CNN: 1 in 10 Americans are tea partiers

BDT, while I certainly have no love of Exxon, Exxon is not a person. The people employed by Exxon did pay taxes with Exxon's money. The stockholders of Exxon paid taxes on dividends with Exxon's money. To say that Exxon (or other corporations) did not pay taxes isn't quite accurate. When you get to Partnerships, Limited Partnerships, etc., it is even more so. The Partnership (LP, LLP) is a distinct entity just like a corporation, but pays no taxes at all regardless of any profit. All taxes flow through to the partners who pay full taxes on that profit and then pay yo momma her six bills a month.

One liners from the totalitarian commie sector sound good, but are only there to influence you into further accepting your slavery.

bludroptop wrote: My mom gets a little less than $600 a month in Social Security benefits. She lives on that, supplemented by the generosity of her children. Mom didn't pay any income tax this year. Neither did Exxon.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/02/11/exxon-big-oil-profits-evil-only-until-you-weigh-their-tax-bills.html

Dr. Hess wrote: BDT, while I certainly have no love of Exxon, Exxon is not a person. The people employed by Exxon did pay taxes with Exxon's money. The stockholders of Exxon paid taxes on dividends with Exxon's money. To say that Exxon (or other corporations) did not pay taxes isn't quite accurate. When you get to Partnerships, Limited Partnerships, etc., it is even more so. The Partnership (LP, LLP) is a distinct entity just like a corporation, but pays no taxes at all regardless of any profit. All taxes flow through to the partners who pay full taxes on that profit and then pay yo momma her six bills a month. One liners from the totalitarian commie sector sound good, but are only there to influence you into further accepting your slavery.

Nicely worded!

joey48442 wrote: NPR is drivel? Joey

Yup

bludroptop wrote: My mom gets a little less than $600 a month in Social Security benefits. She lives on that, supplemented by the generosity of her children. Mom didn't pay any income tax this year. Neither did Exxon.

Hasnt Exxon been reporting record breaking profits over the last few years...boy thats odd??? an oil company not having to pay taxes on their record breaking income...how ever did that happen??? If oil is so expensive right now, how are they making a profit? isnt there an economy problem right now? I thought the democrats were the problem? Im confused. Then you got those commies over at NPR, whats with those guys? At least I know I can trust fox news to get me the truth so I can figure it all out! That hannity guy seems to be a smart chip, he seems like hes a real straight shooter, fair and objective. Im certain he wont lead me astray...

^ +1

This is why I need to stay away from the flounder.

My comments were intended to point out that the vast majority of those who "don't pay any taxes" are really people of very modest means. By the way, Mom paid plenty in property taxes, sales taxes and various other fees (code for mo' taxes) - just no federal income tax.

By the way, my snippy comment regarding Exxon was based upon information from that lefty, pinko, tree-huggin' rag known as Forbes:

"Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. Exxon has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S.

"Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a "substantial 2009 tax liability." How substantial? "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we." "

bludroptop wrote: This is why I need to stay away from the flounder. My comments were intended to point out that the vast majority of those who "don't pay any taxes" are really people of very modest means. By the way, Mom paid plenty in property taxes, sales taxes and various other fees (code for mo' taxes) - just no federal income tax. By the way, my snippy comment regarding Exxon was based upon information from that lefty, pinko, tree-huggin' rag known as Forbes: "Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. Exxon has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S. "Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a "substantial 2009 tax liability." How substantial? "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we." "

Sometimes flounder is a tasty addition to the menu.

Instead of accepting (at face value) claims made by the likes of NPR, Fox any other media commentators, people would do well to actually investigate and educate themselves.

In reply to oldsaw:

My issue is where do you investigate? Newspapers news channels talkshow hosts Internet blogs Internet forums it's ALL got somebodies spin on it. How can you find out things for real? I know many people will point to this source, or that source and say "this is truth", but really I think it's only the truth they want to hear, or it reinforces what they already think they know.

Joey

Joey, That's the problem. As I have said before: Follow the Money. What does that source have to gain from telling you that? For example, do they receive money from George Soros? Or in National Propaganda Radio's case, is convincing you to give the Federal Government more of your money in their best interest or yours? Really, the best you can do is read a lot and try to filter out the bullE36 M3. Always look at the story from a Dollars in Someone's Pocket perspective and you will do about the best you can. Sometimes, the truth is deliberately hidden in misleading stories that sound just as plausible. The more important the hiding the more the noise it is hidden in. Case in point: JFK's boo-boo. The truth has been told. So have a dozen other "truths" all equally (or even more) plausible, so we, the peons, have no way of knowing what the real truth is.

My wife's registered as a republican - doesn't always vote that way, but that's how she's registered. So they call us once in a while looking for money or something. Recent call:

"Can I speak to Mr (wife's maiden name)?"
"Sure!"
"Are you a Republican, Democrat, registered independent, voodoo priest or Jedi knight?" (I wasn't listening, he might have said something else)
"I'm Canadian."
awkward silence - that wasn't on his list I'm guessing
"So, how did you feel when President Obama was elected?"
...followed by some pointed opinions from some who lived with a socialized health care system that is nothing like the imaginary one portrayed on Fox News. I'm not sure he's going to call back, but he did sound as if he learned a couple of things that weren't in his propaganda package.

