Anyone want to define Corporate Greed?

A

anonomoose

New member
ezra said:
all hand outs have to stop!a few exceptions for extrem situations but very stringent guidlins.drop the tax rate to say 15%no exceptions no right off's corps pay and all people pay no exceptions you have a paper rout and are 10yrs old you pay.
Click to expand...
While this sounds good on paper, there are problems with this process in real life.

For instance....EZRA has a business. He expenses out his truck, equipment, gas, oil, (a little snowmobile oil) repairs (a couple snowmobile repairs) uniforms (a few snowmobile outfits) and about 7,000 other things that are "questionable" before he declares a profit.

Increase this to a factor of about million, and you have the basic Corporation which can manipulate the books, and purchases, good, etc, to end up with a zero profit picture.

Oil companies still have oil depletion allowances...aka big deductions which they can take or not depending upon the profits that might develop over time and just before year end.

How is that going to stack up against the poor schmuck that heads to work at AM and carries a lunch bucket?

That being said, there ARE things that could be done to level the tax rules, such as paying based upon raw materials purchased, and shipping receipts, etc.

But this all comes back to one issue... and that is getting those who are bribed while they are in office to vote for something that would be fair...so far they are in office and can do whatever they want for as long as they want until you get them out of office again once you know that they aren't doing what you want them to do.

I have an answer to that one....if you care to read futher.....

In Canada, parties are in office for no set period of time. If they do something contrary to what the public...or more accurately the opposition doesn't like, they call for a vote of confidence....if they don't get it....within a few weeks there is a popular vote of the people.

So let's say that some yo yo votes to make new tax credits for those poor oil companies who are barely surviving these days, and the people find out about it between commercials of dancing with the stars.....and they order a vote of confidence. Ruling party become lame, and a new vote gets taken...which will like put the opposing party in office until they screw up.

This could work....and even huge war chests of campaign funds could be depleted if they had to spend it like water every few months or every other year or so. Party does the right thing....they can stay in for a very long time.

At least it sounds good on paper....
 
H

Hoosier

Well-known member
anonomoose said:
While this sounds good on paper, there are problems with this process in real life.

For instance....EZRA has a business. He expenses out his truck, equipment, gas, oil, (a little snowmobile oil) repairs (a couple snowmobile repairs) uniforms (a few snowmobile outfits) and about 7,000 other things that are "questionable" before he declares a profit.

Increase this to a factor of about million, and you have the basic Corporation which can manipulate the books, and purchases, good, etc, to end up with a zero profit picture.

Oil companies still have oil depletion allowances...aka big deductions which they can take or not depending upon the profits that might develop over time and just before year end.

How is that going to stack up against the poor schmuck that heads to work at AM and carries a lunch bucket?

That being said, there ARE things that could be done to level the tax rules, such as paying based upon raw materials purchased, and shipping receipts, etc.

But this all comes back to one issue... and that is getting those who are bribed while they are in office to vote for something that would be fair...so far they are in office and can do whatever they want for as long as they want until you get them out of office again once you know that they aren't doing what you want them to do.

I have an answer to that one....if you care to read futher.....

In Canada, parties are in office for no set period of time. If they do something contrary to what the public...or more accurately the opposition doesn't like, they call for a vote of confidence....if they don't get it....within a few weeks there is a popular vote of the people.

So let's say that some yo yo votes to make new tax credits for those poor oil companies who are barely surviving these days, and the people find out about it between commercials of dancing with the stars.....and they order a vote of confidence. Ruling party become lame, and a new vote gets taken...which will like put the opposing party in office until they screw up.

This could work....and even huge war chests of campaign funds could be depleted if they had to spend it like water every few months or every other year or so. Party does the right thing....they can stay in for a very long time.

At least it sounds good on paper....
Click to expand...

Moose - do you invest in the stock market or have a pension? Just curious, as you really seem to have an issue with corporations, specifically public companies. Public corporations exist to create profits for the benefit of their shareholders, which include you if you invest in the market or have a pension. Yes, there is a difference between book profits and tax profits, but as part of the annual audit process they are required to reconcile the two. If corporations spent all their operating profits on non-business related items, as they do in your example, with the purpose of driving down taxable income, they would not have any book profits either, which would cause their stock prices to drop and not produce any cash flow for its shareholders. So I guess I'm not following your analogy. If your issue is more with tax breaks and corporate handouts provided by the govt and less with "manipulating the books," then I am more in agreement with your view. But that is not the fault of the corporation (the receiver of such handouts) so much as the fault of the govt (the giver).

