Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Tax-Free Corporations Deserve Ridicule, Not OWS Protesters
I live in the Alabama part of Pennsylvania, to make reference to James Carville’s famous quote about the state, and the conservative nature of the region means that many residents are reflexively critical of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests and its derivatives.
The protest is considered a “liberal” movement or “anti-capitalist,” and the protesters are labeled as “lazy and disgruntled people who should get a job” or slackers “looking for another handout.”
The critics seems to believe that if you have a job, pay your bills (or at least most of them), want lower taxes, and work hard, then you’re part of the elite 1%, not one of those whiners who protest because things aren’t going their way.
The average, hard-working American is anything but part of the 1%. The Fortune 500 companies who pay no taxes, on the other hand, are clearly in the 1%.
A ThinkProgress article highlights the inconceivable amount of corporate greed that is driving the country toward a direction of cutting life-changing benefits like Social Security and Medicare while the ultra-rich pay no taxes, or even get tax rebates after not paying taxes:
Seventy-eight of the 280 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2010…In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $156 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $55 billion in income taxes as the 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they reported negative taxes (often receiving outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury), totaling $21.8 billion. These companies’ “negative tax rates” mean that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
The article also points out that 30 of the 280 companies examined paid no cumulative taxes during the three-year stretch. It wasn’t a one-year aberration; not paying taxes is standard operating procedure.
In other words, these large corporations think that it’s fair for you to pay for police services, infrastructure, social programs, and everything else that the government does for all of us (including the rich) as long as they don’t have to.
The typical Republican talking point of taxing corporations being a job-killer cannot possibly apply to the large and hugely successful corporations. These 30 companies had profits of $160,000,000,000 (160 billion) dollars during the three years. Jobs will not be lost if rightful taxes are paid.
It’s a sad statement about the country that Americans run to the side of these unpatriotic corporations simply because they don’t like those protesting the unfair tax system, whether it’s because of perceived political affiliation of the protesters or because of the social, religious, or gun-control views of the protesters.
We should all support what makes sense to all of us, such as fighting corporate welfare, and debate the other topics at another time. It could mean the difference between social security and poverty in the decades to come, even for those who think that the OWS protesters are worthless.
(Image from Janesville Gazette)
Related Posts :
The people are not going down without a fight. In fact, what started with Occupy Wall Street and protest ...
Sen. Bernie Sanders fired back at 80 CEOs who wrote a letter lecturing America about deficit reduction b ...
Sen. Bernie Sanders released a report today directly taking on the Business Roundtable, by outing 31 ban ...
Americans love to debate taxes, conservatives believe the government confiscates their money while liberals ...
The idea of assigning personhood, or life, to objects lacking the qualities or features of living beings ...
11 Responses to Tax-Free Corporations Deserve Ridicule, Not OWS Protesters
Public Service Advertisements
Carrie
Nov. 5th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
I’m do sick if the right smearing Americans. It’s always someone that they hate. OWS is MOST Americans!
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 5th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
these corporate entities are the ones that the Republican support over the American citizens who need the help with Social Security and Medicare. Let’s note that much of these profits were made overseas and were not used here to hire workers. We need to be taxing overseas profits and we need to tax corporations in the proper manner. Tax lawyers need to be turned into people picking bananas.
This is so heinous on the part of the Republicans that it is beyond description. This is a slap in the face to every American no matter what party you belong to. The people who are against the occupy Wall Street movement are against it because they think their party wants them to be. Every one of those people have been affected or will be affected by the activities of the banks and Wall Street. They are totally incapable of thinking for themselves
Anne
Nov. 6th, 2011 at 7:47 am
What’s being described is corporate welfare, the camel that the right wing swallows whole while straining at the gnats of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public assistance. The GOP deludes its members into thinking that OWS is a bunch of law-breaking subversives, when in reality they have become the voice of those who are not among the 1%. This is just one of the ways they induce people to vote against their own best interests.
Brown cow
Nov. 6th, 2011 at 9:20 am
How about if you don’t pay taxes, you don’t get the use of public services ? If a corporate building catches on fire, they have to put it out themselves. If they generate garbage, they have to haul it to the dump. If a gunman holds them hostage, they have to deal with it. The list could go on forever.
