Two-thirds of U.S. corporations did not pay federal income tax. GAO Report

Thrilla · Apr 28, 2016

Eric7216 said:
Not sure if you are serious or not. Of course unions can participate in the democratic process. That is one of the major problems-special interest money corrupting the system. And no one in a union should be allowed to participate in the political process while identifying with the union. Sick of seeing AFSCME, SEIU, NEA, etc t-shirt wearing people around a partisan political candidate. It corrupts the process.

no, it doesn't corrupt the process...it's just a part of the process you don't personally like.

Eric7216 · Apr 28, 2016

Thrilla said:
no, it doesn't corrupt the process...it's just a part of the process you don't personally like.

So you believe that the military and the federal civil service system has it wrong when they forbid partisan political activities by employees? You want generals campaigning?

Thrilla · Apr 28, 2016

Eric7216 said:
So you believe that the military and the federal civil service system has it wrong when they forbid partisan political activities by employees? You want generals campaigning?

no, not really... the government entities campaigning for government representatives is a conflict of interest , among other things.

private associations campaigning is perfectly fine, though.

Eric7216 · Apr 28, 2016

James972 said:
it is silly to pretend govt employees don't have a POV or that they should not express it. It seems to me it helps democracy to see for example, that govt employees are leeches voting for money in the their pockets, more vacations, etc etc!!

I did not say that. Of course they have a POV.
Unfortunately when a bunch of teachers support a candidate publically with their T-shirts identifying them other voters forget that those teachers are not supporting the candidate because he/she is good for education of their children but because the candidate is buying their votes with higher pay and better benefits. When police stand up behind a candidate that is not the law and order candidate but the candidate that promised the higher pay to the police.

Congratulations for you for understanding that teachers are not supporting a candidate because of education of children but personal self interests. But when the teachers lie and talk about how good the candidate is for education people get fooled.

Eric7216 · Apr 28, 2016

Thrilla said:
no, not really... the government entities campaigning for government representatives is a conflict of interest , among other things.

private associations campaigning is perfectly fine, though.

Well, local, city, county, state elections are also corrupted.
I have a simple rule of voting against any candidate who panders to private associations groups because I know they are not for the general good but the special interests of those groups even though it may harm the general good. Of course, many do that but I vote for those who seem to be least controlled. I certainly won't vote for my own personal interests because a) I take care of myself and want nothing from government except for the general good, and b) when the general good is taken care of, I will be taken care of.

James972 · Apr 28, 2016

Eric7216 said:
But when the teachers lie and talk about how good the candidate is for education people get fooled.

yes but everyone tries to fool you into voting they way they want!! Govt cant prevent that!! and God forbid they think they could!!

natsb · Apr 29, 2016

JasperL said:
The corporation as such has no rights. But you as owner or employee can speak or contribute or whatever. Somehow we're agreeing and then coming to different conclusions.

Your right, we are agreeing, and then coming to different conclusions. I think your first two sentences show where you may me missing the link. The owner and the employees are the corporation, they are not two different entities. The corporate charter (the dead piece of paper) is the separate legal entity, that allows the people in the corporation to do business jointly under the name specified in the charter.

Which people? Owners, directors, the CEO, rank and file employees, the employees in China or Bangladesh or the U.S., the mutual fund that owns 5% that in turn has 10,000 investors? For whom does the "corporation" speak?

First of all as stated is US Code, and upheld in CU, foreigners may not contribute to US elections. Therefore, the foreign people in a corporation may not contribute to the speech.
44 See, e.g., 2 U. S. C. §441e(a)(1) (foreign nationals may not directly or indirectly make contributions or independent expenditures in connection with a U. S. election).

And yes, the "Owners, directors, the CEO, rank and file employees" are the corporation. For whom the corporation speaks when it comes to politics is limited to the individual contributors.

And if we as society say the "corporation" cannot speak in elections in the U.S. then I don't see the real problem since everyone entitled to do so who is an owner, investor, employee, officer, director, customer, vendor, etc. still has the same right to speak you and I have, and if they want they can speak in ways that support the profits goals of that corporation, or not, as is their choice.

Again, the corporation and the owner, employee, officer, and director are one in the same. Remember, a corporation is an organization of people. And yes, whether they speak as one or as a group, they have the same rights. I think the situation is spelled out perfectly in CU.

“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster”

OK, but if we let UAW speak, then why not Bank of China's U.S. subsidiary, or Saudi Aramco, or GE? There is no reason to believe ANY of those entities gives one damn about the fortunes of the U.S. or its people, except to the extent that it will maximize their worldwide profits, and if U.S. policies gut our economy but do maximize worldwide corporate profits, we know with certainty that's what those entities will advocate and they will support candidates who will advance those policies.