I pay income taxes and I'm not allowed to vote in the US. Sigh...

Following the money is always a good plan, it is the basic motivation of most people / companies. There are also other motivators such as fame, ego, power and (shock of shocks) altruism (not sure how common that one is). How to know which one it is? There really is no way, you can just guess in most cases.

What is the truth? In reality it is almost impossible to find the "truth" in almost anything, especially things that are as complex as many political situations and the polarizing views it can generate. What do I find the most useful phrase in these situations?

...The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between...

OK, seriously guys. How much taxes a company pays is in their quarterly and annual reports. It's fact, and research-able. Anyone who says ExxonMobile pays NO taxes is WRONG. I am not defending them, or siding against them, but there is fact here that is easily found.

Here we go again blindly quoting from the state controlled liberal media play book with “big corporations are the root of our troubles”.

“Focus your anger towards them, don’t look anywhere else for answers, support increased government control as they’re the only entity big enough to take them on.”

Um, if Exxon is too profitable, just buy their stock.

“Oh, but the CEO’s are siphoning off all the profits”.

Really, so your analysis of executive salaries as a function of gross profits, net profits, cash flow, etc show they’re over compensated?

How much are top athletes compensated as a function of their franchise’s financial metrics?

I know, I’m a terrible person; I’m not following the “give everyone except white men a pass” rule.

Whatever, I’m not worried about Exxon, I can buy their stock if I think they’ve got it too good and in either case, if they’re harmful to the public, consumers will punish them by avoiding their product just like we’re seeing with Ford grabbing huge amounts of market share from GM because people are so incensed over the bail-out.

In reply to RX Reven':

If this were Jalopnik, I'd heart you. And tuna55, but he already knows I heart him.

bludroptop wrote: My mom gets a little less than $600 a month in Social Security benefits. She lives on that, supplemented by the generosity of her children. Mom didn't pay any income tax this year. Neither did Exxon.

Vein...forehead...blood pressure....I quit.

A net profit margin of 6.3% is not outstanding by a long shot. And the idea is to make money for the shareholders, not to support Pelosi and Reed's children. The idea that big business is evil is manufactured by the left. Most large businesses keep the areas in which they are located functioning,and without them, most would have severe difficulty maintaining employment and tax revenues.

We do a lot of business with large corporations, and for the most part they are run by individuals that actually care about their employees (we sell a fair amount of safety equipment that is not required by government, at least not in the US). They participate in their communities, give to charities, etc. If ANY of them were run like the government has been lately, they would be in jail for racketeering.

One question everyone needs to ask themselves is, if you could take your business to a country where it would cost you less to operate, would you do it? Or would you stay in a country where the government makes it difficult for you to succeed, or at worst, can claim you in an "imminent domain" fashion? We also do a lot of business in South Africa and now Austraila, and they have some messed up government methods, but they are starting to seem very tame compared to what the US has at this point. And I can't tell you that there hasn't been some discussion about setting up a subsidy in one of those locations for several reasons.

Government is supposed to work for the good of it's people, and right now that is not happening. If you truly believe that it is, you need to wake up. We're seeing it first hand on a daily basis.

In reply to racerdave600:

…Exactly

I work for a medical device company and even though health care reform was only minted a few weeks ago, I’m already seeing antidotal evidence of its effect.

I’ve just been assigned to spend two weeks in Malaysia to help optimize the efficiency of a new manufacturing facility we’re bringing up on line there. Inference = Build OUS.

I speak at our monthly new hire orientations and last week’s session had about 22 folks with none being operators despite the fact that about 40% of our work force are operators. Inference = Build OUS.

We recruit from top schools (Stanford, Cal-Poly, MIT, etc.) and I’ve heard many Co-Op’s tell me they’re scared to death to graduate because the job market is so horrible. Top school, high GPA, prestigious major like Biomedical engineering = No offers.

So many young & lower income people voted for Obama thinking they’d get a bigger slice of the pie. They certainly will but the total size of the pie is systematically being reduced so dramatically that they’ll defiantly wind up with less total pie.

Bottom line…they’re going to get 25% more of a pie that is only half as big.

I ran across this. Kind of like he was reading this thread:

47% of Tea Partiers Pay No Federal Income Taxes!

One of the comments on the article was pretty appropriate also:

....I think there are too many children sold into sex slavery, but I was not ever a child sold into sex slavery...does that mean that I'm intellectually bankrupt? ....

I do wonder though, how many of the protesters who don't pay income taxes realize that. One of their basic premises is that they are taxed too much (doesn't comply with the Dr. "follow the money" rule above). Maybe they are just there for the big government / regulation part.

aircooled wrote: I ran across this. Kind of like he was reading this thread: 47% of Tea Partiers Pay No Federal Income Taxes! One of the comments on the article was pretty appropriate also:

....I think there are too many children sold into sex slavery, but I was not ever a child sold into sex slavery...does that mean that I'm intellectually bankrupt? ....

