I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

From Meteor Blades:

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
billion.

ExxonMobil did pay $15 billion in income taxes. That was 47% of its
pre-tax income. But not a dime of it went to the IRS, however.
Because, as Forbes points out:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned
subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands
that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of
Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in
income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has
tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely
outside the U.S.

The fact that many ultra-lucrative U.S.corporations pay no taxes to
federal government is hardly a new event. In April, 2004, the General
Accountability Office found in a study sought by Sen. Byron Dorgan
that "[m]ore than half of US corporations paid no federal income taxes
during the boom years of the late 1990s." And an August 2008 GAO
report sought by Dorgan and Sen. Carl Levin found that "[t]wo out of
every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes
from 1998 through 2005." While many corporations did not pay taxes
because they had net losses for those years, that wasn't the case for
some of the big guys. In 2005, for instance, 25% of large U.S.
corporations paid no taxes on revenue of $1.1 trillion.

Could one reason ExxonMobil paid $0 in taxes have to do with the
$27,430,000 it spent on lobbying Congress against job-killing,
confiscatory socialism? Nah.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

"jps" wrote in message
...

From Meteor Blades:

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
billion.

ExxonMobil did pay $15 billion in income taxes. That was 47% of its
pre-tax income. But not a dime of it went to the IRS, however.
Because, as Forbes points out:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned
subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands
that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of
Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in
income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has
tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely
outside the U.S.

The fact that many ultra-lucrative U.S.corporations pay no taxes to
federal government is hardly a new event. In April, 2004, the General
Accountability Office found in a study sought by Sen. Byron Dorgan
that "[m]ore than half of US corporations paid no federal income taxes
during the boom years of the late 1990s." And an August 2008 GAO
report sought by Dorgan and Sen. Carl Levin found that "[t]wo out of
every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes
from 1998 through 2005." While many corporations did not pay taxes
because they had net losses for those years, that wasn't the case for
some of the big guys. In 2005, for instance, 25% of large U.S.
corporations paid no taxes on revenue of $1.1 trillion.

Could one reason ExxonMobil paid $0 in taxes have to do with the
$27,430,000 it spent on lobbying Congress against job-killing,
confiscatory socialism? Nah.


Corporate welfare bums!
Locally, the provincial government gave about $100 million no interest loans
and grants to two companies to help them run business locally.
One business was a Korean firm to take over an old railcar manufacturing
plant in the hopes of building windmills for electricity generation and the
other was for a pulp mill.
Yesterday they decided to raise our HST to 15% from 13% (harmonized tax on
goods & services)
Obvious who runs the country..... big business. We'll do anything including
bribery to encourage them to come & then to stay when the original gift
monies run out.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

On 4/7/2010 7:55 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...

From Meteor Blades:

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
billion.

ExxonMobil did pay $15 billion in income taxes. That was 47% of its
pre-tax income. But not a dime of it went to the IRS, however.
Because, as Forbes points out:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned
subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands
that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of
Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in
income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has
tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely
outside the U.S.

The fact that many ultra-lucrative U.S.corporations pay no taxes to
federal government is hardly a new event. In April, 2004, the General
Accountability Office found in a study sought by Sen. Byron Dorgan
that "[m]ore than half of US corporations paid no federal income taxes
during the boom years of the late 1990s." And an August 2008 GAO
report sought by Dorgan and Sen. Carl Levin found that "[t]wo out of
every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes
from 1998 through 2005." While many corporations did not pay taxes
because they had net losses for those years, that wasn't the case for
some of the big guys. In 2005, for instance, 25% of large U.S.
corporations paid no taxes on revenue of $1.1 trillion.

Could one reason ExxonMobil paid $0 in taxes have to do with the
$27,430,000 it spent on lobbying Congress against job-killing,
confiscatory socialism? Nah.


Corporate welfare bums!
Locally, the provincial government gave about $100 million no interest loans
and grants to two companies to help them run business locally.
One business was a Korean firm to take over an old railcar manufacturing
plant in the hopes of building windmills for electricity generation and the
other was for a pulp mill.
Yesterday they decided to raise our HST to 15% from 13% (harmonized tax on
goods& services)
Obvious who runs the country..... big business. We'll do anything including
bribery to encourage them to come& then to stay when the original gift
monies run out.



Maybe if we make it illegal for corporations to contribute to
political parties this might change. That being said I will likely end
up on an all inclusive cruise to Guantanamo.


wake up in Githowever I a

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

wrote in message
...
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.


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

--
Nom=de=Plume

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

"LdB" wrote in message
m...
On 4/7/2010 7:55 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...

From Meteor Blades:

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
billion.

ExxonMobil did pay $15 billion in income taxes. That was 47% of its
pre-tax income. But not a dime of it went to the IRS, however.
Because, as Forbes points out:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned
subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands
that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of
Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in
income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has
tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely
outside the U.S.

The fact that many ultra-lucrative U.S.corporations pay no taxes to
federal government is hardly a new event. In April, 2004, the General
Accountability Office found in a study sought by Sen. Byron Dorgan
that "[m]ore than half of US corporations paid no federal income taxes
during the boom years of the late 1990s." And an August 2008 GAO
report sought by Dorgan and Sen. Carl Levin found that "[t]wo out of
every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes
from 1998 through 2005." While many corporations did not pay taxes
because they had net losses for those years, that wasn't the case for
some of the big guys. In 2005, for instance, 25% of large U.S.
corporations paid no taxes on revenue of $1.1 trillion.

Could one reason ExxonMobil paid $0 in taxes have to do with the
$27,430,000 it spent on lobbying Congress against job-killing,
confiscatory socialism? Nah.


Corporate welfare bums!
Locally, the provincial government gave about $100 million no interest
loans
and grants to two companies to help them run business locally.
One business was a Korean firm to take over an old railcar manufacturing
plant in the hopes of building windmills for electricity generation and
the
other was for a pulp mill.
Yesterday they decided to raise our HST to 15% from 13% (harmonized tax
on
goods& services)
Obvious who runs the country..... big business. We'll do anything
including
bribery to encourage them to come& then to stay when the original gift
monies run out.



Maybe if we make it illegal for corporations to contribute to political
parties this might change. That being said I will likely end up on an all
inclusive cruise to Guantanamo.


wake up in Githowever I a


That ship has sailed.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:33:29 -0700, jps wrote:

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.

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?

--
Nom=de=Plume

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:38:41 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:33:29 -0700, jps wrote:

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.

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

Ah, yes. That's how I price my products too. NOT! Corporations do
not price their products to ensure exhorbitant profits. They price
them consistent with what the market will bear, based on supply and
demand. That's especially true of commodity sellers like EM.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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

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.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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

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

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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 will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

"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

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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
...

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

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

"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

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

"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.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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



Could one reason ExxonMobil paid $0 in taxes have to do with the
$27,430,000 it spent on lobbying Congress against job-killing,
confiscatory socialism? Nah.]]

yeah but we're middle class. we're lucky exxon lets us live. we
should pay all taxes...the rich deserve a life of leisure

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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..

and since their customers are not necessarily all of us, it's
irrelevant. their stockholders pay taxes...not enough...but they do

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:17:47 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


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.

what's funny is the right pushes tax cuts ONLY for the rich. if
cutting taxes is good, why do they NEVER propose tax cuts for the
middle class?



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.

and who are these people? the middle class. we've been raped by the
rich who got their massive wealth increases, t heir tax cuts and
passed the bills to the middle class.



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.


we all need to pay a fair share; the rich do not

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


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.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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
...


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?

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...

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.

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



Do you have an example of that? Pick a publicly traded company and look
at their balance sheet and financial statement. Profits = taxes. If
they were an expense they would reduce the profits.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
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.


Large public companies have compensation committees that are voted on by
the shareholders. "Excessive" CEO pay is lost profits for shareholders
and can affect the value of the stock - something the executives watch
very closely. They are self-policed to a degree.

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:03:18 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:46:45 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

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..

and since their customers are not necessarily all of us, it's
irrelevant. their stockholders pay taxes...not enough...but they do

I take it you don't own stocks.

in my 401K. i have no income from stocks at all. none.


There is no surprise that stocks and dividends get special treatment.

yeah. they're owned by the rich.

Politicians take credit for a vibrant stock market.
Most of Bill Clinton's "great economy" was due to a booming market.
Even Greenspan, cheerleader for excess, called it "irrational". Some
of that was due to Clinton slashing the cap gains tax rate

and cutting the cap gains tax cut did precisely

zero

for the middle class. made the rich fantastically rich.

blew out the middle class

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 14:50:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.?

... but you want to tax it away before I can spend it to build my
business. I suppose "saving until you can afford something" is such a
foreign concept that you are having trouble getting your head around
saving money from one tax year to the next so you can buy without
borrowing.
It is no wonder we are in a debt crisis, the tax code encourages debt.


Where did I say that? Business typically have cash reserves, which they put
in various investment instruments. They're usually pretty sophisticated
about what is taxable and how to deal with it. I've got some minor
experience with "saving until you can afford something," since that's what I
used to buy the house, start the business, etc., etc. Feel free to think
otherwise.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

"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
...


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

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


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

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

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


Large public companies have compensation committees that are voted on by
the shareholders. "Excessive" CEO pay is lost profits for shareholders
and can affect the value of the stock - something the executives watch
very closely. They are self-policed to a degree.


Yeah, they're self-policing to about 1 degree. I guess all those CEOs of the
banks were just out of luck when they asked for those big paychecks. The
stockholders said no, and that was that. Same goes with GM. Oh wait....


--
Nom=de=Plume

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

"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

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:45:04 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:24:45 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


Just exactly who do you think is "middle class"?
The real screwing comes in at $250k

middle class is 20%-80% of taxpayers

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:29:10 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:11:27 -0400, bpuharic wrote:



There is no surprise that stocks and dividends get special treatment.

yeah. they're owned by the rich.

Politicians take credit for a vibrant stock market.
Most of Bill Clinton's "great economy" was due to a booming market.
Even Greenspan, cheerleader for excess, called it "irrational". Some
of that was due to Clinton slashing the cap gains tax rate

and cutting the cap gains tax cut did precisely

zero

for the middle class. made the rich fantastically rich.

blew out the middle class


You seriously underestimate who owns stocks. I am far from rich and I
have always had a pretty good position in equities.
You are a fool if you don't. Has anyone ever explained how many fees
you are paying for that 401k

actually has anyone explained to you about the 50% matching and the
tax benefits? don't know of any investment that gives you 50% on your
money

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:13:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

... but you want to tax it away before I can spend it to build my
business. I suppose "saving until you can afford something" is such a
foreign concept that you are having trouble getting your head around
saving money from one tax year to the next so you can buy without
borrowing.
It is no wonder we are in a debt crisis, the tax code encourages debt.


Where did I say that? Business typically have cash reserves, which they
put
in various investment instruments. They're usually pretty sophisticated
about what is taxable and how to deal with it. I've got some minor
experience with "saving until you can afford something," since that's what
I
used to buy the house, start the business, etc., etc. Feel free to think
otherwise.

--
I was only basing it on the idea that you expected the corporation to
spend all of their profit intended for expansion by the end of the tax
year or pay taxes on it.


I never said that. Are you claiming that have a cash reserve for future
expansion is a bad thing, taxed or not taxed? Do you think they shouldn't be
taxed at all? Why are corporations so special and regular people who make
potentially far less...

--
Nom=de=Plume

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:02:10 -0400, Larry wrote:

Large public companies have compensation committees that are voted on by
the shareholders.

That is a joke. Controlling interest in virtually every corporation is
owned by big funds and voted by money managers who play golf with the
CEOs.


Thank you.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I will pay more in federal income taxes this year than ExxonMobil
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:11:27 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:03:18 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:46:45 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

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..

and since their customers are not necessarily all of us, it's
irrelevant. their stockholders pay taxes...not enough...but they do

I take it you don't own stocks.

in my 401K. i have no income from stocks at all. none.


There is no surprise that stocks and dividends get special treatment.

yeah. they're owned by the rich.

Politicians take credit for a vibrant stock market.
Most of Bill Clinton's "great economy" was due to a booming market.
Even Greenspan, cheerleader for excess, called it "irrational". Some
of that was due to Clinton slashing the cap gains tax rate

and cutting the cap gains tax cut did precisely

zero

for the middle class. made the rich fantastically rich.

blew out the middle class


You seriously underestimate who owns stocks. I am far from rich and I
have always had a pretty good position in equities.
You are a fool if you don't. Has anyone ever explained how many fees
you are paying for that 401k? It is one of the biggest scams in the
history of robbing the little guy and by the time the tax man gets
through with you, you would have been better off keeping your money
under your mattress.


401K are still a good deal. I certainly did really well with mine. They
matched a percentage, which was icing on the cake.

--
Nom=de=Plume