• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether

apdst said:
How do you figger that? MSNBC has the worst ratings on cable TV.
Click to expand...

They do not have the worst ratings on cable. They are generally #2 in the cable news/opinion market. One need not be #1 in a market to make money, particularly if you are #1 in a particular niche, as they are. If it were not profitable, they would have done a major format change years ago.
 
upsideguy said:
No I don't want them to move their HQ, I was only trying to make the point that we can't cowtow to large companies the way we often do, and the tax base is rooted in the business, not in the location of the HQ. Americans are not prone to relocate to foreign soil over a little tax. Moreover, given that America's cost of living and personal tax structure is much, much lower than most places that Americans would consider relocating to, it won't happen.

I understand repatriation. My point is that we should lower the marginal corporate rates, better audit corporations cost and revenue allocations and move to a corporate min tax, which collectively should serve to incent companies to report more American earnings and pay more American taxes.
Click to expand...

First, several large companies have already moved their headquarters overseas because of our high marginal rate. I would like a review of the tax deductions in the tac code, get rid of many of them and then lower the rate. As to audits, you may know that at big companies it is not unusual for the IRS to have their own office at headquarters staffed with several people.
 
upsideguy said:
They do not have the worst ratings on cable. They are generally #2 in the cable news/opinion market. One need not be #1 in a market to make money, particularly if you are #1 in a particular niche, as they are. If it were not profitable, they would have done a major format change years ago.
Click to expand...


No, you are right. They don't need to be #1, Hell CNN and the three networks have proved that for decades now.

What you should be though is an honest player if you are going to call yourself a news outlet, and before you rail on me about FNS, they should too, but to get your desk copy directly from David Brock, and hire nothing buy frothing, foam at the mouth, hardcore lefties like Schultz, and Rick Maddow shows they are dishonest in their presentation.


j-mac
 
digsbe said:
It is wrong that GE is actually paid. Many conservatives in America have had a problem with this. Their CEO is a very corrupt individual. He owns MSNBC and has a very strong relationship with the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with this topic?
 
j-mac said:
The owner of MSNBC is in the republicans pocket? That is absurd as me saying that Roger Ailes is an Obama supporter.


j-mac
Click to expand...


Not really. If you had read my previous posts you would have been able to figure it out, but, I'll post it again. And as an aside, he is a Republican.


To be clear, Immelt played the role of typical corporate donor who hedges his bets on both sides of the fence, but he has been considerably more generous to Republicans.

Immelt's GOP donations - David Catanese - POLITICO.com



It could be that Immelt has grown wiser in the recent past!

GE’s Immelt: still a Republican? | Environment Forum | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com
 
mertex said:
Not really. If you had read my previous posts you would have been able to figure it out, but, I'll post it again. And as an aside, he is a Republican.


To be clear, Immelt played the role of typical corporate donor who hedges his bets on both sides of the fence, but he has been considerably more generous to Republicans.

Immelt's GOP donations - David Catanese - POLITICO.com



It could be that Immelt has grown wiser in the recent past!

GE’s Immelt: still a Republican? | Environment Forum | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com
Click to expand...

None of the money Immelt has given in the past measures up to the sicophant coverage his network gives Obama the non leader. How much do you suppose that is worth?

Oh, wasn't Portman a collage friend or something?




j-mac
 
j-mac said:
None of the money Immelt has given in the past measures up to the sicophant coverage his network gives Obama the non leader. How much do you suppose that is worth?

Oh, wasn't Portman a collage friend or something?




j-mac
Click to expand...

Of course all the money he gave Republicans doesn't matter. The fact that he seems to be looking out for his own interests seems to bother Republicans now that he isn't showing to be completely on their side! Tsk, tsk!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom