effect the next fiscal year, which would have been 2009. Obama then took office and delayed the start date of the form and later rescinded it altogether.

This is no hidden pattern by the Obama Administration. It clearly favors unions — not union members — but the employees and officers. Currently the Administration is revisiting conflict of interest reports. “One more step to rolling back transparency forms,” says Nathan Mehrens, former special assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Labor-Management Programs and current ALG counsel.

As labor union dues become more mysterious leaving union members and the America people wondering where the money is going, the true irony of it all resides on the union AFL-CIO’s Web page.

Executive PayWatch, found on the AFL-CIO website, highlights various corporations and their top executive’s salaries. A visitor to the site can search by state, company name, industry, or even see a list of the top 100 highest-paid CEOs. The irony is, while private industries have to retain a high level of transparency, which the AFL-CIO is quick to point out, the union itself gets to hide its top earners and benefits packages from everyone—even those paying their salaries.

Because labor unions have the Obama Administration on their side, Mehrens says misrepresentation of salaries will continue to occur. He remembers seeing the paperwork from one “labor organization that reported on its Form LM-2 total disbursements of $461,971, $460,203, and $244,780 to certain individual officers. This disclosure did not take into account that these same officers and employees also received $181,297, $184,397, and $161,240 respectively as contributions to their employee benefit plans. These benefits payments were disclosed to the IRS but do not appear itemized by officers and employees on the Form LM-2.”

As far as leading by the rule of the law and transparency, it seems Obama spoke too quickly and Secretary Solis somehow knew to not take his comment seriously.

Maybe he should have been more specific and made known to the American people that the transparency laws didn’t apply to his friends.



Read more at NetRightDaily.com: http://netrightdaily.com/2010/...ion-2/#ixzz2pdXs2ICb

 

 

 

Katie Couric talk show cancelled. So, is she worth it? 

 

According to reports, “Katie” cost an eye-popping $50 million to produce when it launched in 2012, and while the budget fell to $35 million for season two, it still costs more to make than an average $20 million talk show.

In fact, Couric was paid $20 million herself as part of the show's current two-year deal.

Couric is now expected to draw an annual salary of as much as $6 million a year in her new role as "Global Anchor" for Yahoo, a source close to the deal told the Daily News.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ent...553298#ixzz2peFSkKVm

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×