I do wonder though, how many of the protesters who don't pay income taxes realize that. One of their basic premises is that they are taxed too much (doesn't comply with the Dr. "follow the money" rule above). Maybe they are just there for the big government / regulation part.

Atlantic article said: assume

I don't think his assumption is safe at all given the complexities of the tax code and the statistics he is making his assumptions on...

It seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me. The poll did say that 47% of Tea Partians (?) made less then $50,000. The taxes for someone making under $50,000 are likely to be fairly simple, it doesn't take a lot to go to zero federal taxes at that point. I believe having three kids alone will zero out your taxes up to around $48,000 or so (not even including the other big deductions of mortgage interest and 401k / IRA).

Its probably not quite as high as he is guessing (since many of the non-payers are retired, of course those old types do like to protest) but it should not be to far off.

That’s like when Obama said “your taxes won’t go up if you make less than $250,000”.

Oh really…so you have absolute power to will anything into existence you please with no regard to congress, state & local government, or any other entity; Interesting.

If Obama had said “federal taxes” rather than just “taxes”, I would have assumed he was planning to get the revenue he wanted through alternate means and would later say “oh, you didn’t listen, I only said federal taxes”. The fact that he made the blanket statement of ‘taxes” told me early on that he wasn’t the least bite concerned about being nailed for reneging on his word later. I don’t know why he isn’t concerned, but he obviously isn’t for some reason.

I can’t substantiate this but it has been reported that we’ve already seen 25 new or increased taxes and 17 of those hit folks making under $250,000.

tuna55 wrote:

ignorant wrote: Actually I'm not that far off base.. you guys are just fun to rile up... It's so damn easy.

ignorant wrote: and then some NPR drivel

So you're basically saying that you aspire to be a troll?

no.. I posted something interesting to read and you disreagard it because it's from NPR and not Fox news.. What I posted was very interesting and showed that tax rebates, like the people want, are actually increasing the rate that

You want troll like.

Here's troll like..

The "tea party" movement will only be a force to divide people in the next election.. Welcome to being the next ralph nader. You have no leader. You are altering what the republicans say but your people will only call them Rino's and not vote for them. You are your own worst enemy because you fail to become part of the system and work to change it from within... You don't have any funding at all. No $ no action... Good night.

btw... the Dem's are getting more dollars than the repubs.. Sorry but Cubic dollars win.

Wow, this topic is very "topical" today, I ran across another one that is related to this thread:

Your Taxes Vs America’s Top 25 Companies

This claims they definitely do pay taxes (well most of them), just not as much as a citizen (percentage wise). Not sure if this is complete picture, other taxes they pay may be deducted from the income tax (?)

Looks like Conoco-Phillips really took it in the shorts (51% !), maybe they need better tax guys.

Of note: the top tax bracket graphic is a bit misleading. The old top tax brackets were REALLY high, probably in the millions of dollars a year income adjusted for today's dollars. For more moderately rich people (say a couple hundred thousand), the tax rates have not changed that much.

WilD wrote:

aircooled wrote: I ran across this. Kind of like he was reading this thread: 47% of Tea Partiers Pay No Federal Income Taxes! One of the comments on the article was pretty appropriate also:

....I think there are too many children sold into sex slavery, but I was not ever a child sold into sex slavery...does that mean that I'm intellectually bankrupt? ....

I do wonder though, how many of the protesters who don't pay income taxes realize that. One of their basic premises is that they are taxed too much (doesn't comply with the Dr. "follow the money" rule above). Maybe they are just there for the big government / regulation part.

Atlantic article said: assume

I don't think his assumption is safe at all given the complexities of the tax code and the statistics he is making his assumptions on...

Well, if anyone puts any stock in polls, a recent NYT survey suggests Tea Party backers are "wealthy and educated", driven by "ideology, not economic anxiety".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36528044/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

Perhaps a significant portion of activists fall into the income-range of those who pay no taxes, BUT, perhaps they also see that things are changing for everyone and in ways that bode no long-term benefits for anyone.

Just sayin.............

Yaknow what gets me? If a bunch of [Cartman] 'smelly hippies' [/Cartman] get together and do something to draw attention to their cause (no matter how weak or 'out there') the media drools all over 'em. Champions their cause. Lays out the free publicity like crazy.

Then a bunch of 'tea partiers' do the same thing and get publicity but it's that they are evil and nasty, then they get accused of racism and all kinds of crap.

WTF?

And yeah NPR blows. Ever since I heard one of their deejays? or whatever they call them saying it was OK to commit arson to stop developers from building houses they have been off my 'listen to' list.

ignorant wrote: some crap

I actually respect Ralph Nader. If there were more people with his balls, the world would be a better place.

In downtown Greenville, I was asked to sign a petition. I asked what it was for. "To allow Ralph Nader on the ballot in South Carolina.." didn't listen to the rest, signed it and the wife signed it too. I don't like his politics, agree with pretty much nothing he says, but the man should be allowed to be heard. Just like every other non-major political party. Yup - just your average tea party guy here, who respects Ralph Nader more than GWB. Yup - run by republicans, that's it!