On 07/04/2010 10:08 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote:

Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a
single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S.
income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's
second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53

Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do..
If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the
price of gas, with the profit tacked on.
I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and
this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing.

Employees do too, especially if the customers are unwilling to pay for
the increased prices of tax in.

Case in point, the market prices your widget at $100. More and they
don't sell. It breaks down as:

50% material costs.
20% calitalization costs.
10% taxes (all types)
14% labour and admin
02% transportation and misc.
04% profit.

Greedy government adds 2% to taxes and customers will not pay more it
becomes:

50% material costs.
20% calitalization costs.
12% taxes (all types)
12.5% labour and admin (10.1% wage decrease or layoffs)
02% transportation and misc.
03.5% profit.

Everyone loses but statism corrupt greedy government.

Same goes for services, tax your doctor or dentist more, their rates
will go up.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

On 07/04/2010 3:44 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:33:29 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote:

Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a
single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S.
income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's
second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53

Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do..
If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the
price of gas, with the profit tacked on.
I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and
this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing.

Flawed logic. Exxonmobil is simply a conduit for sales taxes paid by
you and me. Doesn't make a whit of difference to ExxonMobil, whose
profit was the largest in history last year, while paying no taxes.

You think that's fair? Not me.

I do the same for the city, state and government when selling retail
but that doesn't make my company a productive tax producer, just a
conduit.

Where I produce for the state is in state revenue taxes and federal
income taxes.

I guarantee you the tax burden is buried in the price. If you tax
Exxon, their price will go up by that amount..



So, we shouldn't tax them?? Because keeping that oil flowing is the primary
concern?

Not necessarily. But know raising taxes on the other guy comes around
to you in due course.

Say you rent and heat is included. Exxon gets taxed more. Sends bigger
bill to the owner. Owner jacks your rent so he does not loose money.

When it comes to taxes, in the end we all pay. Government likes to let
people think taxing one and not the other is good, but this is a ruse to
get away with more taxes. Even your lettuce or stawberries that uses
Exxon fuel to get it to you will cost more.

And when too much wealth is sucked out of the economy, the economy
contracts into a recession. As there is a magic point where too much
taxes is unsupportable by the economy. Like now. Revenues are
collapsing because people are not spending the money they don't have
that is going to debt and taxes.

Taxes are like a well. Keep sucking to much out of it too fast and it
will dry up.

In the end, we all pay for more taxes.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 07/04/2010 3:44 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:33:29 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote:

Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for
a
single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S.
income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's
second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53

Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do..
If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the
price of gas, with the profit tacked on.
I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and
this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing.

Flawed logic. Exxonmobil is simply a conduit for sales taxes paid by
you and me. Doesn't make a whit of difference to ExxonMobil, whose
profit was the largest in history last year, while paying no taxes.

You think that's fair? Not me.

I do the same for the city, state and government when selling retail
but that doesn't make my company a productive tax producer, just a
conduit.

Where I produce for the state is in state revenue taxes and federal
income taxes.

I guarantee you the tax burden is buried in the price. If you tax
Exxon, their price will go up by that amount..



So, we shouldn't tax them?? Because keeping that oil flowing is the
primary
concern?

Not necessarily. But know raising taxes on the other guy comes around to
you in due course.

Say you rent and heat is included. Exxon gets taxed more. Sends bigger
bill to the owner. Owner jacks your rent so he does not loose money.

When it comes to taxes, in the end we all pay. Government likes to let
people think taxing one and not the other is good, but this is a ruse to
get away with more taxes. Even your lettuce or stawberries that uses
Exxon fuel to get it to you will cost more.

And when too much wealth is sucked out of the economy, the economy
contracts into a recession. As there is a magic point where too much
taxes is unsupportable by the economy. Like now. Revenues are collapsing
because people are not spending the money they don't have that is going to
debt and taxes.

Taxes are like a well. Keep sucking to much out of it too fast and it
will dry up.

In the end, we all pay for more taxes.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.


I'm afraid to ask... and your solution is what? You don't like taxes, you
don't want any regulations, yet ExMo doesn't pay it's fair share in the US.
Perhaps we should rely on their charity?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:57:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Larry" wrote in message
om...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
news
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote:


Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for
a
single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S.
income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's
second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53

Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do..
If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the
price of gas, with the profit tacked on.
I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and
this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing.


There is a basic problem with how corporations are treated as
individuals.
They're not people.


That's an S-corp. Exxon Mobil is a publicly traded C-corp.


Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several
Supreme
Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being removed.

You are referring to speech rights, Larry is talking about tax status.
Two different things.


So far. With the current court, who knows. It's pretty hard to separate one
from the other, esp. if they're not paying their "fair" share.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 07/04/2010 10:08 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, wrote:

Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a
single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S.
income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's
second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53

Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do..
If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the
price of gas, with the profit tacked on.
I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and
this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing.

