bills_fan Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 This is simply stunning to me. Any accountant types on the board want to verify this report? http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&autostart=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 The problem isn't illegals; the problem is the tax laws that allow for people to get paid for having children. I bet that figure pales in comparison to the tens of billions that legal residents claim in the same scam. There is no justifiable reason for anyone to have a negative effective tax rate. But politicians want to keep buying votes with your money and voters keep letting them get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Hmmmm. That sounds suspiciously like the figure that would cover the "Tax on the Rich". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Does this get moved to PPP before or after it gets out of hand? Stay tuned!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Does this get moved to PPP before or after it gets out of hand? Stay tuned!... Out of hand? Since when do threads with political leanings get out of hand? Psh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) Out of hand? Since when do threads with political leanings get out of hand? Psh. Especially when it deals with minorities! We'll be fine, Im sure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To the OP, we could have made up more than TRIPLE that $4.2Billion, but instead we let BP write off the oil spill clean-up and save $13B... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/22/bp-cut-tax-13b-losses-spill/ It's a great system all around, I tell ya. Edited May 8, 2012 by DrDareustein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 This is simply stunning to me. Any accountant types on the board want to verify this report? http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&autostart=true And yet when discussing closing tax loopholes, like those on corporate jets, some members of Congress say saving $2B is hardly worth the trouble. So maybe $4.2B isn't really a lot of money? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Especially when it deals with minorities! We'll be fine, Im sure. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To the OP, we could have made up more than TRIPLE that $4.2Billion, but instead we let BP write off the oil spill clean-up and save $13B... http://www.foxnews.c...b-losses-spill/ It's a great system all around, I tell ya. BP is a business and businesses pay taxes on profits, no? So isn't every legitimate business expense a "write-off"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 And yet when discussing closing tax loopholes, like those on corporate jets, some members of Congress say saving $2B is hardly worth the trouble. So maybe $4.2B isn't really a lot of money? PTR So you're equating tax loopholes to tax fraud?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 BP is a business and businesses pay taxes on profits, no? So isn't every legitimate business expense a "write-off"? Sure, that's the technicality they used. BP paid $0 in taxes that year. So they mustve made $0 in profit, right? Wonder how they're managing to keep the lights on... Like I said, the system is a mess. Just like the Government. Loop holes and technicalities galore, non-stop spending, and everyone wonders why the country is hemorrhaging money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Sure, that's the technicality they used. BP paid $0 in taxes that year. So they mustve made $0 in profit, right? Wonder how they're managing to keep the lights on... Or less. Profit does not equal cash flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) So you're equating tax loopholes to tax fraud?? When politicians or the very wealthy do it, they call it loopholes. When anyone else does it, they call it fraud. No matter what you call it, it's usually shady business. Just because one is within the (broken) rules, doesnt make it any more right. Definition of a Loophole: A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Sounds like fancy cheating to me. Edited May 8, 2012 by DrDareustein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 1913, a bad year for amendments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) Sure, that's the technicality they used. BP paid $0 in taxes that year. So they mustve made $0 in profit, right? Wonder how they're managing to keep the lights on... Like I said, the system is a mess. Just like the Government. Loop holes and technicalities galore, non-stop spending, and everyone wonders why the country is hemorrhaging money. No doubt the government is a disaster, but a company offsetting its revenue with expenses is neither a technicality nor a 'loop hole'. The government gets away with this crap so easily because people regurgitate sensationalized headlines and meaningless clichés rather than understanding the issue. Definition of a Loophole: A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Please explain how BP reporting legal business expenses in the calculation of their tax liabilities fits that definition in any way. Edited May 8, 2012 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 No doubt the government i a disaster, but a company offsetting its revenue with expenses is neither a technicality or a 'loop hole'. The government gets away with this crap so easily because people regurgitate sensationalized headlines and meaningless cliches rather than understanding the issue. Please explain how BP reporting legal business expenses in the calculation of their tax liabilities fits that definition in any way. Don't stop him. He's on a roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Does this get moved to PPP before or after it gets out of hand? Stay tuned!... And there you go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 And yet when discussing closing tax loopholes, like those on corporate jets, some members of Congress say saving $2B is hardly worth the trouble. So maybe $4.2B isn't really a lot of money? Yep. Except when it's coming from the 1%. Then it's "their fair share." While 46% of people pay no income tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 When politicians or the very wealthy do it, they call it loopholes. When anyone else does it, they call it fraud. No matter what you call it, it's usually shady business. Just because one is within the (broken) rules, doesnt make it any more right. Definition of a Loophole: A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Sounds like fancy cheating to me. I'd spend some time on this but I see it's been moved and you're too chickenshit to come over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Please explain how BP reporting legal business expenses in the calculation of their tax liabilities fits that definition in any way. It just does because it makes him angry ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 I'd spend some time on this but I see it's been moved and you're too chickenshit to come over here. Ever notice how if they do venture here it's usually to take a potshot before they run and hide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts