IRS Data Shows: "The Rich" Pay Higher Rates

I understand you chose to apply willful ignorance in response to my everyday experience. Nontheless, I will attempt to address as many of your concerns as necessary:

http://www.change.org/petitions/new...-television-options-besides-time-warner-cable

Tenants of NYCHA should have the opportunity to use any cable network provider that is available in our area. Currently we are only allowed to use Time Warner as our cable provider and therefore TWC is allowed to charge ridiculous rates because they know they are the only carrier. There is no competition to help drive fair prices. Average cable bill for 3 boxes and premium channels with TWC is $250 and up, other NYC residents have choices such as verizon fios, dish network, etc. More options are essential.
Click to expand...
 
christiefan915 said:
This is a strawman. The argument isn't about one provider vs. another. We were arguing whether poor people in subsidized housing with cable hookups actually use them.
Click to expand...

How many times are you going to keep moving the goalposts? Can you now admit it is proven that NYC Public Housing is in fact wired for cable tv?

Theoretically, *anybody* in subsidized public housing is supposed to be poor. Is your theory now that all of the public housing developments in NYC were wired for cable, but are not used because the people are too poor, even though they're putting up on-line petititions complaining they are not offered enough cable tv options?

Some of the comments from "the poor":

Working families deserve affordable housing and affordable television. Our children deserve the opportunity to view the Disney channel, Nick Jr. and other basic cable television channels at an affordable price. The TWC monopoly on NYCHA developments is unacceptable. We need choices!!
Click to expand...

rates are to high. residence on the upper west side have options we don't.. why should we get stuck with 1 provider when the rich have options/...
Click to expand...

Change is good... we live in PUBLIC Housing and we want to have a piece of enjoyment also...why do we have to pay more money then most just to watch cable....Other companies like verizon, att, etc.... are so so much cheaper..... Its a shame to have to pay so much...why are we locked into not having any OPTIONS?
Click to expand...

Because it's not fair buildings across the street from me can receive fios but I'm stuck having to deal with cablevision.
Click to expand...

We should be allowed to enjoy cable television without it being RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE!!! Have the right to shop in different stores! SO WE SHOULD ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO PICK AND CHOOSE OUR CABLE TELEVISION OPTIONS!! POINT BLANK!!!!
Click to expand...

I pay a ridiculous amount of money for cable service
Click to expand...

I like that last one best.... completely oblivious to how much the taxpayers have to pay to subsidize her housing.
 
Oh, and high-speed internet:

TWC has abused its monopoly. It has begun charging (with almost no notice) $4 per month for a cable modem that in my experience has need to be replaced more than annually (and requiring a scheduled visit with a 50% chance of no show).
Click to expand...
 
Taft2016 said:
To the contrary, I've proven that "the poor" in NYC are being subsidized up to a middle-class lifestyle that includes nice cars, reserved parking, cable television, and high-speed internet.

Is there an articulable reason that they can not forego the cars, parking spaces, cable TV, and internet to pay the going rate of rent?
Click to expand...
You don't think the deserve a little grey poupon as well!
Fascist
 
Taft2016 said:
How many times are you going to keep moving the goalposts? Can you now admit it is proven that NYC Public Housing is in fact wired for cable tv?

Theoretically, *anybody* in subsidized public housing is supposed to be poor. Is your theory now that all of the public housing developments in NYC were wired for cable, but are not used because the people are too poor, even though they're putting up on-line petititions complaining they are not offered enough cable tv options?
Click to expand...

Lol, me moving the goal posts? I bet you typed that with a straight face, too.

Show me the post where I denied the buildings were wired. And yes, my theory (notice I haven't said "fact" because I can't prove it) is that 100% of those living in public housing are not using the cable and/or internet service. However if you can prove otherwise I'll take back my words.

Some of the comments from "the poor":
I like that last one best.... completely oblivious to how much the taxpayers have to pay to subsidize her housing.
Click to expand...

What you really mean is not "some of the comments from the poor", but "comments from *some* of the poor."

Btw, what do you propose the working poor do in their time off, since you so much resent their access to cable?
 
Taft2016 said:
I've explained this before... goes in one liberal ear and out the other. I'll try once more.

Corporations do not get tax benefits individuals get. If you finish your year with $10K extra after paying bills and taxes, you can put that money in the bank for your future. You won't pay taxes on it again, except for taxes on any interest earned.

Corporations can not do that. If they keep this year's money into next year, they have to pay tax on it again. It called the Accrued Earnings Tax.

So, basically, corporations have to zero out their profits at the end of the year. Since dividends paid to shareholders are not deductible, they give it to employees as an operating expense. This is why you see huge CEO bonuses... the CEOs run the bonus through some sort of tax shelter and "lend" the money back to the corporation. The corporation gets its money back, this time in the debt column instead of the profit column.

It's an easy fix... get rid of the accrued earnings tax. Then corporations wouldn't have to go to such Herculean efforts to wipe out profits at the end of the year.

Additionally, corporations take legitimate tax deductions for research and development. And taxes paid overseas, just as your state, local, and property taxes are deductible from your federal taxes.

It's no mystery.
Click to expand...

the mystery is how you keep carrying water for people who essentially could care less about you and use the system to further their gains at your expense. It's called REVENUE, bunky. The less of it there is, the more our economy hurts.


