Which is really the point. Where their headquarters is located is of minimal concern. They would continue to do business in the US so they would continue to pay taxes in the US.

Does JT really think a company moving it’s headquarters outside the US means they are going to cease all US operations?

We would respond, “Screw you. You lose drilling rights in the States.”

You don’t pay taxes here; you don’t do business here.

it is of corse only tax rates that keep companies here. that explains why haiti and afghanistan has so many large successful corporations– their low tax rates.

Good thing we had that McCain-Clinton gas tax holiday last year. Would have been a REAL national crisis.

Because you don’t know how to spell “statistician”?

Israeli Kibbutz

Why do you hate Jews so much?

The bill which passed the house was 680 pages long, and we’re expected to believe that everyone who voted for or against it proceeded in a deliberate and thoughtful manner?

If people can read through a Harry Potter book in less than a day, I think 680 pages should be no challenge to people who have experience read and drafting bills.

Look, I know you ultra-cons want to destroy this country at all cost, but you lost your chance. It’s our turn to set things right.

Ah, so you would support the idea that national policy should be set by Chicken Little? Anytime someone runs around yelling “crisis, crisis”, especially during an election year, that’s all the evidence we need to confirm there actually is a crisis?

An increase in the tax on gasoline would have to be carefully thought out, certainly, to make sure those of lower income who would be most adversely affected aren’t affected more than they could bear.

But the government uses taxes to adjust public behavior all the time. Charitable giving is encouraged by making it deductible. Tax policies are put in place to encourage saving for retirement, paying a mortgage instead of rent, paying for education, investing in municipal bonds and many, many other things which are viewed as desireable by the government.

Higher gas prices would encourage the development of alternate fuel sources, help clean the air, be a step toward ending our dependence on Middle East oil, etc. THE answer to any of those? Of course not, but there are benefits to getting people to use less gasoline.

As for the rest of your post, meaningless rantings and straw men. ANY tax is the government playing a role in how profitable a company is. “Screw”ing around with energy, economic, and national security policies to meet MY idea of Justice was never suggested but all in all would not be a bad thing IMHO, but I defy you to find anyone who says following there advice would be a bad thing so that was really kinda a stupid point to make, wasn’t it?

Jay Tea: And explain what would keep, say, ExxonMobil from saying “Screw this, we’ll move our headquarters out of the USA. Sorry, Texas!”

And explain why we should really care? Wherever they settle their headquarters, they’re still going to do business in and with the US which is really what counts.

Boggle.

When gas was over $4.00/gallon, that was a national crisis because it was too high.

Now that it’s just under $2.00/gallon, it’s a concern because it’s too low.

Tell ya what, Goldilocks — what is the “just right” price? And how do you wanna divvy up the profits between the government and the companies that actually do the work to generate those profits?

Let’s screw around with energy, economic, and national security policies just to meet YOUR idea of “justice.” That’s a surefire recipe for prosperity.

Then, kindly explain under what authority the government can just take control of a hunk of our economy.

And explain what would keep, say, ExxonMobil from saying “Screw this, we’ll move our headquarters out of the USA. Sorry, Texas!”

J.

Yes, but working out the ramifications of tax legislation can be turned over to the executive branch’s agencies (specifically, the geeks at Treasury and the IRS). I’m hoping it’s not just Democrats who believe rejiggering our Constitutional rights — particularly those protecting us from government invasions of privacy — is something that every Congressperson has to think through, whereas alterations to tax policy are appropriately left to tax experts. Do you really believe that every Republican who voted for the 1986 tax reforms had read and understood every page of it? especially, do you believe that Reagan did before signing it?

Every American should know his or her Constitutional rights in order to defend them (the number of people who don’t realize they can say “No” if the police say “Can I look in your trunk?” is astonishing). It’s really not necessary to the health of the Republic for every American to be familiar with IRC 162(m) and how it was affected by the first bailout bill.

To an extent, that’s true. Gas in the US should cost a lot more than it does.

Thanks. But note that where I asked about your view, you end by telling me mine. Let’s not go that route.

I would see a difference between the PATRIOT Act which was rushed thru in about a month and the current bill where “What should be done” has been discussed for 5 times as long. Is that still insufficient time? That is debateable. But let’s not take as a given that the two situations are the same.

IF there are objections to what the bill does, focus on those more than making the speed with which it is passsed the crux of your complaint.

No, but it is a measure of the time needed to make sure it actually does what you want it to. As you noted, even simple changes to the tax code can have lots of ramifications.

Jay Tea, since you’re talking about Exxon’s Federal taxes, you wanna balance out the comparison here–or do you not see anything a little off about the above statistic?

45 billion, not 450 billion. Try 5% of the pork package.

And ExxonMobil (NOT Enron) will pay about 30 billion in taxes already.

I repeat: how much is enough?

In 2004 (last numbers I can find), ExxonMobil paid more in taxes to the federal government than the bottom 50% of taxpayers (65 million tax returns) COMBINED.

Exxon’s tax rate in 2006 worked out to 41%.

The best numbers I can find say ExxonMobil makes about a quarter on every gallon of gas they sell.

The government makes about 46 cents in taxes on every gallon of gas.

Obviously, the problem here is that the government is not taking enough money.

J.

$450 Billion in PROFIT isn’t tidy.
That’s half of the stimulus bill right there.
Don’t they owe us (meaning the country) a little something in return on OUR investment?

Strowbridge being sloppy? Who’da thunk it?

Anyway, yes, ExxonMobil just announced record profits.

Also, over the last three years, ExxonMobil has paid an average of $27 Billion each year in taxes.

This year, that’ll probably go up (based on those record profits) and push their four-year total to over $110,000,000,000.

So, how much is enough?

Tell us, Strowbridge, why do you hate capitalism so much? Why do you hate success? Why do you hate those who provide a vital service, pay their taxes, and still manage to make a tidy profit?

J.

I’m curious, did you have the same objection to the 342 page PATRIOT Act?

I did as a matter of fact. Anything which could have such a deep effect on our rights and civil liberties shouldn’t be rushed through in the heat of the moment. And something which is going to result in increasing our government spending by nearly $1,000,000,000,000 probably shouldn’t be forced through in the first couple weeks of a new president’s term. I’m glad you agree with me that this is something which needs a lot more work and development.

That’s the thing though — Wall Street want the money, but they don’t want to take any responsibility for it. Republicans _hate_ responsibility, personal or otherwise.

No, it has everything to do with you being you.

Enron is making massive profits while hurting the economy. Meanwhile you have record deficits. But you think making Enron pay extra taxes is punishment brought on by envy, instead of being angry that someone isn’t paying their fair share.

Canada has better results when it comes to health care, and we spend less.

But don’t let facts get in the way of your political philosophy. That would be harmful to your ego.

In contrast, the PATRIOT Act had little to do with taxes, but a great deal to do with changing our intelligence apparatus, empowering law enforcement and the executive branch, and affecting our Constitutional rights.