I'm not suggesting a windfall tax, I'm suggesting we stop subsidizing them. This is totally different.SealXo wrote:
Corporations don't get taxed, the people do. Big CEO is going to get his paycheck either way.Turquoise wrote:
You realize that a lot of the failings result from the government directing our money to corporations that make more than enough profit by EARNING it rather than having it thrown at them with subsidies.TrollmeaT wrote:
I'm just tired of big business taking the wrap for the failings of our government & then fliping the bill.
Giving oil companies tax money is adding insult to injury with the current rising gas prices. I'm not blaming the corporations for the rise, but I'm certainly not going to part with more of my income for the sake of lining some CEO's wallet.
Yeah it creates jobs & spurs growth. The big CEO is getting paid for what he went to school for, where is the crime in that?SealXo wrote:
Corporations don't get taxed, the people do. Big CEO is going to get his paycheck either way.Turquoise wrote:
You realize that a lot of the failings result from the government directing our money to corporations that make more than enough profit by EARNING it rather than having it thrown at them with subsidies.TrollmeaT wrote:
I'm just tired of big business taking the wrap for the failings of our government & then fliping the bill.
Giving oil companies tax money is adding insult to injury with the current rising gas prices. I'm not blaming the corporations for the rise, but I'm certainly not going to part with more of my income for the sake of lining some CEO's wallet.
The crime comes into play when tax money is given to corporations. They should only get paid for their services. Leave my own paycheck alone.TrollmeaT wrote:
Yeah it creates jobs & spurs growth. The big CEO is getting paid for what he went to school for, where is the crime in that?SealXo wrote:
Corporations don't get taxed, the people do. Big CEO is going to get his paycheck either way.Turquoise wrote:
You realize that a lot of the failings result from the government directing our money to corporations that make more than enough profit by EARNING it rather than having it thrown at them with subsidies.
Giving oil companies tax money is adding insult to injury with the current rising gas prices. I'm not blaming the corporations for the rise, but I'm certainly not going to part with more of my income for the sake of lining some CEO's wallet.
They take it out anyways, I think it's one a the few investments the government correctly makes. I'd rather pay the energy makers than some fool doing a study on the blue footed booby. I think we can both agree that the government needs a serious overhaul because they are suppose to protect our interests.
I'd rather not pay any corporations with tax money unless they are doing a direct service for the government (like contracting). If we pay them for research, the public does eventually see the benefits, but the real benefit still goes to the corporations themselves.TrollmeaT wrote:
They take it out anyways, I think it's one a the few investments the government correctly makes. I'd rather pay the energy makers than some fool doing a study on the blue footed booby. I think we can both agree that the government needs a serious overhaul because they are suppose to protect our interests.
Essentially, by supporting government funded energy research done by the private sector, this is basically like a private version of socialism. At least socialism makes the benefits public. This arrangement of subsidizing big business is the worst of both worlds.
Energy wise, we're at a point where the market should determine where we go. I never thought I'd be in opposition with you on this topic. I thought you were the libertarian type?...
I am for the most part if you want to lable me, but I think it's a little more complex than that.
It is not like socialism in the fact that the government does not control production or distribution even thought they would love to.
I'm curious of the real benifits you speak of that the corporations get. I agree the market should determine where we go but we are essentially asking a business to put themselves out of one market & into another unproven one with no benifits? And then taxing them to boot. How would you feel as the head of one of these oil companies. Why dont they just nationalize it then& get the charade over with.
It is not like socialism in the fact that the government does not control production or distribution even thought they would love to.
I'm curious of the real benifits you speak of that the corporations get. I agree the market should determine where we go but we are essentially asking a business to put themselves out of one market & into another unproven one with no benifits? And then taxing them to boot. How would you feel as the head of one of these oil companies. Why dont they just nationalize it then& get the charade over with.
I've already stated that I'm not advocating a windfall profits tax. I just want oil companies to pay the same taxes as other corporations do without getting any unnecessary subsidies. They can explore alternative energy of their own accord. The most I'm willing to throw these guys is maybe some tax breaks, but even that seems excessive when you consider that they make more profit than any other industry.TrollmeaT wrote:
I am for the most part if you want to lable me, but I think it's a little more complex than that.
It is not like socialism in the fact that the government does not control production or distribution even thought they would love to.
