DomYngBlk
Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Theon38
quote:
You got lot's of catching up to do here
Maybe. Let's take a look at your claims vs your evidence.
You stated that those three companies..
quote:
all depend so heavily upon tax payer dollars
Did your entire screed above show that to be the case? Let's look.
quote:
- The company’s large 2010 profits allowed them to lead Fortune 500’s annual ranking of the nations’ most profitable firms for the eighth time in a row. But the oil giant’s average effective tax rates are roughly half the 35 percent tax rate that currently stands as the high-water mark for American corporations. Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and other big oil companies continue to exploit tax loopholes for nearly $4 billion in subsidies each year. These subsidies include write-offs for drilling costs and a deduction for domestic production that was intended for manufacturers, not big oil producers. -
So in fact, the "subsidy" that they received was paying less of the money they've earned, in taxes.
Sometimes, when we hear the word subsidy, we think of redistribution of wealth. If, on the other hand, by subsidy, we mean allowing people and companies to keep the money that they've earned, well hell, i'm all for subsidies!
So, there appears to be two types of subsidies here.
1) Money that goes from 1 taxpayer to another taxpayer in order to prop up the second taxpayer (or business).
2) Money that is earned by a person or a company and that person or company is allowed to keep more of it.
When you're talking about the first, I think most of us can agree that's bad, bad, bad.
When you're talking about the second, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
So let's look at the rest.
quote:
- Goldman Sachs collected $2.9 billion from the American International Group as payout on a speculative trade it placed for the benefit of its own account, receiving the bulk of those funds after AIG received an enormous taxpayer rescue, according to the final report of an investigative panel appointed by Congress.
The fact that a significant slice of the proceeds secured by Goldman through the AIG bailout landed in its own account--as opposed to those of its clients or business partners-- has not been previously disclosed. These details about the workings of the controversial AIG bailout, which eventually swelled to $182 billion, are among the more eye-catching revelations in the report to be released Thursday by the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.-
This doesn't look good for GS. However, you said that they "depend heavily" on tax payer dollars.
This shows that they profited off of tax payer dollars, but not that they "depend heavily" on them.
quote:
- Koch companies are involved in core industries such as the manufacturing, refining and distribution[1] of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching,[4] finance, commodities trading, as well as other ventures and investments.
But here's a knockdown bulletin concerning the the Koch brothers. They make their living off of oil, farming, ...
This doesn't tell me anything of the Koch companies.
It doesn't tell me if they fall into category 1 or category 2.
I'm going to guess though that they are allowed to keep their own money and you think of this as a subsidy. Fine. But I support the second type of subsidy, not the first.
You might want to look into something called Equivocation Fallacy.
Call it what you will. Were the Dollars Taxpayer money? Yes....Would GS have gone in the shitter without them? yes....end of storry bubba....
|
RE: Yet .....ANOTHER....study regarding the wealthy - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread