Ron Hart: Obama puts Staples through the shredder

Bodhisattva · Feb 18, 2015

Obama’s thinly veiled threat to the CEO of Staples is the way his Chicago-style political groups go about their business. It is pure class envy, putting a bull’s-eye on this guy’s back and on his company.

.....

Staples makes about 2 1/2 percent profit on its sales of office supplies. Obama’s government takes 35 percent of the company’s pretax profits, and sales taxes are about 8 percent. So, Staples made $620 million profit and generated taxes of at least $2.2 billion. The government took 3.5 times more in taxes than what Staples was allowed to keep. As is the case with most businesses, government takes more from their operations than they make for themselves. And Staples is greedy?

An Obamacare refresher: It only works if you don’t. It is a Big Government transfer of wealth from hardworking, productive Americans to those who do not want to work but who will vote for Democrats. We pay higher deductibles and more for mandated health care that the government decides we need, so Obama’s voting base gets theirs subsidized. Women have to pay for prostate exams and men for gynecological exams. The only person Obamacare will benefit might be Bruce Jenner.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/obama-651453-obamacare-staples.html

Displaced Bama Fan · Feb 18, 2015

He is hell bent on destroying this country before his tenure is up. There's an article that I can't post as it references some language that is not permissible, but his former advisor, David Axelrod, reveals how "emotional" Obama is when he doesn't get his way. He's a very vindictive individual.

Tide1986 · Feb 18, 2015

Displaced Bama Fan said:
He is hell bent on destroying this country before his tenure is up. There's an article that I can't post as it references some language that is not permissible, but his former advisor, David Axelrod, reveals how "emotional" Obama is when he doesn't get his way. He's a very vindictive individual.

His EQ (emotional intelligence) is obviously low, probably because he's had no meaningful work experience in which he's had to work constructively with others to get things done.

seebell · Feb 19, 2015

Hogwash!! How do ya'll expect ISIS members to take a job at the Aleppo Staples when they can only get 25 hours or less?

Bodhisattva · Feb 19, 2015

Tide1986 said:
His EQ (emotional intelligence) is obviously low, probably because he's had no meaningful work experience in which he's had to work constructively with others to get things done.

Yep. He's the poster child for social promotion.

Tide1986 · Feb 19, 2015

seebell said:
Hogwash!! How do ya'll expect ISIS members to take a job at the Aleppo Staples when they can only get 25 hours or less?

Certainly part-time work would be appealing to them...they have to have some time to practice a little extremism here and there.

chanson78 · Feb 19, 2015

Forgive me if I am wrong, but technically isn't it a bit disingenuous to call it Obama's government that takes all of these funds? Last I checked, and its possible that I have missed it, but the current corporate tax rate has been the same since 1994. Information for tax rates. And given that so many are up in arms regarding federal overstepping, isn't it a bit tough to try and blame Obama for the sales tax that states and municipalities have voted into effect on their own?

I am not trying to be pedantic, but when everything is blamed on one guy, isn't it important to actually make sure that that person actually had meaningful impact towards making it the way it is? Or is this another one of those things that just because he hasn't changed it or tried to change it, its still his fault?

But wait, didn't the SOTU bring out details on lowering the dreaded 35% tax rate?

From: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/tax-reform-is-the-cry-until-details-are-offered/?_r=0

NYTimes said:
President Obama’s budget calls for a lower overall tax rate — 28 percent, down from 35 percent. But it also calls for a one-time 14 percent tax on all cash sitting overseas and a 19 percent tax on all foreign profits in the future, minus taxes paid abroad. The one-time tax would hit hardest the businesses with huge cash piles abroad like G.E. ($110 billion), Microsoft ($74 billion), Pfizer ($69 billion) and Apple ($54.4 billion).

NationalTitles18 · Feb 19, 2015

And in other news say goodbye to G.E., Microsoft, Pfizer, and Apple. Do you think they move to Ireland or elsewhere?

BamaPokerplayer · Feb 19, 2015

NationalTitles15 said:
And in other news say goodbye to G.E., Microsoft, Pfizer, and Apple. Do you think they move to Ireland or elsewhere?

I hope they leave if we do try this crap. I wonder what type of creative accounting would be used by companies to avoid this one time tax. It seems stupid to punish companies with huge cash reserves.

bamacon · Feb 19, 2015

seebell said:
Hogwash!! How do ya'll expect ISIS members to take a job at the Aleppo Staples when they can only get 25 hours or less?

Lowe's would likely be more viable with sales of nails and ball bearings.

seebell · Feb 19, 2015

This article from Fortune tells it like I feel.

http://fortune.com/2014/07/07/taxes-offshore-dodge/

Before we proceed, a brief confessional rant: The spectacle of American corporations deserting our country to dodge taxes while expecting to get the same benefits that good corporate citizens get makes me deeply angry.
Inverters don’t hesitate to take advantage of the great things that make America America: our deep financial markets, our democracy and rule of law, our military might, our intellectual and physical infrastructure, our national research programs, all the terrific places our country offers for employees and their families to live. But inverters do hesitate–totally–when it’s time to ante up their fair share of financial support of our system.

bamacon · Feb 19, 2015

seebell said:
This article from Fortune tells it like I feel.

http://fortune.com/2014/07/07/taxes-offshore-dodge/

Before we proceed, a brief confessional rant: The spectacle of American corporations deserting our country to dodge taxes while expecting to get the same benefits that good corporate citizens get makes me deeply angry.
Inverters don’t hesitate to take advantage of the great things that make America America: our deep financial markets, our democracy and rule of law, our military might, our intellectual and physical infrastructure, our national research programs, all the terrific places our country offers for employees and their families to live. But inverters do hesitate–totally–when it’s time to ante up their fair share of financial support of our system.

And just what the crap is a "fair share"? The companies also have a duty to those greedy shareholders to make as much money as they can. Here is a novel concept, don't be an outright enemy to business and the free market and stop annihilating and vilifying success and maybe, just maybe, those EVIL American corporations would once again feel welcome in their OWN DAMN country. My rant over...

mittman · Feb 19, 2015

seebell said:
This article from Fortune tells it like I feel.

http://fortune.com/2014/07/07/taxes-offshore-dodge/

Before we proceed, a brief confessional rant: The spectacle of American corporations deserting our country to dodge taxes while expecting to get the same benefits that good corporate citizens get makes me deeply angry.
Inverters don’t hesitate to take advantage of the great things that make America America: our deep financial markets, our democracy and rule of law, our military might, our intellectual and physical infrastructure, our national research programs, all the terrific places our country offers for employees and their families to live. But inverters do hesitate–totally–when it’s time to ante up their fair share of financial support of our system.

IMO this is yet another argument for at least making the vast majority of tax collections at the consumption end. Enforcing sales taxes is much easier than enforcing corporate and income taxes. Any tax evaders have to resort to bootlegging.

That said, knowing how much of a pain in the rear it is becoming to do business in the U.S (especially how litigious it is), and the cut of the pie the government already takes, I don't really get that angry when a corporation tries to use the existing rules to their advantage.

Bamabuzzard · Feb 19, 2015

A company does this by reincorporating in a place like Ireland, where the corporate tax rate is 12.5%, compared with 35% in the U.S. Inversion also makes it easier to divert what would normally be U.S. earnings to foreign, lower-tax locales.

What's the real problem here? Is it that companies are taking advantage of a legal loophole or that the corporate tax rate is 35% in the US?

chanson78 · Feb 19, 2015

Bamabuzzard said:
What's the real problem here? Is it that companies are taking advantage of a legal loophole or that the corporate tax rate is 35% in the US?

Or C. The tax code is so complex, that while yes, the corporate tax rate is 35% the actual effective tax rate is somewhere around 27.9% for 2014 due to tax breaks.

From Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...s-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-free-world/

I don't think that anyone really is going to stand up and say that the tax system in the US is perfect. But when corporations say they are leaving because the tax rate is 35%, but are paying 28% and are leaving for that extra 16% (Ireland at 12%) there is some number massaging going on.

Especially when you have companies like GE who are pulling of some tricks to get that tax rate to 0% in 2011 as detailed in this NYTimes article. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?ref=butnobodypaysthat In actuality the article shows they claimed a 3.2Bn tax benefit in 2011.

There is egregiousness on both sides, but what concerns me is that say even if they dropped the tax rate to something like 25% companies are still incentivized to take that money overseas. 13% is a huge chunk of change (from going to places like Ireland), and then you are going to have companies like GE who are cranky they are no longer getting the sweetheart deals that let them get below that.

I've been guilty of it in the past, but hyperbole doesn't do anything for the tax argument. Saying that the rate is 35% when the majority of corporations pay nothing close to that is pretty disingenuous. (Sorry that word must have popped up on my word of the day calendar or something)

Bamabuzzard · Feb 19, 2015

chanson78 said:
Or C. The tax code is so complex, that while yes, the corporate tax rate is 35% the actual effective tax rate is somewhere around 27.9% for 2014 due to tax breaks.

From Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...s-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-free-world/

I don't think that anyone really is going to stand up and say that the tax system in the US is perfect. But when corporations say they are leaving because the tax rate is 35%, but are paying 28% and are leaving for that extra 16% (Ireland at 12%) there is some number massaging going on.

Especially when you have companies like GE who are pulling of some tricks to get that tax rate to 0% in 2011 as detailed in this NYTimes article. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?ref=butnobodypaysthat In actuality the article shows they claimed a 3.2Bn tax benefit in 2011.

There is egregiousness on both sides, but what concerns me is that say even if they dropped the tax rate to something like 25% companies are still incentivized to take that money overseas. 13% is a huge chunk of change (from going to places like Ireland), and then you are going to have companies like GE who are cranky they are no longer getting the sweetheart deals that let them get below that.

