biggest in history??

[_Jason Bourne]

which is not the way to look at it. It should be about percents.
Also, the real value of a dollar to a person is in some sense a nonlinear function of that persons state of wealth. Ten dollars is worth the world to a starving person and six million is worth next to nothing to Bill Gates.
This is why progressive taxation makes sense. The value of money is not absolute but relative to wealth and position.

To take $5000,000 away from Exxon and give $500 to 1000 people doesn't hurt Exxon but may give life saving hope to those 1000 poor folksat a critical time.
Of course, we really wouldn't simply take the $5000,000 away from Exxon, we just return to a fairer level of progressivity in tax structure.

I see you are still unable to list even one tax break loophole that Bush has given to big corporations.

by the way, let us here note, the president does not make tax law. Congress does. It starts in the house ways and means committee. The president can push and support and sign and veto but he does not create tax law.

[_Tarski]

Are people starving to death in America? I thought we had an obesity epidemic? This is crazy, Tarski. Are you sure you're college eduated? You don't sound like a critical thinker. You're seriously all over the place with your thought processes.

I am just using food as a symbol for all sorts of problems, the ability to pay bills, get healthy food, afford an education, afford treatment for drug addiction etc.

But, now that you mention it, let me tell you a story.

I never thought that there were hungry people in the US. But, I wasn't looking. My son met a girl who was working at a phone bank to support her sick mother and the rest of the family. A phone bank!
She couldn't possibly go to college--who would feed the family? My son later married her.
Anyway, she looked so insanely thin to me I thought she was on meth or something. But it wasn't the case. She looked like just skin and bones. I found out that the family was rationing food. They once were saved when they had no food because the father who lives in another city sent a big box of instant ramen for the family to eat (he is a poor immigrant himself). That box of ramen was welcomed like a feast.
Their electricity was shut off several times and this girl did nothing but work. At first I had the thought that someone was lazy somewhere (maybe the mother) or that they just weren't taking proper steps. I was shown to be wrong.

The mother now works at Walmart for next to nothing despite painful illness and the girl still works at a phone bank at 28 years old while my son struggles to get a real job because of a record; he didn't have money for a lawyer when he was 19 and his step father was mistreating him somewhere in Utah. He has changed and is a good person 7 years later but companies don't hire him.

Once he was arrested for steeling a can of chili because he was so hungry. He would never tell me about this since he is embarrassed and wants to make it on his own-but I found out because my son in law is a local cop.
He got the staff resistant MSRA and spend a month in the hospital with no medical insurance and nearly lost his arm. He lost his job of course. Now he works at McDonalds and owes 50,000 in medical bills. They got thier first actual bed as a wedding gift after lving together in poverty for 5 years. Perhaps my son has hidden personality or mental problems and he needs help. On the surface he is charming and kind and certainly intelligent.
He was addicted to pain pills (and maybe meth) that started when he ripped up his arm (needed surgery but didn't get it). But who will pay to help him? I tried for years to find some social program to get him help but the waiting lists were too long or they cost more money than I had.
They have no healthcare and I can see no path to careers for them that are rewarding. I am sure you will start in on the blame. Go ahead. Blame me, him whatever. I have lived this situation, I know what the possibilities are. we've tried all the things that people have suggested.

[_Jason Bourne]

Tarski still cannot name any tax cuts Bush has given to corporations. Let me help him a bit further:

1: Research and Experimentation Credits-extended, simplified and increased this credit as well as made qualifying for it easier. This credit is available for all businesses. It is a good credit as it encourages innovation and new products and production.

2: Work Opportunity Credits. This is a credit for wages paid to targeted classed of employees. These classed are typically low income persons, minorities, ex convicts, people receiving certain welfare and so on. It is available for all businesses.

3: Increase expensing of capital equipment. Available only for small businesses. A 50% deduction for all companies for capital equipment was also available in 2004 and this year. This is rather than depreciation so this only accelerates the deduction.

4: Certain credits for anti pollutions and environmental initiatives.

5: Certain deductions for exporting but this benefit was closed when the manufacturing deduction was put in place.

6: Energy credits-a variety of credits and deductions for putting energy efficient lighting, heating and related items.


Well there are a few of those awful loopholes and breaks that companies have been given under the awful Bush tax cuts.

I suggest you educate yourself on this a bit more before you so resoundingly condemn tax breaks you seem to know squat about.

[_dartagnan]

Tarski still cannot name any tax cuts Bush has given to corporations

You're surprised?

Tarski has done nothing short of embarass himself and the academic profession by spouting such idiotic commentary as if he had a clue. It wouldn't be so bad if he weren't denying his sources were left wing blogs and such. Its like as soon as they print it, he ends up regurgitating it over here, and he thinks I don't notice it.

The Bush tax cuts for Big Oil is just another tired canard that Tarski really knows nothing about.

[_Jason Bourne]

The Bush tax cuts for Big Oil is just another tired canard that Tarski really knows nothing about.

There was no tax cut specifically for Big Oil. This is another lie. They did qualify for the Manufactures Production Deduction that I mentioned above and in another thread but then so did every other manufacturer, food processor, farmer, contractor and so on in the USA. This was not specifically targeted for oil companies but for all businesses that produce or make something.

[_Tarski]

The Bush tax cuts for Big Oil is just another tired canard that Tarski really knows nothing about.

There was no tax cut specifically for Big Oil. .

Jason, did I say there was tax cut specifically and explicitly for Exxon or any other specific company?
I think you are smart enough to realize that I am talking about arranging the tax scheme so that large corporations pay less and less.



Indeed, a tax structure can indeed by reorganized so as to benefit a specific lobbyist withour ever foolish wording it so as to be specific. How many times to I have to pedantically explain that I am talking about the relative progressivity of the system and about who benefits most from the so called Bush tax cuts.

Of course, if there are no such tax break in any relevant sense then someone should explain that to Exxon Mobil CEO Rex W. Tillerson who seems quite worried about losing what you think he doesn't have:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1
(I have no doubt you have a ready made spin for this)
See also: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-130062
"From CNN's factcheck explains that under McCain's tax cut plan oil companies like Exxon will receive $4 billion"


Big corporations have huge muscle and much resources to put out a point of view or rationalization that tries to make it seem like they are not really benefiting improperly. In the somewhat similar way, the tobacco companies tried to get analysts and scientists to spin it for them. So I am sure you can spin up are really good story. It's out there. But, believing the spin is a different matter.
Conservative economic theorists earn their money in terms of self justification. But now we see some back-peddling from the likes of Greenspan and Warren Buffett coming clean about taxes.

My point has always been that it is mmoral and misguided to gradually and continually adjust the the tax scale without moderation always with the hope that large corporations and the super rich will supposedly invest more and thereby make jobs for the poor etc. While it is true that we cannot make taxes so high that businesses can't prosper, there is a limit to how much we can reduce their tax burden and expect an overall benefit to society.
We have passed that limit.
You will have to agree that there must be a limit unless you think that the rich should not be taxed at all. When does diminishing progressivity stop working? Where is the cut off?
All I am saying and all Warren Buffett is proposing and all Obama is saying, is that it has already gone too far. The scale needs to be readjusted.

Now to address Datagnan: You are once again going too far with your imputations. I never said that the poor woman was the fault of Exxon. The picture is there to make a juxtoposition. It is intended to make us aware of the broad picture in society. The better question is this: Is a tax structure that benefits Exxon the policy that benefits society as a whole? Can't we look at the possibility of taxing a little more and using the funds to give a little more help to the hopeless? The game of life is not to maximize profits. There are other considerations too. Obama is sensitive to that. Are you?

[_Jason Bourne]

Tarski

You said this:

In the middle of this economic crisis with people losing their homes and McCain wanting to stimulate the economy Bush style with extended giant tax cuts for huge corporations we have this:

So yea you did say that there were tax cuts for huge corps. You said nothing about fair share and so on. All I asked is what those tax cuts were. I get tired of pandering comments like what you opened with. I did not even say I was opposed to appropriate taxes on corporations and more wealthy persons. I just asked for examples to see if you know what you are taking about. It is clear you do not at least on what tax breaks corporations get.

As for Buffett I think he is a great guy. I admire him for all that he has done and is giving away. That does not mean he is correct on everything and many other successful wealthy people do not agree with him. But he puts his money where his mouth is and is giving most of his wealth to help with illness and other poverty issues in the world.

[_bcspace]

Poor Exxon, might get taxed. Boo hoo.

Ever hear of a (relatively) poor person creating a job?

[_Tarski]

Tarski

You said this:

In the middle of this economic crisis with people losing their homes and McCain wanting to stimulate the economy Bush style with extended giant tax cuts for huge corporations we have this:

So yea you did say that there were tax cuts for huge corps. You said nothing about fair share and so on. All I asked is what those tax cuts were. I get tired of pandering comments like what you opened with. I did not even say I was opposed to appropriate taxes on corporations and more wealthy persons. I just asked for examples to see if you know what you are taking about. It is clear you do not at least on what tax breaks corporations get.

As for Buffett I think he is a great guy. I admire him for all that he has done and is giving away. That does not mean he is correct on everything and many other successful wealthy people do not agree with him. But he puts his money where his mouth is and is giving most of his wealth to help with illness and other poverty issues in the world.

Yes the tax structuring ("tax cuts") I am talking about is largely for the benefit of huge corporations but not explicity by name of course. They were designed with corporations in mind and benefit corporations. It's not hard. Stop being a pedant with the parsing.
What about the links I gave? Tillerson seems to know what I am talking about.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes the tax structuring ("tax cuts") I am talking about is largely for the benefit of huge corporations but not explicity by name of course.

Wow

This is the second time you state that you think I am referring to cuts for specific companies. I already said I was not. I ask you for specific tax cuts for corporate america in general. You were unable to provide them other than a posturing that corporate america does not pay a large enough % of overall taxes. I pointed out why this may be a distortion then I even gave you specific corporate tax breaks but you ignored those. I ask now which one of those I listed do you object to?

They were designed with corporations in mind and benefit corporations.

They? Which they?

It's not hard

Seems to be for you.

Stop being a pedant with the parsing.

Pot calling kettle here.

What about the links I gave? Tillerson seems to know what I am talking about.

What I looked at gives no specifics. All I am asking is when someone whines about how big bad Bush has given corporate America all these wondrous tax breaks that they back it up with what tax breaks he gave them. Rather than being spew worhtless rhetoric let's see if what you say is true.