BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Shocking wrote:

paying China to militarise? what?

Scare tactic.

I don't know enough about taxes to go into too much detail but as I understand it corporate tax rate in the US is, on paper at least, 15-35%. At the high end yes, this could be called above average.

But the problem doesn't seem to be how high the tax rate is it's getting people to pay it. It's no secret that corporations want to get their tax rate down as much as possible - and many of them do. Through tax breaks, credits, exceptions... look I don't know enough to go into detail so I'll just point out a few companies. On 2009 data from Capital IQ, Nvidia paid a tax rate of 2.24%, Excel Energy paid a tax rate of 1.78%, Western Digital paid a tax rate of 1.6%. Real estate investment group Host Hotels & Resorts which was originally a part of the Marriott Corporation earned $1.116b and paid only 3.05% of that as tax. Boeing paid 4.46% tax, Amazon.com paid 4.33%, I'm sure it goes on.

And this is all legal, they're just making sure they get everything that's coming to them, that in many cases they lobbied for. All the things I mentioned before, the tax breaks and whatnot coupled with what I imagine is a certain amount of clever accounting.

Like I said, I don't know enough about taxation to get into too much detail, my flatmate's an accountant maybe he'll debate on that. But I see a few things and conclude that something's not right. When the tax rate of the US is meant to be in the 15-35% area and billion dollar corporations are paying less than 5% I feel they're not pulling their weight. When they then threaten to move offshore and cripple the economy upon the suggesting of more taxation - well forgive me but that sounds more like they're exploiting capitalism than simply partaking.

And that's the beauty of tax reform: lower the overall rate, eliminate the loopholes, and you make the overall environment more attractive to business while simultaneously increasing realized revenues from that sector. Same argument that is made for simplifying the income tax code. Less than half of current wage earners pay any taxes right now, due to loopholes in the tax code. Simplify the code, lower the overall rates while increasing the tax base and you realize increased receipts. That's part of what the Republican plan calls for. I would tell you what the Democrat plan calls for...but they haven't offered one yet.

But Papa Olbermann said the Republicans are evil and their plan will be our downfall.

FEOS wrote:

And that's the beauty of tax reform: lower the overall rate, eliminate the loopholes, and you make the overall environment more attractive to business while simultaneously increasing realized revenues from that sector. Same argument that is made for simplifying the income tax code. Less than half of current wage earners pay any taxes right now, due to loopholes in the tax code. Simplify the code, lower the overall rates while increasing the tax base and you realize increased receipts. That's part of what the Republican plan calls for. I would tell you what the Democrat plan calls for...but they haven't offered one yet.

So why didn't it work for Bush in the eight years he had available to try it?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And that's the beauty of tax reform: lower the overall rate, eliminate the loopholes, and you make the overall environment more attractive to business while simultaneously increasing realized revenues from that sector. Same argument that is made for simplifying the income tax code. Less than half of current wage earners pay any taxes right now, due to loopholes in the tax code. Simplify the code, lower the overall rates while increasing the tax base and you realize increased receipts. That's part of what the Republican plan calls for. I would tell you what the Democrat plan calls for...but they haven't offered one yet.

So why didn't it work for Bush in the eight years he had available to try it?

Because the Dems are (generally) against tax reform...especially of the type mentioned above. Under Bush, the number of those paying taxes actually decreased, IIRC, and the tax burden on the upper income earners increased, completely at odds with the notion portrayed by Obama and company that he and his buds were all about "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans."

Kmar wrote:

It's also more important to look at who was leading congress at the time. You know, the people who actually make the laws and write the checks?

Very true. As has been said, POTUS sets the policy, Congress enacts it.

FEOS wrote:

Kmar wrote:

It's also more important to look at who was leading congress at the time. You know, the people who actually make the laws and write the checks?

Very true. As has been said, POTUS sets the policy, Congress enacts it.

I mean, you can make a case for the potus using proxies in congress.. but really very few things happen without congress signing off on it.

I don't know enough about journalism nor British newspapers to properly comment here, but after reading this article I would be interested to hear from those who do - News of the World shuts amid hacking scandal

Britain's biggest-selling newspaper the News of the World is being shut down following a scandal over phone hacking, owner Rupert Murdoch's son James Murdoch said.