SinghX
Nov. 6th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Go on…list some more, I’m listening…this is good, very good indeed!
My biggest bitch are those who have “homes” the size of a shopping mall and never lift a finger to take care of their own personal environmental “space”…why should others have to expend gas/energy, etc. as a “job” for very little pay to clean up after one who doesn’t do pay a share, and, with the same mouth, call those who do not live as they, lazy? (John Hodgeman did a great bit on Stewart last week portraying this very premise).
If you are capable but are unwilling take care of the space you “live in” then, it’s not a “livable” habitat.
Diane
Nov. 6th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
What’s even worse is that the anarchocapitalistas that defend the 1% say that the police, fire, roads, Internet, etc. should be privatized — ostensibly, for those who can afford it (vis-a-vis, the 1%). As for the rest of us, they tell us that there’s nothing in the Constitution that guarantees healthcare, education, a job, shelter, food, protection from crime, and if your shantytown burns down it’s your own damn fault, whiner.
Imagine. Police and fire brigade protection are considered entitlements now. What’s next? “You have no right to expect clean air and water! You’ll suffer typhoid, malaria and hepatitis and like it, you filthy Communist!”
Ann
Nov. 7th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Diane, you are late on this, babe! The EPA is fighting for its very existence against them right now. They’ve managed to pass some form of bill where they don’t have to concern themselves with greenhouse gas emissions for the next year. Imagine the number of asthmatics and emphysema sufferers that are going to increase their emergency room visits because of this sleight of hands machinations by the republicans?
Inez
Nov. 6th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
I am retired, after 30 years with my last employer, so I do get a pension and Social Security, my property taxes are over $7,000.00 this year, my medical insurance and Medicare will cost over $7,000.00,( with $555.00 per month for supplemental insurance) home heating fuel $3.89 per gallon….those are basicand necessary expenses. I paid close to $4,000.00 in federal taxes last year….I wish the government subsidized every Senion citizen. If I leave my home, there will probably be two children in the school system, 54% of property taxes currently goes to schools.If every Senior citizen sold their homes, the public school lpopulation would undoubtedly increase.
Ann
Nov. 7th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Inez. I believe the only tax a senior citizen should pay is property tax, because you own property. However, all other taxes should be wiped clean. You’ve paid your dues, so screw them!
I believe the words, “supplemental medical” should be made criminal for a senior. How dare they? This was the whole point and purpose of medicare to protect and guard against the vultures of the healthcare industry that prey on seniors and their medical needs.
Then they sell “Obamacare” as the devil incarnate. Lies. The healthcare industry is angry that “Obamacare” is going to cut into their almost a trillion dollars in profit.
Ann
Nov. 7th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
These corporations are virtually operating as tax free entities and still no jobs created. What needs to be done, shown, said to the republican base to prove to them that they are being duped; played for suckers; and being made to look foolish?
These corporations are sitting on more than 2 trillion dollars in profits this very minute and still paying lobbyists for more and more. They are like alabama ticks feasting on the blood of their hosts. They are not going to let go until every drop of blood has been taken.
Ann
Nov. 7th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Here are the Lies Being told about “ObamaCare”
THE REPUBLICANS/TEA PARTY ARE GOING ALL OUT TO DECEIVE PEOPLE ESPECIALLY SENIORS:
Medicare monthly premiums will go up to $104.20 in 2012 and $247.00 in 2014 due to “provisions incorporated in the Obamacare legislation, purposely delayed so as not to ‘confuse’ the 2012 re-election campaigns.”
A chain e-mail going around warns of a Medicare premium increase, saying monthly premiums will go up from $96.40 to $247 in 2014. Blame it all on “Obamacare,” the e-mail says.Here’s the full text of the copy we received:
MEDICARE PREMIUM INCREASE
For those of you who are on Medicare, read the article below.It’s a short but important article that you probably haven’t heard about in the mainstream news:
The per person Medicare insurance premium will increase from the present monthly fee of $ 96.40, rising to:$104.20 in 2012;$120.20 in 2013;And $247.00 in 2014.
These are provisions incorporated in the Obamacare legislation,purposely delayed so as not to ‘confuse’ the 2012 re-election campaigns.
