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

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?

"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

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.

"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

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

nom=de=plume wrote:
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.


Not legally.
Nothing wrong with growing a business from profit. Something is wrong though
when that runs counter to what's best for the country.


Those are capital expenditures and are depreciated over time.
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.

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
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.


Not legally.

Sorry, but you'll need to be a bit more convincing before I accept your
legal advise.

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


Those are capital expenditures and are depreciated over time.

?? What??? What do capital expenditures and depreciation have to do with
being a responsible corporate citizen?

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

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

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.


Not legally.

Sorry, but you'll need to be a bit more convincing before I accept your
legal advise.


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



Those are capital expenditures and are depreciated over time.

?? What??? What do capital expenditures and depreciation have to do with
being a responsible corporate citizen?


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.







How else do you grow your business? Growth almost always requires new
capital expenditures. New employee? New desk and computer. Get it?

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