As allegations multiplied that its journalists hacked the voicemails of thousands of people, from child murder victims to the families of Britain's war dead, the tabloid had haemorrhaged advertising, alienated millions of readers, and posed a growing threat to Rupert Murdoch's hopes of buying broadcaster BSkyB.

[...]

He said that if allegations that a private investigator working for the Sunday tabloid hacked the voicemail of a teenage girl who was later found murdered were true, they were "inhuman".

"The News of the World is in the business of holding others to account. But it failed when it came to itself," he added.

"Wrongdoers turned a good newsroom bad and this was not fully understood or adequately pursued."

He added that any advertising space in the final edition would be donated "to causes and charities that wish to expose their good works to our millions of readers".

London's Sky News is reporting that News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks - the tabloid's editor at the time of many of the alleged hacking episodes - offered her resignation last night.

James Murdoch made clear Ms Brooks remained in place as chief executive, saying he was satisfied she knew nothing of the crimes allegedly committed when she was editor.

He said the conviction in 2007 for phone hacking of the paper's royal correspondent Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire had failed to cure the problem.

"The News of the World and News International failed to get to the bottom of repeated wrongdoing that occurred without conscience or legitimate purpose," he said.

Further down the article:

Some analysts said Rupert Murdoch would still face pressure to remove Ms Brooks from her position as chief executive of News International. Her editorship of the News of the World a decade ago is at the heart of some of the gravest accusations.

One employee of the doomed paper told Reuters: "We didn't expect it at all. We had no indication. The last week has been tough. None of us have done anything wrong. We thought we were going to weather the storm."

One source at News International said the decision had been taken and acted upon with little delay.

The National Union of Journalists said it was Ms Brooks, not the paper's journalists, who should be fired: "It is the people at the top who need to be punished, not ordinary working journalists," the union said.

And some analysts claimed the move to shut the News of the World would simply pave the way for News International to launch its best-selling daily tabloid The Sun into the weekend market.

The BBC is reporting that two days ago an anonymous person bought and registered the domain name sun.on.sunday.co.uk.

Media commentators say it is a strategy of the Murdoch empire to minimise the fallout from closing its most profitable newspaper.

Former deputy prime minister John Prescott, an outspoken critic of Mr Murdoch's media empire, described the move as a typical management stunt by the Australian-born mogul.

"What he does, he gets rid of problems," Mr Prescott said.

"And in this case nobody in the senior management who are clearly involved in these matters, Rebekah Brooks a clear example, none of those go. But the poor old workers at the News of the World are going, and there's no doubt it will become the Sunday Sun."

I guess what really gets to me is yet another example of the higher up you are the safer you are. But I am really not surprised, just appalled.

Wouldn't be surprised if more of this type of stuff was going on elsewhere, tbh. Journalism stopped being about reporting the facts objectively a long, long time ago.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Wouldn't be surprised if more of this type of stuff was going on elsewhere, tbh. Journalism stopped being about reporting the facts objectively a long, long time ago.

it rarely is about reporting the facts objectively,  Many of the first 'newspapers' here in the states were started by factions trying to sway the public to support or rebel against the Crown.

Of course. Then after the whole "yellow journalism" thing, there was a reformation of sorts. Now we're back to yellow journalism, but the "professionals" will never admit it.

South Sudan eh.

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Wouldn't be surprised if more of this type of stuff was going on elsewhere, tbh. Journalism stopped being about reporting the facts objectively a long, long time ago.

Yeah I agree. There are still good journalists but unfortunately they seem to be outweighed by the number of journalists with some sort of less than highly ethical agenda.

That said, it's not like journalists are the only ones to blame; editors, managers/owners of media outlets and the general public all contribute to the problem. The Journalists are often being told what stories are needed and how to get them. They are also providing the stories that sell, so if exposing the lives of celebrities stopped selling papers and magazines, then the Journalists would stop writing it.

There are still many quality journalists out there, but they need to write stories that sell and that's all the media corporations are interested in.

Yeah man, this was the exact point I was inferring. At the very LEAST the editor surely knows what's going on and what kind of journalistic practices are being used, and it is more likely she was telling those beneath her beneath her to hack phones etc. than not.

But heads need to roll to show some facade og accountability, so the journos get the finger pointed at them and the axe. Kill the body and the head will just be moved to another branch of the same corporation.

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-07-09 00:12:13)