I think what all those charts prove is that the issue is far too complex to be represented in one cherry picked chart.
I think what all those charts prove is that the issue is far too complex to be represented in one cherry picked chart.
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: Could be years of difference due to carrybacks and carryforwards. Plus, tax is calculated on taxable income which is often far different than the income reported in SEC filings.
One of the more stunningly simple suggestions I've heard that I liked was that you pay taxes on your SEC reported profit. No more "We made a ton when we're talking to our investors, but we made nothing when talking to the tax man."
In reply to DILYSI Dave:
I think I said that somewhere in the Herman Cain thread. Or maybe it was the old OWS thread. See? We can agree on lots of things.
Otto Maddox wrote: I think what all those charts prove is that the issue is far too complex to be represented in one cherry picked chart.
Pretty much my point, but better said.
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: I think I said that somewhere in the Herman Cain thread. Or maybe it was the old OWS thread. See? We can agree on lots of things.
I didn't remember that that was your baby. Well done.
GE is a good example, except they aren't. The were fined 50B from the SEC for creative accounting methods, but received 140B from the bailout package from the govt. GE Capitol was the reason for their inclusion, but even though they are considered a financial institution, they were operating with very little oversight and regulators, unlike most in the industry.
It's interesting that Jeffery Immelt is on Obama's business team.
racerdave600 wrote: It's interesting that Jeffery Immelt is on Obama's business team.
HiTempguy wrote:tuna55 wrote: Yeah! and my job should guarantee that I have a nice house and food! My Dr should guarantee that I never get sick! I am entitled to.... See? It's all entitlement. Some people have that, some do not.No... no it's not. When you buy a car, do you expect it to work? Or do you expect it to work only part of the time? An education is almost like a commodity. Obviously, there is hard work and effort involved in using this commodity, but when you PAY for something (especially when it is the 2nd most expensive thing you will ever buy in your lifetime), the expectation is that there will be a positive outcome with that cash outlay. Nothing to do with entitlement. But you go on and keep thinking that. I went to college and got a two year diploma (cheap) and because I knew it would always allow me to have a job earning minimum $20/h, but I still completely understand what the expectation is about college. Why would I have spent $30k on an education (housing costs included as I moved to the big city to do it) if it didn't get me a job? That'd be stupid.
Sorry, but your analogy here is wrong. This IS entitlement thinking.
YES, you expect your car to work when you buy it. But that does NOT mean that ANY car you buy is suitable for ANY job. If you buy a Theology degree, it still works 100% of the time, whether you are employed or not. You are still educated in Theology or Communications or Underwater Basket Weaving or whatever you decided to major in. That education has not failed to perform - you are now knowledgeable in that field. The school has discharged its duty in imparting its knowledge to you in exchange for your tuition. What knowledge you choose to purchase is entirely up to you.
My small sports sedan starts every morning and drives me anywhere I point it - that does not automatically mean it would be an appropriate work vehicle for me is I was a mason, carpenter, or landscaper.
If I needed a truck to use for work, I should have bought a truck. It's in no way BMW's fault that my car is completely incapable of carrying a ton of bricks at a time.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:Bobzilla wrote:Also doesn't stop the corporations from hiring teams of lawyers and accountants to exploit every loophole to avoid said taxes. Also see: GE. Who didn't pay ANY taxes last year, despite posting huge profits. Of course, i as well, blame this on the fact that the taxes are too high. If they weren't so high, we wouldn't have so many companies going overseas, and they wouldn't "need" all the lawyers and accountants.93EXCivic wrote:Shhhhh.... don't bring truth or facts into this.Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: Yeah, taxes are really low, lower than they've been in our lifetimes. Spending is really high, higher than it has ever been. Take your pick on what to jump on first. I think everything should be on the table. Of course, this in a perfect world. In the real world, if we raise taxes, Congress will likely find a way to spend the new revenues and then some more.Be careful about raising taxes. As I mentioned earlier if you look at our corporate tax rates, they are much higher then many of the countries we are competing against. It is no wonder business is leaving our shores.
This. High tax rates plus tons of loop holes means that people get creative and use the loopholes. I mean if you look at the two charts. Germany has a much lower corporate tax rate and yet bring a higher percentage of taxes versus the GDP. I am sure this is due to the high tax rates and loopholes in our current laws.
Duke wrote:HiTempguy wrote:Sorry, but your analogy here is wrong. This IS entitlement thinking. **YES**, you expect your car to work when you buy it. But that does **NOT** mean that **ANY** car you buy is suitable for **ANY** job. If you buy a Theology degree, it still works 100% of the time, whether you are employed or not. You are still educated in Theology or Communications or Underwater Basket Weaving or whatever you decided to major in. That education has not failed to perform - you are now knowledgeable in that field. The school has discharged its duty in imparting its knowledge to you in exchange for your tuition. My small sports sedan starts every morning and drives me anywhere I point it - that does not automatically mean it would be an appropriate work vehicle for me is I was a mason, carpenter, or landscaper. If I needed a truck to use for work, *I should have bought a truck.* It's in no way BMW's fault that my car is completely incapable of carrying a ton of bricks at a time.tuna55 wrote: Yeah! and my job should guarantee that I have a nice house and food! My Dr should guarantee that I never get sick! I am entitled to.... See? It's all entitlement. Some people have that, some do not.No... no it's not. When you buy a car, do you expect it to work? Or do you expect it to work only part of the time? An education is almost like a commodity. Obviously, there is hard work and effort involved in using this commodity, but when you PAY for something (especially when it is the 2nd most expensive thing you will ever buy in your lifetime), the expectation is that there will be a positive outcome with that cash outlay. Nothing to do with entitlement. But you go on and keep thinking that. I went to college and got a two year diploma (cheap) and because I knew it would always allow me to have a job earning minimum $20/h, but I still completely understand what the expectation is about college. Why would I have spent $30k on an education (housing costs included as I moved to the big city to do it) if it didn't get me a job? That'd be stupid.
