let's have a discussion on this

alot of truth in this post.
Companies dont pay taxes anyways. They just collect them for the government.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I see this repeated a lot - mostly by the corporations. Even if it was true [and I'm not sure that it is], I would like to see higher corporate tax rates and the elimination of personal income taxes. For those who fear this would just drive corporations to other countries, there is the tariff tool to make it more economical to stay domestic. And with a large population of folks paying no personal income tax and with a lot of disposable income, no large corporation in the world could afford to NOT be here. All my opinion, of course.

 

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree - there's clearly two camps on government's role. As I see the numbers, the government has hepled. And unfortunately private companies have been rewarded by the government for moving offshore. Now think about why the truth is higher tax rates produce more jobs. Let's say we go back to the Eisenhower era rates of 90%. Say any person or company with taxable income of more than a million, pays the 90% rate, unless they take advantage of deductions and credits that produce American jobs. How many do you think will actually pay the 90% and how many jobs will be created? Now, why do you think lower tax rates create less jobs. It because there's less motivation to risk capital when there's less tax incentive to do so - they can run to the Cayman's with the money. You know, all those waving the flag while running to Communist China with jobs in the name of profit, just seem to be anything but patriotic.

 

Which is why there's talk of breaking them up. There's clearly price leadership setting prices. These companies are the most profitable in the world and they're holding us all hostage. The government has the right and the obligation to due something about it since they're strangling us all and the economy.

 

I'll agree with this. It's time the government (we the people) exercised its right to control the market for the benefit of all. Enough of the BS about a free market (free for all) where big corporations take advantage of us all. If they want to operate in Communist China, they need to pay the price. If they don't want to pay the price, another will that wants access to our market.

 

Yes, Soviet Russia's economy worked so well with control by the government.

 

The bottom line is the big 5 oil companies PROFIT this year is on pace to be $125,000,000,000. We're asking them to give up 2 billion in order to share in the sacrafice that's asked of all of us. During the last 10 years the wealthy made all the money and 98% of us took a decrease. So, at least IMO the wealthy are the ones we're going to look to to "right the ship".

Now, those subsidies are small potatoes and more symbolic than anything else. The real problem is the speculation on Wall St., where the thieves at Goldman Sacs and the oil companies are making fortunes. It's a good thing this is a public forum or I'd tell you what I really think. LOL

 

Communist Russa is an extreme example of total control (and corruption), used by the wealthy elite to try to convince you to let them do what they want. Capitalism has always required controls to keep it fair and provide opportunity to all. Less control equals the economy we had over the last 10 years. Uncontrolled, the money concentrates over time in fewer and fewer hands, as has happened here in the US. There's no system more brutal than uncontrolled capitalism.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a capitalist through and through. I just know, to make the systems work, you have to ask the ones who benefited the most to pay the most. And, since our system is based on greed, you have to have controls to keep it fair for all. That's the basics you learn in business school and all those that graduate know this. It's just that after leaving school and gettin that big corporate job, you're forced to tout the company line about a "free market" in the name of maximizing profit.

 

It isn't the big 5 that will be impacted, and they have said that. It is the independent exploration and production company that is cash flow negative and trying to develop a new resource that will be heavily damaged. But Congress would rather reduce domestic energy production and score media points with an uneducated electorate. And here is something for you to look up in your Collectivist Economics 101 manual. See if they tell you that what they refer to as "profit" is really the cost of equity capital. And without paying the cost of capital, capital is not allocated. And that higher profit margins are capitalism's mechanism for attracting more investment capital to sectors where demand exceeds supply -- like domestic energy. The Communists tried for decades to repeal the law of supply and demand and they failed. The US Congress will also.

 

Comrad, if you have an undergraduate or graduate degree in economics, please return to the university and demand a refund. You were cheated.

 

Alex, per the original thread post, I doubt they will let us hit the debt ceiling. Geithner said weeks ago they had the votes needed to raise it. Regarding the part about our deficit being unsustainable when looking at available GDP, US GDP is about $14 trillion (I had to look this up recently), so we do have the funds to pay off the new interest. However, factoring in all the rampant spending, bankrupt government programs, and existing debt I am not optimistic that leadership will do what it takes to dig us out of this hole. Paying off interest doesn't mean much when nothing is done to cut down the debt creating it.

Jim, I agree that the dollar is doing better than a lot of other currencies. My concern is with fiat currency in general, and this time it's on a global scale so the stakes are much higher. I would venture to say the USD index would be significantly lower if it wasn't the world reserve currency, and able to export the inflation.

 

Nice theory, but the big 5 testified two days ago that the subsidies do not affect exploration. And, yes the proposal is to end the subsidies for only the big 5, which they claim is discriminatory. These oil companies are the most profitable in the world and they still will be without the subsidies. Currently the real supply of oil (without Wall St. speculation) is higher than demand. The big 5 testified that the real price for a barrel, based on supply & demand is $65.

 

Let's not get insulting. You're qualified to make that judgement?

 

I "converted" some silver into One of these, one of these, some of these, a lot of this, and of course more of this. Putting one of these on the big boy.



Dollar up, dollar down, silver at whatever. Don't matter.

Guns, ammo, bullion, and food. Get it all.

 

Government has no money of its own. 100% of the money the government has to spend comes either through taxes or via debasing currency. Therefore subsidies simply mean taking money from one segment of the population and handing it over to another. Government decides what is proper instead of letting the free market decide. In other words its nothing more than Soviet style central planning at its worst.

As said earlier, we see where that went.

 

Geez, maybe that's why gold and silver are rising. Folks are EXPECTING the government to try to re-establicsh the link between gold and the dollar. At some point they would have to peg the value of gold to a number of dollars. Would it be $1,500, actual price, or some number the feds pick out of a hat. Who knows? But I ain't seen silver or gold drop in a long time. It's sure true it's tuff to buy silver and gold....folks are not selling. That is a climate of defense of assets, or call it fear of the future. I am still buying silver, and gold. Would you put 1,000 dollars into dollars to wait for it to buy more in a year? Foreign governments aren't. The price of a proof eagle is a hundred all of a sudden? Must be melting going on. Good luck to us in this historical pickle, not knowing what tomorrow will bring. Feels kinda like Germany during Weimar, if you have read European history books.

 

LOL! :too-funny: ROFL! I will go with 2011. It was such a nice weekend in The Bronx. :smile TC

 

I said that the exploration of the big 5 is not impacted. Regardless of what is said on TV, I don't believe supply is greater than demand. Supply is never greater than demand for oil. The price adjusts and the market clears. They should have taught you that in school. There can't be a surplus or shortage unless there are price controls.

 

Yes.