What's missing from the equation is their lobbying profits. Which are stunning.

hillbillypharmacist: What's missing from the equation is their lobbying profits. Which are stunning.

Bribing Congressmen is surprisingly profitable. And it's never been more legal.

They can write those costs off on the taxes they're lobbying to get cut to nothing

I ask the same thing about the obscene amount of money spent by cash-strapped "job creators" trying to influence elections.

They're the Job Creators, and lobbyists are the jobs they're creating.

I can see we're already done here.

It is an investment in the plutocracy that they've been creating for the last 30 years.

Because a corporation's tax dollars don't work for them unless they have marionette-like control over the legislature.

You are talking about their lining their pockets, so sense flew out the window from the get-go.

Isn't it obvious? If Fortune500 companies weren't taxed, there would be no need for them to spend money buying congressmen hiring lobbyists to get their taxes lowered.

Just because my greater expense is my rent doesn't mean that I don't care about the price of my car loan.

qorkfiend: I can see we're already done here.

(Other than this,) this may be the first thread I lurk in with no intention of commenting. I just want to know how someone can defend this without exploding on the launchpad.

// yes, lobbying is protected by 1A
// no, that doesn't mean you get to do it (for|tax) free

That's why they spent so much on lobbying.

Corporations are people......except when it comes to the criminal justice system. Then they are entities that pay fines instead of anyone going to jail.

Dr Dreidel: qorkfiend: I can see we're already done here.

(Other than this,) this may be the first thread I lurk in with no intention of commenting. I just want to know how someone can defend this without exploding on the launchpad.

// yes, lobbying is protected by 1A
// no, that doesn't mean you get to do it (for|tax) free

It means they get to try, and we get to fight back. That's what I find most insidious about these issues; the right tends to argue that, like gun control, we shouldn't even be discussing it at all.

Silly subby; if they didn't spend all that time lobbying, crushing government regulations would crush them and stuff.

The corporate tax rate in this country is like 35%... to balance the budget IIRC, would require something like 20% of the GDP. Theyre not paying their 35%, theyre not even paying the 20%.

Corporations have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximize profits by any legal means necessary. If some higher up at some company said "hey, were gonna do the right thing and play this above the board and actually pay what we owe and not exploit any loopholes...", well, there would be a new board the following day.

Three words: Return On Investment

Yogimus: Just because my greater expense is my rent doesn't mean that I don't care about the price of my car loan.

That's not analagous.
This is like you owing $500 a month to the bank for your car while at the same time bribing a teller $1000 a month to get out of making payments on the car loan.

St_Francis_P: They're the Job Creators, and lobbyists are the jobs they're creating.

I see my work here is done for me.

Yogimus: Just because my greater expense is my rent doesn't mean that I don't care about the price of my car loan.

You failed analogies, didn't you?

Headline: Where is the logic in Fortune 500 companies complaining about tax rates when their greater expense is lobbying costs?

I like you, subby. You make me laugh.

A big part of keeping their taxes down is hiding profits overseas.
But this prevents them from repatriating those profits.
Which, if repatriated and taxed, would significantly overwhelm their lobbying costs.

/ Also: all the stuff about lobbying not only being about cutting costs, but netting revenue via handouts
// corporate welfare is worse than a million welfare queens, taking their young bucks out for nice steak dinners in their cadillacs

I doubt most lobbying is directly related to taxes. I have a feeling it's primarily aimed at regulations, either to free up opportunities or to stifle the little guy.

Low tax rates are nice, but the real objective of the Chamber of Commerce and company is to eliminate Social Security. Wall Street can't take management fees from Social Security.

They are smart businessmen and they invest their money where it's going to turn the most profit.

/obvious

I love the incentives that (we) the states, counties and cities pay for a huge corporation to move to their town. Isn't that some sort of bribe? And after all is said and done the taxpayer picks up the tab.

Let's face facts: this country was bought and sold a long time ago. Corporations are in control, and very little can be done about it

Maybe some day, the unwashed masses will rise up and overthrow our shiatty government, but I doubt it. We're too busy playing with our Chinese-made electronics to organize.

Mega Steve: Let's face facts: this country was bought and sold a long time ago. Corporations are in control, and very little can be done about it

Maybe some day, the unwashed masses will rise up and overthrow our shiatty government, but I doubt it. We're too busy playing with our Chinese-made electronics to organize.

what? *goes back to smartphone*

Cyno01: Corporations have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximize profits by any legal means necessary.

Do they?

These subsidies didn't just come about by accident-at least 30 Fortune 500 firms pay their lobbyists more than they pay in taxes.

I've never understood this. I don't see how it makes good business sense. Same thing when people try and offset their taxes by making charitable donations(As opposed to those who actually donate because they care about helping). Since charitable contributions come off your taxable income, as opposed to the tax due, that means that they have to donate more than they would have paid in taxes int he first place. Once again, makes no sense whatsoever.

Wendy's Chili: Cyno01: Corporations have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximize profits by any legal means necessary.

Do they?

The law doesn't impose a duty to maximize profits, but the market sure as hell does.

Mega Steve: Let's face facts: this country was bought and sold a long time ago. Corporations are in control, and very little can be done about it

Maybe some day, the unwashed masses will rise up and overthrow our shiatty government, but I doubt it. We're too busy playing with our Chinese-made electronics to organize.

Yes, if only we didn't have the highest standard of living in the history of the world to distract us from how bad we have it.

Because lobbyist fees go straight to other rich people. Taxes might end up benefiting someone you wouldn't let in your country club.

Cyno01: The corporate tax rate in this country is like 35%... to balance the budget IIRC, would require something like 20% of the GDP. Theyre not paying their 35%, theyre not even paying the 20%.

Corporations have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximize profits by any legal means necessary. If some higher up at some company said "hey, were gonna do the right thing and play this above the board and actually pay what we owe and not exploit any loopholes...", well, there would be a new board the following day.

You should really apply the concepts of parasitism and symbiosis to this situation. Shareholder value is all fine and good until it gets so out of hand that the host dies.

Socialism Jesus trickledown redistribution job creators welfare society.

Goddam libs.

/yeah, showed you

It's not about logic. It's about hatred. Seething, near-genocidal Hatred of the poor.

They pine for the JP Morgan days when they could have their limos drive past shantytowns full of ragged starving children and laugh. They wish they were born 100 years earlier so they too could send in hordes of strikebusting goons into mining camps to murder anyone who dares to stand up for themselves.

Murder the surplus population and enslave the survivors. That power fantasy drives them on each and every day.

They will spend nearly half their total fortune so long as they can use their remaining half to rule over the rest of Humanity like Pharaohs.

Mikey1969: These subsidies didn't just come about by accident-at least 30 Fortune 500 firms pay their lobbyists more than they pay in taxes.

I've never understood this. I don't see how it makes good business sense. Same thing when people try and offset their taxes by making charitable donations(As opposed to those who actually donate because they care about helping). Since charitable contributions come off your taxable income, as opposed to the tax due, that means that they have to donate more than they would have paid in taxes int he first place. Once again, makes no sense whatsoever.

So you're working under the assumption that their tax bill (or other expenses) are exactly the same as what they would have been with no lobbying?

Nobody has ever made charitable donations purely for tax reasons. Just like nobody has ever turned down money purely for tax reasons (except maybe near reporting thresholds.)

Citrate1007: It is an investment in the plutocracy that they've been creating for the last 30130 years.

FTF my interpretation of American History

Because X+Y is less than X+(Y*1.1)

Duh.

Yogimus: Just because my greater expense is my rent doesn't mean that I don't care about the price of my car loan.

I think you missing the point. The point is why would you spend more money to keep taxes low than to pay less letting the taxes go up.

Wow, a simplistic and childish, 6 MONTH OLD article containing many statements that result from little, if any, logical analysis. 

I'm this comment thread will be insightful. What mod got a handy to let this thru?

I actually know republicans who throw money away so they don't have to pay taxes on it. They don't seem to realize that they would still be making more money not to but they are wrapped up in the the crazy Limbaugh Derp.

Karac: Yogimus: Just because my greater expense is my rent doesn't mean that I don't care about the price of my car loan.

That's not analagous.
This is like you owing $500 a month to the bank for your car while at the same time bribing a teller $1000 a month to get out of making payments on the car loan.

Which makes sense if that loan would cost you $1500/month without the bribe.

TV's Vinnie: It's not about logic. It's about hatred. Seething, near-genocidal Hatred of the poor.

They pine for the JP Morgan days when they could have their limos drive past shantytowns full of ragged starving children and laugh. They wish they were born 100 years earlier so they too could send in hordes of strikebusting goons into mining camps to murder anyone who dares to stand up for themselves.

Murder the surplus population and enslave the survivors. That power fantasy drives them on each and every day.

They will spend nearly half their total fortune so long as they can use their remaining half to rule over the rest of Humanity like Pharaohs.


Ya know, i'd actually believe that.

Mikey1969: I've never understood this. I don't see how it makes good business sense.

They make more money having regulations written in their favor. Nothing to do with taxes. It's a red herring; a weak comparison at best.

Because paying taxes doesn't buy you favorable legislation.

way south: Because paying taxes doesn't buy you favorable legislation.

maybe we are doing it wrong. Maybe we should. Whoever pays the most in taxes gets lobbyists talk to representatives.

Mikey1969: These subsidies didn't just come about by accident-at least 30 Fortune 500 firms pay their lobbyists more than they pay in taxes.

I've never understood this. I don't see how it makes good business sense. Same thing when people try and offset their taxes by making charitable donations(As opposed to those who actually donate because they care about helping). Since charitable contributions come off your taxable income, as opposed to the tax due, that means that they have to donate more than they would have paid in taxes int he first place. Once again, makes no sense whatsoever.

You don't get good PR for paying taxes, but you do for donating to charities and worthwhile causes. So they do get something out of it. And also, a lot of these "charities" just happen to be run by family members and friends of the corporate execs. Or the charity now starts to buy its supplies and services from subsidiaries of the donor. When these guys give to charity, they're getting something back, that in their eyes, is more than they get from the utility of their taxes.

Wendy's Chili: Cyno01: Corporations have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximize profits by any legal means necessary.

Do they?

The corporation? No. The directors? Yes, they have a fiduciary duty.

You do realize you linked an article written by someone so farking stupid they didn't even use that word, right?