Your specific example about depletion - that's very similar to depreciating any asset. It's not as if there is an unlimited amount of depletion that can be taken, it is limited to how much the company paid for the pool of oil.

I don't know much about how the Canadian govt operates, but for your example vs the US style govt, that is a good argument. I for one like the USA model of having representatives in office for a predetermined amount of time. In my mind, this is one of the advantages of a republic style of govt vs a more pure democracy. Elected officials are placed in the office by the voters and then are expected to represent the interests of their constituents and to make decisions during their term without fear that an unpopular vote may get them immediately tossed from office - this serves to insulate them from the election process for a specific period of time, after which they are again "graded" by the voters. Ideally, this results in a more longer-term perspective when making decisions. Of course the system is flawed by special interests and more importantly by the ignorance of the voters, but that is a different issue. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
E

ezra

Well-known member
if you are going to cheet you are going to cheet bis corp or singel guy.I still think it would work no deductions NONE AT ALL and every one payes the same %
 
A

anonomoose

New member
Hoosier said:
Moose - do you invest in the stock market or have a pension? Just curious, as you really seem to have an issue with corporations, specifically public companies. Public corporations exist to create profits for the benefit of their shareholders, which include you if you invest in the market or have a pension. Yes, there is a difference between book profits and tax profits, but as part of the annual audit process they are required to reconcile the two. If corporations spent all their operating profits on non-business related items, as they do in your example, with the purpose of driving down taxable income, they would not have any book profits either, which would cause their stock prices to drop and not produce any cash flow for its shareholders. So I guess I'm not following your analogy. If your issue is more with tax breaks and corporate handouts provided by the govt and less with "manipulating the books," then I am more in agreement with your view. But that is not the fault of the corporation (the receiver of such handouts) so much as the fault of the govt (the giver).

Your specific example about depletion - that's very similar to depreciating any asset. It's not as if there is an unlimited amount of depletion that can be taken, it is limited to how much the company paid for the pool of oil.

I don't know much about how the Canadian govt operates, but for your example vs the US style govt, that is a good argument. I for one like the USA model of having representatives in office for a predetermined amount of time. In my mind, this is one of the advantages of a republic style of govt vs a more pure democracy. Elected officials are placed in the office by the voters and then are expected to represent the interests of their constituents and to make decisions during their term without fear that an unpopular vote may get them immediately tossed from office - this serves to insulate them from the election process for a specific period of time, after which they are again "graded" by the voters. Ideally, this results in a more longer-term perspective when making decisions. Of course the system is flawed by special interests and more importantly by the ignorance of the voters, but that is a different issue. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...


We ALL have opinions, and NO I don’t let a pension fund determine my investments…like to believe I don’t need anyone like that to tell me where to put my money, but I know that is rare and perhaps odd as many certainly do. Most have no choice in the matter and for that I understand their dilemma if they have one. I have about $1000 in stocks just to play with in one of those discount brokerages and it’s primarily for amusement.
I have no problem with public corporations either, and understand that they must turn a profit, or go away. There are a hundred different places to put your money so you can retire and enjoy those golden years. And Greedy corporations have been around since the beginning and it breeds more greedy companies that don’t put back into society. While just not paying taxes is a sad commentary, we don’t want to castrate all companies that pay nothing until we find out WHAT they have put back into society. If they pick and chose where they put it back, that’s fine too. But more companies not only pump up the bottom line at often direct expense to our society…you know the one that sends men to war, and must build roads and bridges, and libraries, and hospitals that no matter who you are or where you live, we all need. I call it the tick on the dog’s ear syndrome. Are you contributing to it, or just riding along and sucking dry? Do you know who donates and who doesn’t? Do you care? Would you rather watch dancing with the stars???
We need to stand up once in awhile and ask these questions, rather than shrug our shoulders and let someone else worry about it. It tends to be good for society…you know the place your kids and grandkids will inherit someday.
When you suck at the trough, bribe elected members of government, opps…I mean contribute to a campaign fund, and knowingly vote because if you do, you get money put in the campaign coffers, and if you don’t vote for it…you get nothing…who are you representing?
The depletion allowances were set up for a fledgling oil business so that they could survive in a competitive business. Oil was like 8 dollars a barrel and necessary to keep the bottom line healthy. Does a corporation that continues to feed at the public trough, need this when they are about to set records that make the J. Paul Getty years seem like childs play? Does pushing harder for even more tax credits and tax deductions and elbowing representatives hard to get them, morally the right thing to do? Why should anybody care…..?? That was the place ancient Rome was just a few years ago….decay that few cared about….me first, society last. It didn’t work for them and it won’t work for us. Compounding the problem is the fact that the system has become corrupted, from top of the group to the bottom…so that those who are charged with watching the hen house have a sweet heart deal with the fox and coyote. Does that need explanation?
We say vote, and decide. But do we really have a choice? Is it any wonder that 70+% of us don’t trust congress, and our representatives to do the right thing? Just get into office and it is like hitting the lottery…no kidding. Payments will come from every direction, in the form of campaign contributions, and junkets that are perfectly legitimate. Even the courts are political, and therefore vulnerable to “persuasion”.
This isn’t going to be an easy fix, even if people stand up and take note. And if we elect someone to office and they get the dirt under the carpet quickly, the public, which has been dumbed down to astounding levels…hey they can’t even figure out how to punch a voting card…how are you going to get them to see what the real issues of the day are?
How are you supposed to fix it?
We have nearly zero chance of changing it. That’s why the vote of confidence is important. It can nullify the money part and a guy who is at risk of loosing his job, is a guy that might be more inclined to vote for what is right rather than what will fill a bank account.
Yeah, I have heard the talk….”we have the best system available” and “nothing I can do about it so if I can’t beat them…I might as well join them” ideologies, and frankly it just means “hey, I don’t want to think too hard at this….dancing with the stars is coming up and I don’t want to miss it”.

