A true conservative is for less govt across the board.
Job creators? Tax cuts? Unions? Health care? Social Security? HA!
- Thread starter SaltyDawg
- Start date
A true conservative is for less govt across the board.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Kicky's insecurities once again shining through.
The funny part is that she never replied to Kicky's question.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
One reason top execs of major corporations make millions of dollars is because they can write posts like Salmon Hobo's wife. To make a crude parallel, Deron Williams makes approximately 70 times the salary of an NBA minimum wager. And that's a CBA restricted pay gig. The disparity is even more dramatic in private companies. You get paid what you're worth in life. Deron isn't expendable just like the top guys at major corporations have skills that you can't find on monster.com.
Now I'm not saying there isn't greed involved. Or that compensation is always fair. But no company, private or corporate, has a responsibility to keep people employed, let alone ensure they don't ever suffer a reduction in pay or benefits. It's entirely reasonable that a corporation would conclude retaining its top execs at their pay is more important to the longterm financial profitability. If they reduce those guys pay, those guys might leave, and that might have a far more significant impact -- kinda like letting Deron Williams walking away and signing Ramon Sessions for the cost savings.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Those union workers are skilled too. Those are phone techs, fiber optic techs, and electricians. The average Joe can't just step into their jobs either.
The execs would be KOC and Greg Miller. The union workers are the D-Wills.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
You obviously missed the part where she said she has never re-registered and was simply using my account. I doubt we're going to be passing my laptop back and forth just so she can respond to dumbass questions or people like Salty who post a thread in which they ask a question to which they've already formed their own misinformed answer.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
I did not ask a question to which I have already formed my own misinformed answer, lol. I stated a bunch of facts. Someone else told me one of my facts was wrong, so I contacted the source of those facts. They reiterated that they were correct, so I asked for clarification.
If you'll notice, I said I am not disputing her findings on the Verizon taxes unless I hear back from the CTJ. What I had formed my own opinions on are things that I am very much informed about, and I never asked any questions about any of those things.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
What facts did you state? Who told you they were wrong?
On what are you very much informed?
Just to recap for those who are not somehow personally involved somehow: OP and his original source are not corporate hacks and are susceptible to perceptions that corporate officers know how to work things out to their own advantage at every turn.
While lacking actual insider information, they know when the little guy is losing out somehow.
The fact that they were wrong on the details does not mean they were wrong on the essential implications of the action.
corporate apologists trying to drive this to a complete victory are just about as smart as Marie Antoinette disregarding the shortage of bread by saying " Then let them eat cake".
American corporates have largely broken faith with the Americans who have worked for them or patronized their business out of loyalty to America. The whole UN globalization movement, all the cozy trade arrangements that have rewarded outsourcing production/labor and the illegals influx of virtual slave labor, the co-opted "unions" who now are largely in the management corner, have transformed America into another third-world bankrupt outfit. We still do the whole world-cop militarism thing, but we are drugging up the soldiers with PTSD with prescription ecstacy? Who's looking out for us?
While lacking actual insider information, they know when the little guy is losing out somehow.
The fact that they were wrong on the details does not mean they were wrong on the essential implications of the action.
corporate apologists trying to drive this to a complete victory are just about as smart as Marie Antoinette disregarding the shortage of bread by saying " Then let them eat cake".
American corporates have largely broken faith with the Americans who have worked for them or patronized their business out of loyalty to America. The whole UN globalization movement, all the cozy trade arrangements that have rewarded outsourcing production/labor and the illegals influx of virtual slave labor, the co-opted "unions" who now are largely in the management corner, have transformed America into another third-world bankrupt outfit. We still do the whole world-cop militarism thing, but we are drugging up the soldiers with PTSD with prescription ecstacy? Who's looking out for us?
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Verizon made 12 billion in profits, paid billions in dividends to a foreign company, and paid their top execs hundreds of millions, while demanding their union workers take a 20k reduction each and give the green light to outsource more jobs.
Nobody is disputing any of that. The only thing being disputed is whether or not Verizon actually paid any taxes while all of this was happening. The published reports say they did not, but a few people on this board are disputing those published reports.
well, there's the matter of that rejected screen name, do you think that could be a factor?
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
So I copied the part of Ms Serp's post that was relevant to Verizon's taxes and emailed it to the CTJ. Here is the response I got:
"CTJ compiles its information about Verizon and the other corporations we study from the 10-Ks that they file each year with the SEC. The taxes Verizon says it paid in “actual cash” do not split out U.S. taxes from worldwide taxes, so that’s not helpful. I think we will agree that the question here is what taxes Verizon paid to the U.S. government for its U.S. profits, and not what Verizon paid to foreign governments on profits it made in other countries.