Again, foreign people are forbidden from making political contributions, even the foreign people in a corporation. The FEC is very clear on the subject, and SCOTUS has upheld the ban.

ajn678 · Apr 29, 2016

Funny, the same people that bemoan individuals not paying federal income tax are the same ones defending corporations from not paying them. Oh wait, nevermind, that's the entire Republican agenda. Screw over the people so that corporations and CEO's can prosper.

JasperL · Apr 29, 2016

natsb said:
Your right, we are agreeing, and then coming to different conclusions. I think your first two sentences show where you may me missing the link. The owner and the employees are the corporation, they are not two different entities. The corporate charter (the dead piece of paper) is the separate legal entity, that allows the people in the corporation to do business jointly under the name specified in the charter.

Right, corporations 101.

First of all as stated is US Code, and upheld in CU, foreigners may not contribute to US elections. Therefore, the foreign people in a corporation may not contribute to the speech.
44 See, e.g., 2 U. S. C. §441e(a)(1) (foreign nationals may not directly or indirectly make contributions or independent expenditures in connection with a U. S. election).

GE taps it's multi-$billion balance sheet. How do you separate out the U.S. cash from the foreign cash?

And yes, the "Owners, directors, the CEO, rank and file employees" are the corporation. For whom the corporation speaks when it comes to politics is limited to the individual contributors.

If GE makes a contribution to a (c)(4) that dumps $500 million to elect Hillary, please explain how we've limited the speech to individual contributors. You're seemingly making my point. All the U.S. employees, owners, etc. of GE can contribute, speak, etc. So why does "GE" need a "right" to speak? And for whom is the $500 million GE dumps into a (c)(4) from its balance sheet speaking?

Again, the corporation and the owner, employee, officer, and director are one in the same. Remember, a corporation is an organization of people. And yes, whether they speak as one or as a group, they have the same rights. I think the situation is spelled out perfectly in CU.

“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster”

No, they are not the same if corporate assets are what constitute the "speech." I don't know the share of GE owned by foreign interests, but it's considerable, as are the number of foreign based employees who contribute to their bottom line. And you're telling me the identity of the speaker is not decisive, except when it is. Foreigners on U.S. soil have the same 1st amendment rights as you and me, and yet we prohibit some of their political speech.

Again, foreign people are forbidden from making political contributions, even the foreign people in a corporation. The FEC is very clear on the subject, and SCOTUS has upheld the ban.

Right, foreign people cannot contribute directly to a campaign, but corporations with massive overseas operations and foreign ownership can and do contribute to (c)(4)s that are mere appendages to the campaigns. It's not a significant distinction in my view. Anyone who thinks there is no coordination between the big money behind Hillary's campaign on the c4 side and the 'official' campaign is in my view a moron.

James972 · Apr 30, 2016

ajn678 said:
Screw over the people so that corporations and CEO's can prosper.

Actually, corporations can't prosper unless the people prosper too by buying their products. That's the miracle of capitalism. Unless the people prosper the corporation goes bankrupt.
Do you understand?

ajn678 · May 1, 2016

James972 said:
Actually, corporations can't prosper unless the people prosper too by buying their products. That's the miracle of capitalism. Unless the people prosper the corporation goes bankrupt.
Do you understand?

That's horribly inaccurate. Walmart can prosper even if they only take 10 dollars from each person that visits per week. Corporations don't rely on one or two people like a family does in order to prosper. They rely on a large collective group of people to prosper. Just because half the population might be prospering and can afford to give a corporation x amount of dollars, doesn't mean the rest of the population is prospering. Logic eludes you.

James972 · May 1, 2016

ajn678 said:
That's horribly inaccurate. Walmart can prosper even if they only take 10 dollars from each person that visits per week.

agree and?????????????

James972 · May 1, 2016

ajn678 said:
Corporations don't rely on one or two people like a family does in order to prosper.

agree, and???????????

James972 · May 1, 2016

ajn678 said:
They[corporations] rely on a large collective group of people to prosper..

agree, and??????????

James972 · May 1, 2016

ajn678 said:
Just because half the population might be prospering and can afford to give a corporation x amount of dollars, doesn't mean the rest of the population is prospering.

agree but so what????

James972 · May 1, 2016

ajn678 said:
Logic eludes you.

can say what logic exactly you are talking about????

James972 · May 1, 2016

ajn678 said:
That's horribly inaccurate. Walmart can prosper even if they only take 10 dollars from each person that visits per week. Corporations don't rely on one or two people like a family does in order to prosper. They rely on a large collective group of people to prosper. Just because half the population might be prospering and can afford to give a corporation x amount of dollars, doesn't mean the rest of the population is prospering. Logic eludes you.

Actually, corporations can't prosper unless their customers prosper too by buying their products. That's the miracle of capitalism. Unless the customers prosper the corporation goes bankrupt. Corporations are slaves to their customers.
Do you understand the miracle of capitalism?

natsb · May 1, 2016

JasperL said:
GE taps it's multi-$billion balance sheet. How do you separate out the U.S. cash from the foreign cash?

GE does not tap its balance sheet. If there is any evidence of this I am sure the FEC would like to hear about it. It is against the law for a corporation to use its general treasury funds to make any political contributions. All contributions must come from a corporation's individual contributors. Once again, only people can make contributions.

If GE makes a contribution to a (c)(4) that dumps $500 million to elect Hillary, please explain how we've limited the speech to individual contributors. You're seemingly making my point. All the U.S. employees, owners, etc. of GE can contribute, speak, etc. So why does "GE" need a "right" to speak? And for whom is the $500 million GE dumps into a (c)(4) from its balance sheet speaking?

A 501(c)(4) is a different topic that I would be more than happy to discuss. We would be discussing different money and different rules by different contributors, so there is no need to muddy this discussion. Again, GE cannot dump any money from its balance sheet into political contributions. If you know of any occurrences of this, we can report it to the FEC.

No, they are not the same if corporate assets are what constitute the "speech." I don't know the share of GE owned by foreign interests, but it's considerable, as are the number of foreign based employees who contribute to their bottom line. And you're telling me the identity of the speaker is not decisive, except when it is. Foreigners on U.S. soil have the same 1st amendment rights as you and me, and yet we prohibit some of their political speech.

At the risk of kicking a dead horse... Corporate assets cannot be used for political contributions. CU acknowledges that everyone on US soil has rights, but still limits contributions by foreigners in the interest of the greater good.

The Law
The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) prohibits corporations and labor organizations from using their general treasury funds to make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections. 52 U.S.C. §30118(a).

Right, foreign people cannot contribute directly to a campaign, but corporations with massive overseas operations and foreign ownership can and do contribute to (c)(4)s that are mere appendages to the campaigns. It's not a significant distinction in my view.

There is a huge and significant difference both legal and in purpose. I do not think it is helpful to muddle corporate and 501(c)(4) contributions as if they are the same thing from the same sources, and have the same goals. Not only can foreign nationals not contribute directly to a campaign, they cannot contribute to a 501(c)(4). The list of who may contribute to a 501(c)(4) is United States citizens or nationals or lawfully admitted for permanent residence . This is why they are required to keep contributor list.

Anyone who thinks there is no coordination between the big money behind Hillary's campaign on the c4 side and the 'official' campaign is in my view a moron.

We agree to a point. Although the coordination is illegal, I have no doubt there is a lot of winking and nodding going on. Heck, I have no doubt there are direct backroom meetings going on. But proof; I have none.

ajn678 · May 2, 2016

James972 said:
agree and?????????????

James972 said:
agree, and???????????

James972 said:
agree, and??????????

James972 said:
agree but so what????

James972 said:
can say what logic exactly you are talking about????

James972 said:
Actually, corporations can't prosper unless their customers prosper too by buying their products. That's the miracle of capitalism. Unless the customers prosper the corporation goes bankrupt. Corporations are slaves to their customers.
Do you understand the miracle of capitalism?

Yikes.

Patrickt · May 4, 2016

imyoda said:
This Study Shows How Low Corporate America's Taxes Really Are
Two-thirds of U.S. corporations did not pay federal income tax. GAO Report

… “A new government report shows just how easy corporate America has it” …

Every year from 2006 to 2012, some two-thirds of U.S. corporations did not pay federal income tax, according to a Government Accountability Office study released on Wednesday. In 2012 alone, 42.5 percent of businesses that the GAO defines as large did not pay federal taxes, including 19.5 percent of big corporations that posted a profit.

Please what's all the noise about the US not having competitive corporate tax rates………….it is costing us jobs……….

Well I think it’s all a bunch of crap------------- Most of those damn corporations don’t pay a dime in taxes anyway…….and far as those jobs……………. what make’s yall think they give two toots about y’all………

... they took all the good jobs away and I damn sure there’s no plans to bring them jobs back............

... just because the tax rate was lowered from 25% to 15% …..

Are yall starting to get the picture?

Of course, we're getting the picture.
"The GAO said those corporations in the black that still did not pay federal taxes benefitted from loopholes and tax incentives, such as the practice of rolling over losses from previous years. That enables companies to deduct those losses from their tax burden.

Profitable U.S. corporations paid, on average, an effective federal income tax rate of 14 percent over the slightly shorter period from 2008 to 2012, the federal government watchdog found."

Gee, I wonder why you didn't paste those two paragraphs. And, then there are the dog whistles, which liberals love, loopholes and tax incentives.