Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Larry" wrote in message
... 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. -- Nom=de=Plume |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... 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. Really? XOM is a sole proprietorship now? I missed that. |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Larry" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... 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. Really? XOM is a sole proprietorship now? I missed that. Corporations, as they relate to campaign financing. Both sides of the isle aren't sure about the implications. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=122805666 -- Nom=de=Plume |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... 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. Really? XOM is a sole proprietorship now? I missed that. Corporations, as they relate to campaign financing. Both sides of the isle aren't sure about the implications. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=122805666 Did you mean aisle? I'm here to help. When did this discussion deviate from taxes? Evidently you chose to put up this smoke screen. Read your own words before you write. You said XOM was not a corporation. Now you are trying to avoid your mistake and change the discussion to campaign financing? Nice try. |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:57:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... 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. Got a cite for any of this? What current court are you referring to and what does any court have to do with it. You do know there are three branches of government and how they work, right? |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Larry" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:57:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... 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. Got a cite for any of this? What current court are you referring to and what does any court have to do with it. You do know there are three branches of government and how they work, right? So, I guess you're unable to understand the concept of unintended consequences? I said, "who knows," because it's unclear of the implications. Of course, if you want to believe Alito's head shake and under-breath "not true" that's your business. You're going to rely on Congress to fix the problem??? Don't let the Tea Bag crowd hear you. -- Nom=de=Plume |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:57:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... 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. Got a cite for any of this? What current court are you referring to and what does any court have to do with it. You do know there are three branches of government and how they work, right? So, I guess you're unable to understand the concept of unintended consequences? I said, "who knows," because it's unclear of the implications. Of course, if you want to believe Alito's head shake and under-breath "not true" that's your business. You're going to rely on Congress to fix the problem??? Don't let the Tea Bag crowd hear you. Lousy spin. |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Larry" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 17:57:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... 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. Got a cite for any of this? What current court are you referring to and what does any court have to do with it. You do know there are three branches of government and how they work, right? So, I guess you're unable to understand the concept of unintended consequences? I said, "who knows," because it's unclear of the implications. Of course, if you want to believe Alito's head shake and under-breath "not true" that's your business. You're going to rely on Congress to fix the problem??? Don't let the Tea Bag crowd hear you. Lousy spin. Lousy logic on your part. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Exploiting low income workers | ASA | |||
anyone want voyaging on a small income by annie hill? | Boat Building |