General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010

Try to follow here.

If I'm mad at GE for not paying taxes, that includes everything the company holds including MSNBC. Stop trying to make it sound like I'm exempting any of the subsidiaries, etc. for what the parent company does.
 
Dixie said:
I'm talking about the recent SCOTUS ruling on this very issue, they found it unconstitutional to restrict corporations from making political contributions because it violates the 1st Amendment. A corporation is not an independent entity operating of its own volition, it is an organization made of people who have constitutional rights, and those rights can not be restricted based on the fact they belong to a corporation.
Click to expand...

Interesting theory, but wrong. There is nothing in my proposal to prohibit individuals from contributing to campaigns or excising free speech.
 
christiefan915 said:
I already told you I don't know and I haven't finished reading the report you linked.

What is your problem anyway?
Click to expand...

Your problem seems to be selective outrage.

Why is it wrong for a corporation to minimize their tax liablities lawfully?
 
Dixie said:
LMAO... This just keep getting better! Now you are going to attempt to smear Fox for paying $238 million in taxes when MSNBC paid NONE? And it doesn't matter if YOU watch MSNBC or not! You don't watch FOX either, do ya? What does that have to do with who is paying their fair share of taxes?
Click to expand...

chris is always after back dooring FOX-likely her whole rartionale for her GE thread-the proverbial "gottcha" bit her in her own abundant ass.

The fact of the matter is that reducing the corporate tax to 20%, closing loopholes that give large corps. the ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries,
would go a long way in shoring up holes in our tax system.
 
Rtber said:
Your problem seems to be selective outrage.

Why is it wrong for a corporation to minimize their tax liablities lawfully?
Click to expand...

Oh you got me there.

Not paying taxes at all is minimizing, for sure.

Why are you comparing the tax laws applicable to corporations to those applicable to foundations?
 
christiefan915 said:
Oh you got me there.

Not paying taxes at all is minimizing, for sure.

Why are you comparing the tax laws applicable to corporations to those applicable to foundations?
Click to expand...

I'm not. You were curious about "how many more" didn't pay taxes, weren't you?

Did GE break the law?

Yes, or no?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Interesting theory, but wrong. There is nothing in my proposal to prohibit individuals from contributing to campaigns or excising free speech.
Click to expand...

It's not a "theory" and it's not wrong. The Supreme Court recently heard the case: Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

They found that if you restrict "corporations" you are indeed restricting "individuals" because they make up a corporation.
 
Rtber said:
I'm not. You were curious about "how many more" didn't pay taxes, weren't you?

Did GE break the law?

Yes, or no?
Click to expand...

Please stop talking to me like I'm on the witness stand in a courtroom.

First, I was asking how many more corporations do this. You're the one who deflected into foundations.

Second, I'm pretty sure GE dotted all the i's and crossed the t's to make sure what they did was legal, but since I'm not a tax attorney auditing their return, I'm not going to give you the black or white answer you demand. I won't go any further than to say that what they did was probably within the law.

Yes or no, did NPR break the law?
 
Damn Yankee said:
It's not the first time that the SCOTUS has screwed up.
Click to expand...

I don't think they screwed up, I think McCain-Feingold screwed up, when they took the free speech rights from corporations in CFR. Before that, there was no problem, corporations could contribute politically just like 527s, PACs and Unions. There have always been limits on amounts, this was about the right of political free speech, and the SCOTUS ruled 'corporations' can't be exempted from it without violating an individual right to free speech.
 
Dixie said:
I don't think they screwed up, I think McCain-Feingold screwed up, when they took the free speech rights from corporations in CFR. Before that, there was no problem, corporations could contribute politically just like 527s, PACs and Unions. There have always been limits on amounts, this was about the right of political free speech, and the SCOTUS ruled 'corporations' can't be exempted from it without violating an individual right to free speech.
Click to expand...


McCain-Feingold is an example of limiting free speech, especially with respect to advertising restrictions within a certain time frame of an election. Yet SCOTUS doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

SCOTUS is a woefully inefficient mechanism to protect the Constitution. In order to protect it adequately, we need to start taking politicians to task for violating their oath of office: impeachment. Based on the laws written in the last 80 years, impeachment of politicians should be a weekly event. Until we start doing that it the Constitution will continue to be ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top