I've been guilty of it in the past, but hyperbole doesn't do anything for the tax argument. Saying that the rate is 35% when the majority of corporations pay nothing close to that is pretty disingenuous. (Sorry that word must have popped up on my word of the day calendar or something)

Why are we so insistent that corporations should pay upward of 20% (closer to 30%) of their income in taxes? What's the real problem? Is it the "fair share" argument? Or is it that our government really has no interest in controlling their spending so they just want others to pay more so they can keep frivolously spending more? My guess is the government wants others (whether it be individual taxpayers or corporations) to be held to standards but they don't. "Fair share" has nothing to do with it. Whether it's 35% or "27.9%" really makes no difference to me. It's too much of someone's income. The problem is our government only wants certain ones paying "their fair share" rather than EVERYBODY paying their fair share.

My wife and I own two businesses (plus work full time jobs). We bust our butts and one day we hope to build our businesses up to where we can work for ourselves and have each business make a ton of money. To think that I could possibly be subject to pay (and I'll use your figure) "27.9%" of my income to the federal government ticks me off to no end. It shouldn't be that high. Especially if everyone was paying their fair share and the government didn't waste like they did. If GE didn't pay any taxes in 2011 and it was done legally then the problem isn't GE. It's the taxation system. But in that same breath I don't think the goal of our taxation system should be to make companies pay over a quarter of their earnings in taxes either. That is stupid. When the federal government starts getting concerned about tightening up their frivolous spending then I might start giving a "dang" about companies trying to avoid paying them as little as possible.

chanson78 · Feb 19, 2015

Bamabuzzard said:
Why are we so insistent that corporations should pay upward of 20% (closer to 30%) of their income in taxes? What's the real problem? Is it the "fair share" argument? Or is it that our government really has no interest in controlling their spending so they just want others to pay more so they can keep frivolously spending more? My guess is the government wants others (whether it be individual taxpayers or corporations) to be held to standards but they don't. "Fair share" has nothing to do with it. Whether it's 35% or "27.9%" really makes no difference to me. It's too much of someone's income. The problem is our government only wants certain ones paying "their fair share" rather than EVERYBODY paying their fair share.

My wife and I own two businesses (plus work full time jobs). We bust our butts and one day we hope to build our businesses up to where we can work for ourselves and have each business make a ton of money. To think that I could possibly be subject to pay (and I'll use your figure) "27.9%" of my income to the federal government ticks me off to no end. It shouldn't be that high. Especially if everyone was paying their fair share and the government didn't waste like they did. If GE didn't pay any taxes in 2011 and it was done legally then the problem isn't GE. It's the taxation system. But in that same breath I don't think the goal of our taxation system should be to make companies pay over a quarter of their earnings in taxes either. That is stupid. When the federal government starts getting concerned about tightening up their frivolous spending then I might start giving a "dang" about companies trying to avoid paying them as little as possible.

Just to be clear, I never said what I think is fair, or whether 25% or 50% is the right number. I was mainly just trying to make sure that people actually used numbers out of reality instead of the hyperbolic ones. Just to reiterate, I was no where near the realm of trying to argue on a fair share basis.

I will just repeat what my standard response is on amount of taxation. I think that a person working for a salary, hourly wage, or an owner of a small business shouldn't be bent over due to their not having a gang of high priced lawyers that can bend the tax code. I define being bent over as paying significantly more as a %age than large companies who can lobby/navigate the rules to their advantage due to their size. I'll refer to the Warren Buffett secretary example as to my definition of what I think is screwed up.

Bamabuzzard · Feb 19, 2015

chanson78 said:
Just to be clear, I never said what I think is fair, or whether 25% or 50% is the right number. I was mainly just trying to make sure that people actually used numbers out of reality instead of the hyperbolic ones. Just to reiterate, I was no where near the realm of trying to argue on a fair share basis.

I will just repeat what my standard response is on amount of taxation. I think that a person working for a salary, hourly wage, or an owner of a small business shouldn't be bent over due to their not having a gang of high priced lawyers that can bend the tax code. I define being bent over as paying significantly more as a %age than large companies who can lobby/navigate the rules to their advantage due to their size. I'll refer to the Warren Buffett secretary example as to my definition of what I think is screwed up.

But when you're talking about 27.9% compared to 35% I'm not as concerned about hyperbole as I am about the principle. Sure, 35% is somewhat exaggerated but not enough for me to be concerned about the difference in the percentages of the two. The bottom line is the problem isn't corporations moving out of the country to try to keep from paying taxes. It is a symptom of the problem. Our government is the problem.

NationalTitles18 · Feb 19, 2015

Evading taxes legally is patriotic.

seebell · Feb 19, 2015

NationalTitles15 said:
Evading taxes legally is patriotic.

Mitt Romney was a hell of a patriot! LOL

Ron Hart: Obama puts Staples through the shredder

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Suspended

All-American

TideFans Legend

All-American

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-American

FB Moderator

All-American

FB Moderator

All-American

FB Moderator

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!