I'm curious of the real benifits you speak of that the corporations get. I agree the market should determine where we go but we are essentially asking a business to put themselves out of one market & into another unproven one with no benifits? And then taxing them to boot. How would you feel as the head of one of these oil companies. Why dont they just nationalize it then& get the charade over with.
The point is... they have the money to explore alternative energy. They don't need our tax money to do it.
I gotta ask... Why do you have what appears to be sympathy for these CEOs raking it in? Do you really think they give a shit about you? They're living it up and even get subsidies that you and I don't receive. What else should they have, our first born children?
I agree they should receive some tax breaks as well but should pay some taxes. The reason it seems excessive is because were not used to dealing with numbers like that, they also invest more back into it more than any other industry.
I have sympathy for the CEO's because they have worked hard to get where they have ended up & to still have integrity unlike other corporations or industry's only to get muscled or bullied because someone thinks they made too much money or to have some environmental lobbyist screwing up the whole works.
I'm interested in protecting our corporations or industry's that have made America what it is today, & I have pride in them & someday hope to have my very own.
I understand your views though & for the most part agree with them but I can't help be an advocate of Big Business because of what it means to America.
McCain wants to help them do their job, obama wants to make it harder to gain ground with all the people who claim they earn too much instead of solving the problem he wants to dance around it with hair brained ideas.
I have sympathy for the CEO's because they have worked hard to get where they have ended up & to still have integrity unlike other corporations or industry's only to get muscled or bullied because someone thinks they made too much money or to have some environmental lobbyist screwing up the whole works.
I'm interested in protecting our corporations or industry's that have made America what it is today, & I have pride in them & someday hope to have my very own.
I understand your views though & for the most part agree with them but I can't help be an advocate of Big Business because of what it means to America.
McCain wants to help them do their job, obama wants to make it harder to gain ground with all the people who claim they earn too much instead of solving the problem he wants to dance around it with hair brained ideas.
Last edited by TrollmeaT (2008-08-16 21:46:35)
Getting to the top of a corporation involves more than just effort or skill. It also involves connections. Material success is just as much an exercise in social manipulation and backstabbing via office politics as much as it is a performance related thing.TrollmeaT wrote:
I agree they should receive some tax breaks as well but should pay some taxes. The reason it seems excessive is because were not used to dealing with numbers like that, they also invest more back into it more than any other industry.
I have sympathy for the CEO's because they have worked hard to get where they have ended up & to still have integrity unlike other corporations or industry's only to get muscled or bullied because someone thinks they made too much money or to have some environmental lobbyist screwing up the whole works.
I'm interested in protecting our corporations or industry's that have made America what it is today, & I have pride in them & someday hope to have my very own.
I understand your views though & for the most part agree with them but I can't help be an advocate of Big Business because of what it means to America.
McCain wants to help them do their job, obama wants to make it harder to gain ground with all the people who claim they earn too much instead of solving the problem he wants to dance around it with hair brained ideas.
I can't say that I admire people who reach the top, but I don't loathe them either until they start doing things that negatively affect me (like paying lobbyists to fight against environmental standards or consumer rights).
300 million just for colorado alone, they should definitely be trimmed down a bit, but if everyone pulls out at once it would hurt them & us, maybe a 3-5 year plan eventually phasing out any government help would be more acceptable.
The following is why I have no problem with ending all help immediately...TrollmeaT wrote:
300 million just for colorado alone, they should definitely be trimmed down a bit, but if everyone pulls out at once it would hurt them & us, maybe a 3-5 year plan eventually phasing out any government help would be more acceptable.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/01/ … /exxon.php
How are you measuring profit? Bulk amount, or amount per dollar invested?Turquoise wrote:
but even that seems excessive when you consider that they make more profit than any other industry.
By the first measure, you're right. By the second measure, they lag behind software and other industries.
That's not saying that I don't agree with revamping the tax structure for the industry.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Good points... I'm just saying I'm totally against corporate welfare, at least in the form of subsidies. I don't mind giving tax breaks for certain things, but actually handing out money is a bad thing.FEOS wrote:
How are you measuring profit? Bulk amount, or amount per dollar invested?Turquoise wrote:
but even that seems excessive when you consider that they make more profit than any other industry.
By the first measure, you're right. By the second measure, they lag behind software and other industries.
That's not saying that I don't agree with revamping the tax structure for the industry.