Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was a counter to the ideas that companies never pay taxes or get over taxed. It was like saying, what you are saying is silly. It was also while I was being attacked, so I don't give a shit.
And you are not "being attacked", you came in here demeaning Jello and saying it was just a conspiracy theory. If anything you came in here on the attack.
Originally posted by King Kandy
But in this country, they really don't pay many taxes at all.
Do you really think that? I don't think you have any proof. All you are doing is repeating what you have been told.
I know better, but you don't want to hear that.
Originally posted by King Kandy
And you are not "being attacked", you came in here demeaning Jello and saying it was just a conspiracy theory. If anything you came in here on the attack.
There are a lot of the things that Jello says that are, in my opinion, conspiracy. Do you want me to lie about that? I tell it like I see it. As far as being attacked, I don’t give a shit. You can think I’m wrong, again I don’t give a shit. If you or Jello have a problem with what I am saying, then you can put me on your ignore list. I am not going to stop. I have the freedom of speech. It goes both ways.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you really think that? I don't think you have any proof. All you are doing is repeating what you have been told.I know better, but you don't want to hear that.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There are a lot of the things that Jello says that are, in my opinion, conspiracy. Do you want me to lie about that? I tell it like I see it. As far as being attacked, I don’t give a shit. You can think I’m wrong, again I don’t give a shit. If you or Jello have a problem with what I am saying, then you can put me on your ignore list. I am not going to stop. I have the freedom of speech. It goes both ways.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Looking at the statistics it appears I was actually thinking of personal income tax, not corporate taxes.
😐
Originally posted by King Kandy
I didn't hear the part of the first amendment that would prevent you from having your ideas criticized.
Again, I don't care if people criticize my ideas. Where did you get the idea that I care? Was it me saying I don't give a shit over and over again? Well, don't read anything into that. I've had a beer and was just feeling dramatic.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Shaky, are you being deliberately dense? The allegation is that the companies are simply being paid large amounts of taxpayers' money for the death of people who might not even work for them any longer.Now, if you want to point out that this doesn't happen at all, then fine. But if you are trying to say that if that does happen that it is not wrong... you're being an idiot. That is companies taking money from the people for no reason. Of COURSE that's wrong.
And in fact the IRS has been fighting this kind of thing for decades.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You ARE being deliberately dense. Good Lord.Sorry, but the average person is- very reasonably- going to think that the idea that companies MAKE MONEY just because their employees have died, and that money comes straight from the taxpayer, is wrong.
They have NO RIGHT to my money! Why the hell should they profit AT ALL from the death of an employee, let alone make the money FROM THR TAXPAYER, not even the insurer. And the allegation is that these policies are taken out with the deliberate intent of simply using them to fleece the taxpayers for cash.
Sorry, Shaky, but you are being a blatant idiot here. This is as plain as it could be.
If there was a law that said that a businessman could break into your house and steal whatever he likes, would the fact that it was the law stop that from being wrong? Geez, some people...
Reported. 😆
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't worry about it. Also, never trust statistic. Statistic can be deceiving.
I believe this, to a certain extent.
I like to run my own numbers, sometimes. Statistics don't always have to have a standard deviation and/or correlations coefficients. Sometimes, it can be some basic math run on some numbers scientifically collected.
However, Darth Jello admitted earlier in this thread that some of his numbers might be old. I would assume that this practice of basically, defrauding the taxpayer, has increased with inflation and possibly with practice. The former has to be true while the latter is a baseless assumption on my part. It is also possible that organization are shying away from this type of activity, as evidenced by Darth Jello's mention of Wal-Mart. (If I'm not mistaken...you may have been making another point. I read it rather fast.)
As far as your point, I agree that it is not legal and is allowed, and, therefore, the companies cannot and should not be faulted for trying to maximize their profits or positive cash flow. It makes no sense why a company shouldn't do it other than business ethics and the appearance to the public/share holder.
Indeed, I also believe that it is not an ethical business practice. I'm with Bardock most of the time when it comes to taxes. I really don't like it when anyone or any organization uses taxes. However, I do see the benefits so I'm not completely blind about the use of taxpayer dollars.
Another much more relevant point: $17 billion dollars? That's it? That's almost chump change compared to the cash flow of even the fortune 100! That's NOTHING. This is like senatorial and presidential candidates making a big deal about earmarks to make themselves appear more ethical. If they REALLY wanted to make a difference on the budget they eliminate dead weight programs, cut back spending, heavily employ project management, etc. But NOOOO, they make a big deal about very very small budget items that just look good to ignorant constituents (Which is like, 99% of all voters, to some degree.) More to the point, this thread seems like capitalist hate than actually being legit. I don't mean to demean your actual purpose, Darth Jello, as it is legit and should be stopped. However, this is easily remedied with some regulatory legislation. You know, one of the few things this voter will sometimes agree with. I'm all for capitalism and it's benefits. It just needs to come with a small dose of federal regulations. I believe the political phrase is no-nonsense legislation.