Not saying this right. But many colleges more or less promise (whether or not they can delivered) you jobs which I think is part of the reason so many people are pissed and part of the things that are so screwed up about the current education system.
Here's a pretty good concise carefully worded technical summary of the problem were are facing:
A Summary of the problem- author unknown said: The folks who are getting the free stuff, don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff. The folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop, and the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting! Now... The people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff, that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff, are being mean, prejudiced, and racist. So... The people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff, and giving them the free stuff in the first place. We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.
Glad they're staying peaceful. But I guess some people getting pepper-sprayed in California is more interesting... http://www.news-press.com/article/20111120/CRIME/111120005/Occupy-Fort-Myers-protestor-arrested-posting-bomb-threat-Facebook
oldsaw wrote:
That looks as if he's spraying the dirty hippies with Febreeze.
oldsaw wrote:
Why does that look like a Febreze bottle? Was the cop trying to make the dirty hippies smell better? 
In reply to rotard:
Damn should have read the next page before posting.
rotard wrote:oldsaw wrote:That looks as if he's spraying the dirty hippies with Febreeze.
The people being pepper sprayed above were students at UC Davis, not too far from here. As I understand, they were primarily protesting over massive tuition hikes. Tuition will be going up from about $14k/year to something like $22k/year.
They had a peaceful protest taking place in the quad of a University. I do think their concerns had merit. Even if they had been just "imbecile hippie ideas", you still have the first amendment right to voice them. I do not think those protesters should have been pepper sprayed, broken up, and arrested.
That said... I do not think the cops did anything wrong. I'm certain there were specific civil codes on why the people were not allowed to camp out there, they refused to move, the officers were told to break up the protest, and they did so with what looked like a pretty reasonable amount of force (pepper spray, pull and hold down, zip-tie hands).
I see the responsibility falling primarily on the UCD Chancellor who didn't want to deal with the protesters and instead called in the cops to break up the protest. Her latest statement I heard basically said, "I authorized the police to break up the protest, but I didn't authorize them to use pepper spray." What did she expect them to use? Harsh language?
Salanis wrote: I see the responsibility falling primarily on the UCD Chancellor who didn't want to deal with the protesters and instead called in the cops to break up the protest. Her latest statement I heard basically said, "I authorized the police to break up the protest, but I didn't authorize them to use pepper spray." What did she expect them to use? Harsh language?
Ive always found a disagreeable tone of voice to be particularly effective...well, it works with my Siberian Husky...
if UCD is anything like the University of Cincinnati, the campus cops are actual city cops. Out here, regular Cinci cops have jurisdiction over all of Cinci, including campus. Campus cops have the same powers that Cinci cops do, but only on campus...anyway, the Chancellor (or Dean, or overlord...whatever) has the authority to call the cops in, but what tactics, or force they use etc is entirely up to the S.O.P. of the Cinci police code of conduct. They could tell the cops they only want them to squint harshly at a protestor...but if the protestor is breaking a law, the cops have the authority to do whatever is within the guidelines, regardless of what the figurehead...I mean Emperor...I mean Chancellor wants.
4cylndrfury wrote: if UCD is anything like the University of Cincinnati, the campus cops are actual city cops. Out here, regular Cinci cops have jurisdiction over all of Cinci, including campus. Campus cops have the same powers that Cinci cops do, but only on campus...anyway, the Chancellor (or Dean, or overlord...whatever) has the authority to call the cops in, but what tactics, or force they use etc is entirely up to the S.O.P. of the Cinci police code of conduct. They could tell the cops they only want them to squint harshly at a protestor...but if the protestor is breaking a law, the cops have the authority to do whatever is within the guidelines, regardless of what the figurehead...I mean Emperor...I mean Chancellor wants.
I believe it's similar out here. At least at CSU Sacramento, Campus Police are full police, trained at the SacPD academy, and with limited jurisdiction.
I'm just ticked off because everyone is immediately jumping to vilify the officers involved. I generally feel positively towards LEO's. It didn't look like they used excessive force. I think the person responsible is whoever made the decision that the protest needed to be broken up. Once that was decided, it was kind of a foregone conclusion that the cops were going to have to use force.
So who decided "these protesters need to be broken up and arrested"? Given that the cops were sent out in riot gear, that was probably laid out as the plan before the officers were dispatched to the scene. That it was most likely the commanding officer at the CPD and/or the UCD Chancellor. At the very least the Chancellor should have had the foresight to realize that calling in the cops would escalate the situation.
Salanis wrote: ... Her latest statement I heard basically said, "I authorized the police to break up the protest, but I didn't authorize them to use pepper spray." What did she expect them to use? Harsh language?
maybe she thought yelling "SHAME!" at them might make them comply.
Salanis wrote: I see the responsibility falling primarily on the UCD Chancellor who didn't want to deal with the protesters and instead called in the cops to break up the protest. Her latest statement I heard basically said, "I authorized the police to break up the protest, but I didn't authorize them to use pepper spray." What did she expect them to use? Harsh language?
I had a report where a customer claimed to be verbally asaulted. The police asked if she had ever been hit with an adverb before?
I'm a student at uc Davis, I pretty much agree that the cops did what they were told to, but whoever made that decision didn't think it though very well. The tents are all back now plus more, and the cops are no where to be seen anywhere on campus. There have been a few assemblies to talk about it with massive amounts of people showing up, and there have been news vans there constantly since Monday morning. I think the cop in the video, the chancellor and the police cheif will likely all have to resign over it, but what else will happen I'm not sure.
You'll need to log in to post.
