So, at one time greed was one of the Seven Deadly Sins, now it is a "lifestyle choice" to conservatives.
All taxation is "double taxation." Sales tax is taxing me on money that was already taxed by income and payroll taxes. Perhaps you should look for another straw man, the "double taxation" one is old and irrelevant.
I'm still trying to find evidence that Honeywell paid just 50 million in taxes from 2009 to 2012 based on the SEC filing that the report links. The image below is the data from the SEC filing linked in the report. It clearly list in the "tax expense" category that they are paying far more taxes than 50 million. What am I ****ing up? Does anyone know?
Oh wait....****.....is that original report in the OP just talking about the CEOs in some instances? I'm not a 100% sure, but that's the way it is coming across now. It's like it is talking about the CEO sometimes and then the business as well. The Honeywell part still doesn't make sense though.
I don't know what this means. Are you asking what if we had a fantasy land with steady progress and steady returns? Are companies like Google or Tesla or Facebook bad because they are worth a lot and their founders are worth a lot?
I guess the financial crisis was just one giant tax haven then? It took me a second to understand what this piece from Sanders was saying. I believe he is saying the CEOs got refunds during years where their stock prices collapsed. I don't think you get a refund, but just a carryforward loss.
It seems like it is creative writing that is twisting things to make it seem like they aren't paying taxes. He doesn't talk about how much taxes these people have paid in the past 4 years but instead goes back to 2008 to 2010.
The whole premise of this piece is to juxtapose 1) the support those CEOs received when things went sour 2) the amount they paid during that period for that largesse. It's an important point to make because when recessions strike, societies tend to eat their poor first (reducing essential social services) while expecting them to largely shoulder the burden of a collective failure and a recovery aimed at helping the rich jump-start. Trickle-down may be dead, but very few lower-class people are benefitting from exposure to the asset classes that are ballooning in value--and a lot of them are suffering from the first proposed cuts, especially those enacted already on a state level.