Send this to all seniors that you know, so they will know who’s throwing them under the bus.
FACT CHECK FINDS THIS CHAIN E-MAIL HAS BEEN FLOATING AROUND THE INTERNET IN ONE VERSION OR OTHER FROM THE TIME OBAMA SIGNED THE HEALTHCARE BILL UNTIL NOW.
As we researched, we quickly realized two important points. First, the chain e-mail’s numbers are wrong. Second, explaining Medicare premiums is pretty complicated.
So let’s start with a few Medicare basics: Medicare is the government-run health insurance program for Americans over age 65. Medicare’s Part A, which all beneficiaries receive, pays for hospitalization, while Part B pays for doctor’s visits and other regular health-care services.
Based on the numbers it uses for premiums, it’s clear the chain e-mail is referring to what Medicare beneficiaries pay monthly for Medicare Part B premiums.
Medicare calculates those premiums each year based on several factors that change from year to year. So the e-mail’s claim to know what Medicare premiums will be in the future doesn’t hold much water.
In addition to that, the chain e-mail gets existing numbers wrong. Part B premiums were $96.40 back in 2009 (likely when the e-mail was first written). In 2011, the official monthly premium is $115.40. And as we were working on this report, the 2012 numbers were formally announced. The premium is $99.90 for 2012, not the $104.20 that the e-mail predicted.
Also, “Obamacare” — formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — didn’t make changes to the way that the official monthly rate for Medicare Part B premiums is calculated.
THERE’S FINE PRINT AND QUITE A BIT OF IT..
Most Medicare beneficiaries in 2011 still paid the 2009 amount, thanks to rules that say Medicare premiums cannot go up for existing beneficiaries if Social Security payments don’t go up. (This is known as the “hold harmless” provision.) Social Security payments did not go up in 2010 or 2011 because there was no cost-of-living increase due to a lack of inflation.
On Oct. 19, the federal government announced there would be a cost-of-living, or COLA, increase in 2012. So even though the official Medicare rate dropped for 2012, most Medicare beneficiaries will see a small increase in rates, from the 2009 rate of $96.40 to the 2012 rate of $99.90.
On the other end of the spectrum, some high-earning retirees pay more than the standard monthly premium. In 2011, beneficiaries who report income of more than $85,000 pay higher rates, all the way up to $369.10 for a person with income above $214,000 a year, or couples with income above $428,000. (See this chart for more details.)
And the health care law does make changes to these rules affecting high earners — it stops indexing the income limits for inflation through 2019, said Gail Wilensky, who ran the Medicare program under President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s. It means that “more people will hit the threshold that substantially reduces the subsidy received,” Wilensky said, and it was not widely noted when the law passed.Here, we should explain a bit more about how basic Medicare premiums are calculated. It’s required by law that Medicare Part B beneficiaries contribute to the cost of their health care via premiums. Right now, the contributions are required to be about 25 percent of total costs. So every year, Medicare figures out what that 25 percent will probably be and then sets rates to meet that target.
It’s surprising that the official rate is going down for 2012, given recent trends on escalating health care costs — U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius called it “pretty remarkable” in a conference call on Oct. 27, 2011, announcing the changes.
Medicare administrator Donald Berwick said the low premiums were due to two changes. First, because of Social Security going up, more people will be eligible to pay the official rate, rather than remaining at an older rate due to the “hold harmless” provision. So increasing costs will be shared among a larger pool of beneficiaries. Second, he said that health care spending was growing more slowly than projected. (He credited that to increased emphasis on prevention and effective treatments.)
FACT CHECK RULING:
The chain e-mail claimed that Medicare Part B premiums would increase dramatically in future years because of the health care law supported by President Barack Obama. We couldn’t find evidence to support the e-mail’s numbers. And in fact, most Medicare beneficiaries will only pay $3.50 more a month in 2012. The e-mail’s projection for 2014 seems entirely fabricated. The health care law leaves in place the long-established methods for calculating Medicare Part B premiums. The chain e-mail makes the additional unproved claim that its allegations — which are false anyway — were accomplished nefariously and delayed for political purposes. WE RATE IT’S CLAIM “PANTS ON FIRE”!!!