Employees do too, especially if the customers are unwilling to pay for the
increased prices of tax in.

Case in point, the market prices your widget at $100. More and they don't
sell. It breaks down as:

50% material costs.
20% calitalization costs.
10% taxes (all types)
14% labour and admin
02% transportation and misc.
04% profit.

Greedy government adds 2% to taxes and customers will not pay more it
becomes:

50% material costs.
20% calitalization costs.
12% taxes (all types)
12.5% labour and admin (10.1% wage decrease or layoffs)
02% transportation and misc.
03.5% profit.

Everyone loses but statism corrupt greedy government.

Same goes for services, tax your doctor or dentist more, their rates will
go up.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.


Right. No one is going to pay for gas, esp. to heat their homes. Sure. That
makes sense.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:08:04 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:31:41 -0700, jps wrote:

Every time you drive up to the pump, you pay more in federal tax for a
single gallon of gasoline (18.4 cents) than ExxonMobil paid in U.S.
income taxes in 2009. That's in spite of the fact that the world's
second largest company had a gross operating profit of nearly $53

Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do..
If they paid any additional taxes, it would simply show up in the
price of gas, with the profit tacked on.
I understand some people do want to increase taxes on gasoline and
this is a way to do it but understand that is what you would be doing.

Flawed logic. Exxonmobil is simply a conduit for sales taxes paid by
you and me. Doesn't make a whit of difference to ExxonMobil, whose
profit was the largest in history last year, while paying no taxes.

You think that's fair? Not me.

I do the same for the city, state and government when selling retail
but that doesn't make my company a productive tax producer, just a
conduit.

Where I produce for the state is in state revenue taxes and federal
income taxes.

Profitable corporations do not pay taxes. They pay a business expense. And
expenses are calculated in to the price the consumer pays.

nom=de=plume wrote:


I'm afraid to ask... and your solution is what? You don't like taxes, you
don't want any regulations, yet ExMo doesn't pay it's fair share in the US.
Perhaps we should rely on their charity?


Quit whining. You having trouble getting gas for your car/truck/boat?
No?
Thank ExxonMobil for that, and don't go killing the goose that lays the
golden eggs. I'm scrambling those eggs every day.

Jim - Some folks just don't know how good they got it.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:33:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Nope. ExxonMobil is treated as an individual, according the several
Supreme
Court rulings. Most recently, this involved lobbying limits being
removed.

You are referring to speech rights, Larry is talking about tax status.
Two different things.


So far. With the current court, who knows. It's pretty hard to separate
one
from the other, esp. if they're not paying their "fair" share.

Let's not get too confused. The corporate officers are taxed when they
take the profits as compensation and the stock holders are taxed when
they take the profits as dividends. If the profits stay in the
corporation and used to grow the business that is good for everyone,
including the government. You are talking about double taxation.

There are plenty of ways for the corporate officers (or anyone who is
sufficiently well-off) to avoid most of the taxes.

Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong though
when that runs counter to what's best for the country.

If you want to tax the corporations to get at the fat cats, tax the
"expenses" that are used for things the rest of us call the cost of
living. Better yet make the officers show that as income and tax them.

A fair tax for everyone is, well, fair. Another reason why a flat tax is
regressive (but that's another subject). Again though, we're talking about
the gov't stepping in, which is an anathema to some people.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 22:23:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong
though
when that runs counter to what's best for the country.

As long as that profit remains in the corporation and gets used to
build the business, the government should leave it alone, When it gets
pulled out, either as compensation, perks or dividends it should be
taxed.


When profit remains and is used to build the business, it's called a
business expense, which is deductible. Sounds like the incentive would be
not to pay anyone much of anything. I think CEO pay should be tied to
performance by an independent board. A lot of excessive CEO pay is due to
the stacking of the Board of Directors by the CEO.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:37:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

As long as that profit remains in the corporation and gets used to
build the business, the government should leave it alone, When it gets
pulled out, either as compensation, perks or dividends it should be
taxed.


When profit remains and is used to build the business, it's called a
business expense, which is deductible. Sounds like the incentive would be
not to pay anyone much of anything. I think CEO pay should be tied to
performance by an independent board. A lot of excessive CEO pay is due to
the stacking of the Board of Directors by the CEO.

It is not an expense until you spend it. If you bank the profit it
would be taxed and that money would not be available to build the
business. That encourages business to borrow money instead of saving
for expansion. Certainly the interest is deductible but it is still
paying more than you should for things because the banker gets a cut..


Umm... you said, "use it to build the business." And, I replied, "used to
build the business." How does one use it without spending it...
infrastructure, new equipment, etc.?

--
Nom=de=Plume