SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the wish-we-were-in-the-one-percent dept.
Due to completely messed up U.S. tax policies, some even got a rebate check. Only small businesses pay taxes. Big companies often pay nothing at all.
Look at a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice ( http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/fifteen_of_many_reasons_why_we_need_corporate_tax_reform.php#.VSbihhPF8QY ), a Washington, D.C. group. It finds that some of nation's most famous brands have paid remarkably little to the government over the last five years. In fact, many actually enjoyed a negative tax rate: They received a nice rebate check from the U.S. Treasury.
The 15 giants highlighted by CTJ were chosen to represent a wide range of industries among Fortune 500 companies. They include CBS, Mattel, Prudential, and the California utility PG&E. Together, they paid no federal income tax in 2014, despite profits totaling $23 billion. CTJ's point is that these companies are not anomalies, they are examples.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:07AM
Income tax does *not* pay for roads. Pretending that it does and concluding that taxing and paying taxes is virtuous is ignorance. Income tax neither pays for roads nor schools nor police departments nor fire departments nor any of the other "services" that most people tie to government. Quit trotting out that tired old canard that demonstrates that you have no idea what the various tax structures accomplish - specifically income tax which is the current topic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:46AM
Of course income tax pays for roads. Ultimately all taxes are fungible. That's why the federal highway trust fund has received tens of billions of dollars out of the general treasury over the last few years. As for paying for schools, where do you think the money for Pell grants and all the other forms of federal financial aid comes from?
Just because property taxes cover some of the load doesn't mean income taxes aren't a significant part of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:06AM
Look at the side of the gas pumps next time, genius. See that "gas tax" notice tag? That's what's supposed to pay for the roads. The fact that it often does not is a strike against the idea of having such a monopolistic funding system in the first place. If McDonalds tries to sell you pink slime on a bun and you don't want it, you can always leave and go down to JimBob's O'Realburgers instead. You can leave government, too, though its agents will usually try to chase you down and point guns at you to keep you from leaving. Hm, does that last situation ring any historical bells for you?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:19AM
> Look at the side of the gas pumps next time, genius. See that "gas tax" notice tag?
You mean the guy who knows what the federal highway trust fund is doesn't know what the gas tax is? You've got this circular thing going on where anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and you are super-knowledgable rather than consider the possibility that we all know everything you know because we were once teenagers too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:56AM
You will forgive me for not caring much about the fine details of the facades of a criminal enterprise. I'll venture an educated guess that the federal highway "trust fund" is in similar straits as other "trust funds" the fedgov manages, much like the social security "trust fund" which has long been pilfered and is now used as nothing other than a conduit to obtain more general fedgov spending money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:54AM
You will forgive me for not caring much about the fine details of the facades of a criminal enterprise.
I will condemn you for willful ignorance.
I'll venture an educated guess that the federal highway "trust fund"
Wait, the know it all genius who presumed to instruct me about the gas tax doesn't actually know how the gas tax works?
Know-it-all genius actually is just a snarky know-nothing. What a surprise!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:31AM
Your attempted snide ad hominem doesn't change the fact that the "gas tax" doesn't actually work [google.com], in spite of your holding it forth as some sort of pristine example that justifies its imposition on people at gunpoint. The fine details of fedgov crime are unimportant compared to the fundamental ones, and I will not waste my time over the minutiae of how stolen resources are wasted as opposed to being vocal about the fundamental details that cover the fact that such stolen resources have been stolen in the first place.
Condemn away - it reminds me of a saying about "better to be despised by the despicable", which I suppose goes just as well for those who willingly support the despicable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:23PM
> Your attempted snide ad hominem doesn't change the fact that the "gas tax" doesn't actually work,
Lol. Now that's rich. I was the one who cited the fact that income tax pays for the roads because the gas tax is insufficient.
You were the snarky smartass who told me to look at the sticker on the gas pump because that's the way it is "supposed to be."
Now you are telling me that the way it is supposed to be doesn't actually work and that makes me the dummy.
> "better to be despised by the despicable",
Yes, stroke yourself to sleep now. Your righteous knowledge is a triumph!!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:52AM
Money obtained for one purpose and then used for an entirely different purpose is fraud (if such was the intent prior to obtaining monies) or "theft by conversion" (if the intent changed after obtaining monies).
The fact that government agents do something criminal under the guise of legitimacy does not change the criminal nature of the act.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:56AM
Where exactly is it defined that your income taxes are not to be used for highway funds?
Oh that's right, like every other loud-mouth pronouncing from on high in this thread you are actually just running your mouth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:36AM
You have the idea of government established with the rule of law completely backwards. Such government isn't allowed to anything its agents want so long as there is no prohibition on such activity - such government exists solely because of law, and as such, can only do that which law (law based on the delegated authority of the individual human) allows it to do.