To sum up: it isn't illegal. They should exploit it if it won't harm them more than it benefits them. (Them being the organizations.)
This is really a non-issue because of how little comes from the taxpayer, in the end.
I consider it against business ethics and against my personal preferences on how tax dollars should be used.
On another note, who the hell are we kidding when we say "tax dollars?" That's almost a joke. What we REALLY should be saying is "Chinese borrowed dollars that may eventually be paid back with tax dollars."
Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe this, to a certain extent.I like to run my own numbers, sometimes. Statistics don't always have to have a standard deviation and/or correlations coefficients. Sometimes, it can be some basic math run on some numbers scientifically collected.
However, Darth Jello admitted earlier in this thread that some of his numbers might be old. I would assume that this practice of basically, defrauding the taxpayer, has increased with inflation and possibly with practice. The former has to be true while the latter is a baseless assumption on my part. It is also possible that organization are shying away from this type of activity, as evidenced by Darth Jello's mention of Wal-Mart. (If I'm not mistaken...you may have been making another point. I read it rather fast.)
As far as your point, I agree that it is not legal and is allowed, and, therefore, the companies cannot and should not be faulted for trying to maximize their profits or positive cash flow. It makes no sense why a company shouldn't do it other than business ethics and the appearance to the public/share holder.
Indeed, I also believe that it is not an ethical business practice. I'm with Bardock most of the time when it comes to taxes. I really don't like it when anyone or any organization uses taxes. However, I do see the benefits so I'm not completely blind about the use of taxpayer dollars.
Another much more relevant point: $17 billion dollars? That's it? That's almost chump change compared to the cash flow of even the fortune 100! That's NOTHING. This is like senatorial and presidential candidates making a big deal about earmarks to make themselves appear more ethical. If they REALLY wanted to make a difference on the budget they eliminate dead weight programs, cut back spending, heavily employ project management, etc. But NOOOO, they make a big deal about very very small budget items that just look good to ignorant constituents (Which is like, 99% of all voters, to some degree.) More to the point, this thread seems like capitalist hate than actually being legit. I don't mean to demean your actual purpose, Darth Jello, as it is legit and should be stopped. However, this is easily remedied with some regulatory legislation. You know, one of the few things this voter will sometimes agree with. I'm all for capitalism and it's benefits. It just needs to come with a small dose of federal regulations. I believe the political phrase is no-nonsense legislation.
To sum up: it isn't illegal. They should exploit it if it won't harm them more than it benefits them. (Them being the organizations.)
This is really a non-issue because of how little comes from the taxpayer, in the end.
I consider it against business ethics and against my personal preferences on how tax dollars should be used.
On another note, who the hell are we kidding when we say "tax dollars?" That's almost a joke. What we REALLY should be saying is "Chinese borrowed dollars that may eventually be paid back with tax dollars."
Don't you generally have to rely on some data though to "run your own numbers"? I mean they could be flawed just as well.
The real issue I have with statistics is when it goes from onjective facts (i.e. numbers, which admittedly may be wrong, but at least are based on something evident) to something subjective. i.e. the statistic on health care King Kandy posted a while ago where one of the foundations was the "fairness" of the system, which is, imo, is subjective and might change the outcome drastically if redefined.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't you generally have to rely on some data though to "run your own numbers"? I mean they could be flawed just as well.The real issue I have with statistics is when it goes from onjective facts (i.e. numbers, which admittedly may be wrong, but at least are based on something evident) to something subjective. i.e. the statistic on health care King Kandy posted a while ago where one of the foundations was the "fairness" of the system, which is, imo, is subjective and might change the outcome drastically if redefined.
K. And, yes, sometimes the numbers you "use" in calculations can be wrong, themselves. That's why you throw the standard deviation out there and the correlation coefficient. lol (It's a fancy way of saying...we could have effed up by this margin.)
There are standards that have to be adhered to for scientific sampling/polls/measurements that can eliminate a lot of that "bias" you're talking about.
Originally posted by dadudemon
K. And, yes, sometimes the numbers you "use" in calculations can be wrong, themselves. That's why you throw the standard deviation out there and the correlation coefficient. lol (It's a fancy way of saying...we could have effed up by this margin.)There are standards that have to be adhered to for scientific sampling/polls/measurements that can eliminate a lot of that "bias" you're talking about.
Yeah, I am not saying that it can't be very useful and accurate. I am more saying that, at times, for whatever reasons, it is not.
I would like to make my point again that wouldn't you say that this could be interpreted as a reason for not supporting things like universal healthcare, better food and product inspection and safety standards. I mean, there are actually statements from company accountants complaining that they received less than expected quarterly returns on this insurance and trying to find a way to fix the problem. Meaning they have a devised formula to predict how many employees should die every quarter and get upset when it doesn't happen.
