 mklosinski says: Dear Nancy, Exxon's profit margin was 11.59 percent. Google's profit margin was 26.9 percent. You should raise the taxes on Google for their "excessive profits." (What ever the definition of excessive profits is.) I have a question which I'm not sure where to find the answer. Honest question ... How much did Exxon make and how much did Google make? A small percent of a big number is much better than a large percent of a small number. What does it matter? If you invest your money in a savings account are you expecting a smaller return on your investment just because you are investing more money? What does Exxon have at risk, property, equipment? What does Google have at risk? It has everything to do with the return on investment, not the dollar amount returned. Better question, who made more profit from Exxon's business, Exxon or the government? Great question n2sooners! For the year 2006, Exxon paid $27,902,000,000 in income taxes. Their net income was $39,500,000,000. Google on the other hand paid $933,594,000 in income taxes. Their net income was $3,077,446,000. It looks to me like Exxon is being overtaxed compared to Google, but then what do I know about taxes. Google should be nationalized. LOL Talk about a company that reaps outlandish profits, employs relatively few, has ZERO trickle-down, suppliers, and support industries, and produces next to nothing??? @ mklosinski Your statement implied that more tax money could be had by taxing businesses such as google because they had a higher profit margin. Your implication seemed to be that a higher profit% means more tax money which is shortsighted math. A large percent of smaller profits could very well be less than a small percent of a large profit. Since I'm not familiar with what both companies profit margin I cannot accurately say which would be better to tax if the sole goal is to get the most taxes. Thus my question. As far as what Exxon has at risk, why does THAT matter? Unless the intent is to target specific companies based on a prejudice? Not that I don't think Exxon and all the other... Obviously you are immune to sarcasm. Fact is, no companies should pay taxes. It is just a way to get consumers to say "Yes! Tax me more!!!" After all, companies don't pay taxes, the consumer pays those taxes. Taxes are just another expense to the company which they either have to cover by cutting costs (jobs) or by passing the cost on to their customers. We should at least switch the corporate tax system to a sales tax system so we tax imports, no longer tax exports, and each consumer can see exactly how much those taxes effect them each and every time they make a purchase. Bet you would have far fewer people wanting to stick it to Exxon if they could see that number being added to the price they pay for gas right at the pump. Here is an interesting link to various state gas taxes. I've always been of the mind that government should pay for itself. But I suppose that somewhere along the line some idiot would get in charge and use that to alter laws to benefit itself and swindle the American people ... kinda like what we got going on now. @Willhelm Sadly, I've seen and heard to much to accept anything as sarcasm unless its plainly spelled out. Sarcasm to you is deadly serious to someone else. Pardon me for not discerning your intent. n2sooner, I am with you. No company should pay taxes. Those taxes are just passed directly on to the consumer. The fact is companies do NOT pay taxes. They either 1. raise the price of goods and services 2. cut the cost of producing goods and services ( lay off) or 3. cut investment. Only individuals pay taxes. The whole concept of corporate taxation is a scam to fleece individuals while pretending to sock it to the rich, as if the rich deserve it. Socialist-Libs are morons. Their followers might be, but the leadership isn't too dumb. After all, they have people voting for them and then begging them for higher taxes through higher gas prices. Tax, cost to produce, supply, rarity - these are all things that effect the final cost of a product, and willhelm is right. Ultimately that cost is paid by the consumer. Does that mean taxing companies and businesses is redundant? I guess it depends on what you determine is a fair tax among individuals. Should there be a flat tax regardless of income? Or should a flat percentage be used? $100 dollars to a homeless man means much more than $100 to a high power attorney. Shouldn't each citizen pay an equal value? Not cost, but a value. At the end of the day if you put in 8 hours and suck in $1000 dollars and another guy puts in 10 hours to make $100 dollars who works harder for their money? S... There is no way to determine who worked harder for their money. The guy that made the $1000 or the guy that made $100. Anyway who is the authority to judge. Who has the right to judge? Tax them all equally. Sure maybe start the tax at a basic level say, the first $50 is tax free, then everything over that is taxed at oh, say, let's pick a random number of 23 percent. No, of course its not that simple (again), but simply because someone makes more money doesn't automatically mean that money is harder earned. I like a flat tax with the only deductions being personal deductions. Of course, that isn't really a flat tax at all, it is a curved tax. People who make less than the deduction pay 0%. Those who make twice the deduction would only pay half the rate. And as you make more you come closer and closer to paying 100% of the set rate. Fred Thompson has proposed something similar but it has a single step up at higher incomes. The only thing about these taxes is that they don't take into account the tax credits many lower income people count on at the beginning of the year for extra income. |
View the Top Clips from December 5, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
