Are you scientifically literate?

[orogenicman]

Why not? They have what you want... You're already willing to use force against them to take some (more) of their money, why not use that same force to take it all?

Government would have all that oil money and the oil companies would no longer be standing in the way of your precious renewables, instead, under government leadership, the vast resources of the oil companies could all be focused on helping to create and implement the Progressive renewable future of next Tuesday.

I'm willing to use force? It's not like I want to send in the marines, dude. You sure have a way with escalating the rhetoric.

First of all, it's not entirely their money, and secondly of all it certainly isn't their oil. Nearly all of the oil they drill for here in the states they drill for on land leased to them by the Federal and state governments. The oil belongs to the American people. I have long said that there needs to be a completely new paradigm for the way things work in the industry. The government needs to keep those leases, and then hire the oil companies to drill and extract and refine the oil, and keeping the revenues for the American people themselves. The oil companies should never have been allowed to steal our oil and then sell it back to us at ridiculous prices.

 

[orogenicman]

Yes, I did.

No, in fact, all you've done is dance around it.

 

[orogenicman]

You claimed, fallaciously, that there was, and I quote: "NO regulation"

There was, and still is, a great deal of regulation, I only had to post one example to prove your statement to be a false one.

You were either lying or you were wrong. Which is it?

The deregulation I was referring to was the deregulation of the banking industry. Next.

 

[orogenicman]

Progressive policies (government intervention into the markets) caused our economic collapse.

Well, that's a load of horse manure. But then, you knew that already.

Why is that any business of yours? So long as companies are not using force or fraud and they are not violating individual rights, I don't care what the hell they do, it's none of my business.

It is everyones business. Of course you don't care what businesses do. You have no morals.

Actually, it is.

Actually, it isn't necessarily the case. In many instances it isn't in anyone's interest. Case in point - valley of the drums. In whose interest was that?

......

 

[orogenicman]

"You can't tax a company any more than you can tax a tree. You can only tax the individuals who own and operate the company, who are already subject to capital gains and income taxes."

You seem to think that corporate entities have rights that ordinary citizens don't have. Since nothing could be further from the truth, I have to ask how you came to such a silly conclusion.

 

[orogenicman]

"Companies have no moral obligations any more than a tree has a moral obligation to the ground in which it's roots are planted."

People who believe that companies have no moral obligations are the same kind of people who allowed stuff like this to happen:

And in my opinion, are enemies of the state and of the people, and should be treated as such.

 

[orogenicman]

"Name a company that pays no taxes"

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P80242.asp

Exxon Mobile paid no Federal taxes in 2009.

 

[orogenicman]

"Progressive propagandistic drivel...

Corporations are made up of people, who do have rights, that is what the SCOTUS has affirmed."

What the SCOTUS did was to declare that corporate entities themselves have the same rights as individuals. They didn't give the people who run them something they already have. They gave individual rights to the corporations themselves.

 

[orogenicman]

"If you really understood the law of causality, you would not be a Progressive."

Way to skirt an issue. Congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

"The free market is the only solution. Placing our energy future in the hands of government and leaving it to blow in the ever changing political winds is not in the best interest of the country."

What a load of hog wash. The free market has NEVER been the only solution, ever. Where was the free market when we went to the moon? Where was the free market when we invented nuclear power? Where was the free market when the power grid was built in the 1950s and 1960s? Where was the free market when we built the interstate system? Leaving this country's energy future in the hands of immoral corporate raiders is the assinine idea to beat all assinine ideas.

 

[orogenicman]

So you really do believe that without government subsidies, we wouldn't have a power grid?

And you think Conservatives are naive...

If you believe that the power grid would or could have been built without governbment subsidies, then I have to ask you why the industry didn't take the lead and do it themselves? They didn't because it was a huge undertaking, and only the government had the financial outlays required to build a national grid.

 

[GenSeneca]

I assume that your mantra of "no tax breaks to any industry" also extends to small business.

Correct, no tax breaks for any business, large or small. I'm in favor of tax cuts, that is cutting the rate at which they are taxed and ultimately to zero, but offering incentives on the condition that a company do something to obtain it, no... I don't support such "tax breaks" as they are government intervention into the market.

Industries like me? What industry would that be?

If you could read, it says "industries you like", such as the renewable energy industry.

And do point out where I have lied, dude.

Well, there have been a lot of them but I'll just point out the one I was referring to in that reply.

You said, "conservatives have such a huge problem subsidizing alternative energy...while not having any problem at all subsidizing the oil industry"

That statement is a lie. Not one SDC on this board has said they support subsidizing oil but not alternatives. In fact, they appear to have agreed with me that no corporation should get taxpayer subsidies.

 

[GenSeneca]

If it is double taxation that you are concerned about (and I doubt that that is truly your concern here), all we have to do is pass a law that says that they can't pass on the taxes to everyone else. Ta da. Problem solved.

The Acme corporation makes $1,000,000 in profit.
The Government confiscates 35% ($350,000) as corporate tax.
The Acme corporation pays out the remaining $650,000 to it's investors.
Each individual is then forced to pay an income tax on their share of the $650,000, which has already been taxed.

That's double taxation.

Whatever it is that you jabbered on about has nothing at all to do with double taxation.

 

[PLC1]

The Acme corporation makes $1,000,000 in profit.
The Government confiscates 35% ($350,000) as corporate tax.
The Acme corporation pays out the remaining $650,000 to it's investors.
Each individual is then forced to pay an income tax on their share of the $650,000, which has already been taxed.

That's double taxation.

Whatever it is that you jabbered on about has nothing at all to do with double taxation.

Yes, that would be double taxation, however, it doesn't work that way.

If a corporation is run properly, its tax burden will be minimal if there is any at all.

Acme corporation makes widgets that it sells to Wil E. Coyote, and his friends. It sold widgets worth $1,000,000. Does it pay taxes on the million?

No.

First, there is the cost of production, including salaries. Taxes on salaries are paid by the recipients, not by the corporation.

Then, Acme invests in new capital outlays, which are not a part of corporate profits, and so are not taxed.

Then, Acme pays dividends to its shareholders. They pay capital gains taxes, but Acme does not.

If Acme is correctly run, then profits are used for capital improvements, salaries for employees, and dividends paid to shareholders. Acme itself pays no taxes. If Acme keeps a portion for future expenses, then that portion is taxed, but compared to the entire gross revenue, it is a small portion.

Now, if you want to talk about double taxation, how about paying sales taxes on purchases made by income left after having paid income taxes? Now, that's double taxation.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes, that would be double taxation, however, it doesn't work that way.

I understand how it works and I agree... My example was to illustrate how Rogen wants it to work.

Now, if you want to talk about double taxation, how about paying sales taxes on purchases made by income left after having paid income taxes? Now, that's double taxation.

Ask your buddy Rogen about that... He doesn't think it's "entirely" your money, so you shouldn't complain about how much, or how often, you get taxed on it.