Then of course there's the murder motive. As far as I know there haven't been any proven cases. But say you have a company whistleblower who is murdered. Say the CEO is not responsible, it's just some guy in middle management that's crazy and overzealous. The company regardless gets slapped with a huge fine for violation of civil rights. Should the company be able to cash in the guy's life insurance and shrug it off? Say that a power plant has a radiation leak and half the employees either die or develop terminal cancers. Should the company be able to offset fines from OSHA and the IAEA or perhaps even profit from the deaths of those employees? Let's say I own a chain of Super Markets that due to cheap prices and the products available are mainly located in bad neighborhoods. Why should I spend money on security guards when I'm following the minimum OSHA safety standards and every stock boy shot dead by a Crip is a happy trip to the bank for me?
In other words, should we negate the punishment for, if not incentivize workplace negligence and murder?
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I would like to make my point again that wouldn't you say that this could be interpreted as a reason for not supporting things like universal healthcare, better food and product inspection and safety standards.
I don't think companies should be required to like those things.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I mean, there are actually statements from company accountants complaining that they received less than expected quarterly returns on this insurance and trying to find a way to fix the problem. Meaning they have a devised formula to predict how many employees should die every quarter and get upset when it doesn't happen.
The issue seems to be that they can make that much money, not that they like making money.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Then of course there's the murder motive. As far as I know there haven't been any proven cases. But say you have a company whistleblower who is murdered. Say the CEO is not responsible, it's just some guy in middle management that's crazy and overzealous. The company regardless gets slapped with a huge fine for violation of civil rights. Should the company be able to cash in the guy's life insurance and shrug it off?
Yes.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Say that a power plant has a radiation leak and half the employees either die or develop terminal cancers. Should the company be able to offset fines from OSHA and the IAEA or perhaps even profit from the deaths of those employees? Let's say I own a chain of Super Markets that due to cheap prices and the products available are mainly located in bad neighborhoods. Why should I spend money on security guards when I'm following the minimum OSHA safety standards and every stock boy shot dead by a Crip is a happy trip to the bank for me?
Yes, though if I was an insurance company I'd add a clause that doesn't make me pay money when the death is the companies fault.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
In other words, should we negate the punishment for, if not incentivize workplace negligence and murder?
No, "we" shouldn't do anything. The way I understand it, as so often, the problem is really that the government is messing where it shouldn't be messing.
For some reason this insurance has changed into a bonus financed by tax dollars. That's just not how insurances work though. Insurances do not create money for people out of nothing, they actually do the opposite, they make them lose money for the security not to lose more money. That's how this should be, too. Say you take out an insurance on your CEO cause he's a very qualified man or woman (yeah, right) and if he dies, your company will take a severe hit. So you pay money and if he dies you are somewhat protected, and if he doesn't your money has been used for some other who might have died.
The point is you share the risk with others, and that's what should happen, but for whatever reason, the government getting involved perverts that into an insurance being a free handout courtesy of the taxpayer. And I'm with you, that ****ing sucks. And should not be done.
I wouldn't demonize the corporations taking advantage of such a gift though. I'd too.
I see this whole thing as one again going back to that FDR speech at Madison Square Garden (which at this time, every network should re-air, even if it is audio only, during prime time) where he likened organized money to organized mob (because that's exactly what it is). It think abuses like this should be legislated away but I also think that we do need trust busting instead of bailouts and a temporary law enforcement agency with extraordinary rights, a new Elliot Ness, to deal with this and other issues.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I like to run my own numbers, sometimes. Statistics don't always have to have a standard deviation and/or correlations coefficients. Sometimes, it can be some basic math run on some numbers scientifically collected.
you run your own calculations, which you trust more than std deviations?
Originally posted by Darth Jello
a temporary law enforcement agency with extraordinary rights, a new Elliot Ness, to deal with this and other issues.
I see a couple of issues with this. Power, once given to agencies like this, rarely is taken back. I get temporary, but how tempting is it to give those with power a mechanism for even more?
The other issue is that such extraordinary powers are rarely used only for the reasons they were mandated. Best example off the top of my head is that a mayor in Vancouver used the War Measures declared by Trudeau to lock up a bunch of hippies. Similar things have happened with the anti-terror legislation.
What powers does the government need in order to break this type of thing?
My main thinking here was that the FBI should be doing this kind of stuff but the problem is lawlessness. Not just deregulation but that existing laws are not enforced. The FBI would rather infiltrate Earth First! and spend millions investigating dubious terrorist leads than do their job of investigating corporate crime. But this is getting off topic. Just wanted to explain my thinking.
the FBI is hardly to blame though. Agents who want to go after real problems are given crap. The top brass are basically the same people who run the government who are basically the same people who run the corporations, maybe like 4-5 degrees of separation at most.
EDIT: I agree though, getting rid of the lawlessness would be a good start.