26 Major Corporations Paid No Corporate Income Tax For The Last Four Years, Despite Making Billions In Profits

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460519/

And if that weren't enough, there's corporate welfare:

'Corporate Welfare' Costs Taxpayers Almost $100 Billion in FY 2012, Cato Report Finds
August 3, 2012 - 4:05 PM

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/corp...o-report-finds
 
Taichiliberal said:
the mystery is how you keep carrying water for people who essentially could care less about you and use the system to further their gains at your expense. It's called REVENUE, bunky. The less of it there is, the more our economy hurts.


26 Major Corporations Paid No Corporate Income Tax For The Last Four Years, Despite Making Billions In Profits

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460519/

And if that weren't enough, there's corporate welfare:

'Corporate Welfare' Costs Taxpayers Almost $100 Billion in FY 2012, Cato Report Finds
August 3, 2012 - 4:05 PM

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/corp...o-report-finds
Click to expand...
Yet as cawacko posted, most are afraid of investing in stocks
 
Taft2016 said:
Hey dipshit, I'm a shareholder.
Click to expand...

A major shareholder? I don't think so. More like a paid troll to push this swill on chat boards.

But for the sake of argument, let's say I believe you....that STILL does not change the following information.


26 Major Corporations Paid No Corporate Income Tax For The Last Four Years, Despite Making Billions In Profits

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460519/

And if that weren't enough, there's corporate welfare:

'Corporate Welfare' Costs Taxpayers Almost $100 Billion in FY 2012, Cato Report Finds
August 3, 2012 - 4:05 PM

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/corp...o-report-finds


It's called REVENUE, you simpleton. If the major profiteers are avoiding paying their fare share, then the burden is placed upon those who are NOT wealthy shareholders or owners or managers.
 
Taft2016 said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Bullshit! You can own stock....other than that you don't own a fucking thing regarding the corporate profits....and if Wall St. decides to play games like it did by the end of 2011, your stock or 401K may not be worth the paper it's written on.
Click to expand...

Then enlighten us....who owns it?
Click to expand...

Take a refresher course in reading comprehension, bunky. YOU own stock in the company, but YOU are NOT the owner nor management nor a board member. Like I said, if Wall St. and/or your company decides to screw around, your stock is toilet paper...or were you asleep during he last 30 years?
 
The Dude said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Bullshit! You can own stock....other than that you don't own a fucking thing regarding the corporate profits....and if Wall St. decides to play games like it did by the end of 2011, your stock or 401K may not be worth the paper it's written on.
Click to expand...

You own exactly your share, sorry turbolibby
Click to expand...

No shit sherlock! I never said otherwise....your idiot buddy Taft seems to think that he's actually an "owner" of the company just because he has some stock. Seems the last 30 years should have taught him otherwise (Enron, Wall St. mortgage debacle, etc.) because whether liberal or conservative, a whole lot of stock holders got royally screwed!
 
Taft2016 said:
Kind of sad.... an adult not owning anything for retirement.

Ralston Purina might be a good investment. These libtards are going to be eating dog food in their old age.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the folks that got screwed by Enron, or the Savings and Loans scandal. God, you willfully ignorant neocon/teabagger parrots are reprehensible...as long as you've got yours, you'll squawk all the revisionist crap fed to you by your owners....but the nano-second they screw you, you blame everyone else BUT the leadership you believed in.
 
The Dude said:
Quote Originally Posted by AssHatZombie View Post
Which does not include any fixed percentage of profits. As "turbolibby" was saying.
Click to expand...

It include fixed 100 percent of the profits if I own all the stock, idiots.
Click to expand...

Which didn't do a damned bit of good for all those folk investing in Enron, did it now? And what you are professing doesn't change the information I posted about tax dodging corporations one iota.
 
Taichiliberal said:
No shit sherlock! I never said otherwise....your idiot buddy Taft seems to think that he's actually an "owner" of the company just because he has some stock. Seems the last 30 years should have taught him otherwise (Enron, Wall St. mortgage debacle, etc.) because whether liberal or conservative, a whole lot of stock holders got royally screwed!
Click to expand...
But grasshopper this has always been the case
Hence he term risked capital
You act as if the only investors are failed ones
 
Taichiliberal said:
No shit sherlock! I never said otherwise....your idiot buddy Taft seems to think that he's actually an "owner" of the company just because he has some stock. Seems the last 30 years should have taught him otherwise (Enron, Wall St. mortgage debacle, etc.) because whether liberal or conservative, a whole lot of stock holders got royally screwed!
Click to expand...

Being the owner of a company doesn't mean there is zero risk.
 
NOVA said:
Originally Posted by Taft2016 View Post
Then enlighten us....who owns it?
Click to expand...

Guess TightCheeksLibby is gonna on a quest to look that up....probably on the gov. teat right now....
Click to expand...

Nova, quit braying like an ass. Just because you don't get an immediate response doesn't me people don't have an answer. Check today's posts in this thread...and then enlighten us all as to what part of what I posted was wrong by your reckoning. I'll wait.
 
Taichi, just to clarify are you claiming the companies that didn't pay taxes did so illegally or that they followed the laws and the current laws need changing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top