It seems that the commenter agrees with CTJ that the only way you can say Verizon paid taxes in 2010 would be to count the “deferred” taxes for 2010 along with the “current” taxes. So I would just ask one question: Are the “deferred” taxes for 2010 taxes that Verizon ACTUALLY paid in 2010?
No, they’re not. They did not actually pay these taxes in 2010. And if you only count the taxes Verizon actually paid in 2010 (current taxes for 2010) then you find that Verizon had negative tax liability in 2010. That’s why our report says they had negative tax liability in 2010. Where is the disagreement here?
It’s often the case that these deferred taxes are never paid because the companies find ways to defer them each year. But let’s assume they are eventually paid. If the “deferred” taxes for 2010 are actually paid in 2012, they will show up as “current” taxes in 2012. In other words, if you want to track what taxes corporations are actually paying each year, you need to focus on the “current” taxes paid for each year. "
So, it seems they are sticking to their guns on this and claiming Verizon did not pay any taxes. Well, at least not any US taxes.
Also, I must note again that Verizon actually responded to the CTJ's claims. And in Verizon's response they claimed they followed all tax laws but never said they actually paid any taxes.
"CTJ compiles its information about Verizon and the other corporations we study from the 10-Ks that they file each year with the SEC. The taxes Verizon says it paid in “actual cash” do not split out U.S. taxes from worldwide taxes, so that’s not helpful. I think we will agree that the question here is what taxes Verizon paid to the U.S. government for its U.S. profits, and not what Verizon paid to foreign governments on profits it made in other countries.
It seems that the commenter agrees with CTJ that the only way you can say Verizon paid taxes in 2010 would be to count the “deferred” taxes for 2010 along with the “current” taxes. So I would just ask one question: Are the “deferred” taxes for 2010 taxes that Verizon ACTUALLY paid in 2010?
No, they’re not. They did not actually pay these taxes in 2010. And if you only count the taxes Verizon actually paid in 2010 (current taxes for 2010) then you find that Verizon had negative tax liability in 2010. That’s why our report says they had negative tax liability in 2010. Where is the disagreement here?
It’s often the case that these deferred taxes are never paid because the companies find ways to defer them each year. But let’s assume they are eventually paid. If the “deferred” taxes for 2010 are actually paid in 2012, they will show up as “current” taxes in 2012. In other words, if you want to track what taxes corporations are actually paying each year, you need to focus on the “current” taxes paid for each year. "
So, it seems they are sticking to their guns on this and claiming Verizon did not pay any taxes. Well, at least not any US taxes.
Also, I must note again that Verizon actually responded to the CTJ's claims. And in Verizon's response they claimed they followed all tax laws but never said they actually paid any taxes.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
I'll ask MsSerp to read this but at this point, I trust her, a future partner at a Big 3 firm and maybe the smartest person I've ever known, and the Pearl, over some hack journalist at CTJ who's degree in journalism doesn't qualify him to know what the **** he's talking about when it comes to 10-K's and the like. Did you really think the ******* was going to admit defeat and say, oh yeah, my bad, we totally got it wrong? C'mon man.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
I agree with your premise, but one correction- they have accountants and the like working there. They aren't just a bunch of journalists. Of course you're going to trust your wife/girlfriend/whatever over some stranger, that's totally understandable. But these guys aren't just a bunch of hack journalists, they're supposedly experts in what they do.
Simmer down guys.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
While much of the statements made in this string of posts are thoughtful and accurate, the above statement is greatly exaggerated. Here's a counterweight: without unions, we wouldn't have time for this message board because our oppressive bosses wouldn't give us the time off to read or post--and we might not have the income to do so.
For many people, "fringe benefits" such as health benefits aren't "fringe" at all, and whether they receive the health benefits or an equivalent dollar amount, it's still value. For some people, the fringe benefit of health might be a bigger benefit than the equivalent cash because the patient might not be able to pay for an equivalent individual plan (or part of a group plan) with the same amount of value.
This last paragraph is likely true.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I have yet to meet a conservative that asks for less government in social matters.
You need to converse with a larger pool of people.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
There's a difference between an accountant and a CPA/Big Three partner.
I doubt the CTJ is paying their "accountants" 500K a year to be on staff for when such articles and issues arise.
Last edited: