Now that we are learning that Enron paid no taxes

[SINthysist]

But in fact received many millions of dollars in taxpayer money, we have to wonder what the Reno Justice Department was up to.

They went after Microsoft because two millionaires, read that, campaign contributors with lobbyists, complained about Microsoft, read that non-campaign contributor without lobbyists, while Enron, a campaign contributor with lobbyists, read that Kyoto, was doing criminal things with the help of thier accountants.

As a corollary, Was the IRS too busy going after Clinton enemies?

 

[Tungwagger]

But in fact received many millions of dollars in taxpayer money, we have to wonder what the Reno Justice Department was up to.

They went after Microsoft because two millionaires, read that, campaign contributors with lobbyists, complained about Microsoft, read that non-campaign contributor without lobbyists, while Enron, a campaign contributor with lobbyists, read that Kyoto, was doing criminal things with the help of thier accountants.

As a corollary, Was the IRS too busy going after Clinton enemies?

Seems that as time goes by, we'll learn more about Clinton's "legacy"....

But I can already hear the opponents of large corporations:

"See, it just goes to show that all big business' are a bunch of crooks"

Without even a passing glance at the people who create the laws enabling corporations to take advantage of certain tax breaks.....

 

[SINthysist]

I think the real point that needs to be made is the corporate tax myth. Corporations don't get taxed. People get taxed. For every corporate tax levied, they have to make up for it in a limited number of ways, e.g., raise the price of the product, cut jobs, or cut dividends. In each scenario, people pay the tax. Indirectlyt of course, but that is how our government prefers it lest we find out the real rate of taxation and host anothe "tea party."

 

[Tungwagger]

I think the real point that needs to be made is the corporate tax myth. Corporations don't get taxed. People get taxed. For every corporate tax levied, they have to make up for it in a limited number of ways, e.g., raise the price of the product, cut jobs, or cut dividends. In each scenario, people pay the tax. Indirectlyt of course, but that is how our government prefers it lest we find out the real rate of taxation and host anothe "tea party."

Well, business' don't exist to lose money, and as long as there is a board of directors (major stock holders), then this is going to be the pervasive fact concerning our government. Politicians need alot of money to be elected, and large corporations are willing to donate money to help facilitate that. Then the politician has a "duty" to protect these corporations.

But don't get me wrong..if it wasn't for rich people, I wouldn't have a job, and we'd be living in a socialistic regime. With government controlling the money....come to think of it, the only difference between the U.S., and a socialistic regime is only semantics....except we don't have to "show papers", at each border crossing.....yet....

 

[SINthysist]

No, in a socialist country, everyone is held to the lowest common denominator. While here in America excellence is rewarded. Why with our school system..., uhhh, errr, maybe we will have to begin showing our papers soon...

 

[Tungwagger]

No, in a socialist country, everyone is held to the lowest common denominator. While here in America excellence is rewarded. Why with our school system..., uhhh, errr, maybe we will have to begin showing our papers soon...

Point taken....and agreed to....

Wouldn't want to hurt the poor little people's self esteem would we???

Seems that a study was done recently concerning self-esteem..they found that those with the highest self-esteem were most prone to be violent.....

Hmmmmm.....

 

[SINthysist]

Yeah. A whipped dog rarely bites.

Now Hillary has high self-esteem...