We need to take note, we need to work at educating on this, and we need to fight to make these changes, not for us….but for those who come after us. Live well, but leave it better for the next generation and the one after that. When I was a boy, I remember reading about the lumber barons who took the trees and left a waste land behind…and thinking “holly cow….what were they thinking” and that “we wouldn’t do that now”….the country needed jobs, right? Well the same “talk “ is out there about “needing jobs” and the same or worse…way worse continues to happen. Isn’t this worth waking up for? Shouldn’t it matter? It is that indifference that is killing us. It is ignoring the obvious that is kicking our butts…it is a corporation that doesn’t care so long as we make a killing, and stockholders who don’t care if they invest in drug running so long as “their retirement accounts grow and prosper.”

Call me old fashioned, but I think there should be a difference, and that we should have morals that say, a good profit is where I want to be…but I don’t have to kill off the competition, or corner the market and stick it to everyone…just because I can. Oh, and pass the tax credits please, and a great big helping of tax deductions, and write-offs, which….who’s gunna notice???

And that's where I'm coming from on this.....
 
R

rocketman356

New member
I say lobbyist are a major corruption problem with our elected officials from both sides of the fence.Profit whats that ,I haven't seen one in three years from two different companies.Heck my wife just formed a non profit corp..........
 
M

Marty P

New member
Anonomoose - Typically I don’t find many people that I have agreement with when it comes to this type of topic and discussion, apparently you are the exception...:D
 
S

sixball

New member
President Obama repeated his call Tuesday for an end to $4 billion in oil industry tax breaks
In the next breath he is spending it. How about paying off our debt?
 
H

Hoosier

Well-known member
sixball said:
President Obama repeated his call Tuesday for an end to $4 billion in oil industry tax breaks
In the next breath he is spending it. How about paying off our debt?
Click to expand...

I am not familiar with the specifics fo the $4 billion you and others mentioned, but I agree with ending any and all subsidies to the oil industry along with all other energy subsidies - wind power, "alternative" energy, and the worst of them all - ethanol. Let's streamline the process for letting companies produce and refine oil and then let all energy companies stand on their own 2 feet.
 
E

ezra

Well-known member
Marty P said:
Anonomoose - Typically I don’t find many people that I have agreement with when it comes to this type of topic and discussion, apparently you are the exception...:D
Click to expand...

well you could try posting in fourms in say Europe prob get alot more people to go along with you.or just hang out in Msnbc chat room plenty of like minded ther
 
R

russholio

Well-known member
Hoosier said:
I am not familiar with the specifics fo the $4 billion you and others mentioned, but I agree with ending any and all subsidies to the oil industry along with all other energy subsidies - wind power, "alternative" energy, and the worst of them all - ethanol. Let's streamline the process for letting companies produce and refine oil and then let all energy companies stand on their own 2 feet.
Click to expand...

Great idea....except that the oil companies would more than likely use that loss of income as another excuse to raise the prices even more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top