I see no reason to limit the field to 4 or 5. Third parties have to work to get on the ballot. I think this is a high enough hurdle to keep all but the most dedicated from running for office. If the lure of free media exposure expands the field "too much", this issue could certainly be revisited. I also do not see why the TV/radio time could not be free. The government owns the airways.
I am not trying to restrict free speech, I am trying to make sure that all candidates get EQUAL time to speak and be heard. I don't think you should need a commercial over and above what the other guy gets to win. You should win on your merits, not on a deluge of ads that will probably just be mudslinging ads anyway. If all candidates had a limited number of ads to use in a campaign season, maybe they would think twice about using them to sling mud. You may not be trying to restrict free speech, but that's the net effect of what you're doing. If I am not allowed to buy airtime for myself because the topic I want to speak about is political in nature, then you're restricting constitutionally protected free speech. You need to figure out how to get around that if you want to make this workable.
Interesting article. It seems to be saying that as part of the overall fraud to inflate earnings, these companies filed tax returns that also inflated earnings, and therefore, overpaid their taxes. I don't know how that's a tax profit, though. If I overpay my taxes and end up with a refund, I've not made a profit. These companies just filed incorrect returns and are wanting to get the money back they overpaid based on the inflated earnings (to which I would say "tough luck", not our fault you filed false returns) Surely there's something else beyond just that. I guess we'll wait to see that article.
Actually, the public owns the airwaves. It could be free. All the government has to do is pass a law that requires it. The question is whether that's a good idea (or the best idea of the various potential ideas). I don't know if it is or not.
If all candidates had a limited number of ads to use in a campaign season, maybe they would think twice about using them to sling mud. Or maybe they'd just use all their slots for mudslinging since it seems to work so well.
Maybe they would, but if there are more than just 2 candidates, it will be harder to sling mud at all of them than it would be to run ads about your issues. In addition, if the minor party or independants start running issue ads and all the major party guys run is mud, we might see more minor party winners or the majors change tactics.
Andymoon, For the record, I wasn't saying that you were whining. I felt that my criticism sounded a bit whiney and I decided to follow the military route by not lodging criticism unless I had a solution planned. If you thought I was accusing you of whining I apologize. I think that if the public had more access to information like on several private sites, this could go into their thinking about who they are voting for, what are their motivations (corporate and interest group quid pro quos) and what will shape their issue positions. I think that if we instituted term limits for Congress, we would free them from being on a constant campaign and allow a more fair process. By default, this would remove a lot of the money, since politicians could only seek a couple of terms and then return home to their normal vocation. Also, on the pork barrel spending, I think that all bidding for Federal projects should be no-name, with the companies submitting anonymous bids to prevent them from having any ability to influence Congress. We had a problem down here in Alabama with the governor using no-bid contracts to help out his donors in several of the large construction companies in the state.
El Paso Energy Partners Pre-Tax Profit: $89,400,000 Federal Income Tax: -$218,000,000 Effective Tax Rate: -26.6 percent Total Tax Breaks: $504,800,000 Total tax breaks: $23.3 billion Minimum corporate tax, as defined by law: 35 percent Effective tax rate of Enron: -39.5 percent http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/9/mcintyre-r.html http://www.senate.gov/~finance/hearings/testimony/021303eo.pdf
So Ford paid more than their got in tax breaks. How is that a tax profit, exactly? Did they pay less in taxes than they would have if there were no tax breaks? It certainly appears so, but they still paid more in taxes than they got in breaks, which would mean that they hadf an overall tax loss, rather than a $5 billion tax profit. Unless the claim is that any tax loophole/break is a tax profit (and, in which case, I am my own tax profit). By the way, I wonder where they get these numbers, as they differ from the audited financial statements. I understand that taxable income is different than the income on the income statement, but the taxable income for Ford listed on the first site is about $1 billion more for 2000 than in the Ford Motor Company 2000 annual report. The amount of taxes is also much different. I understand that Ford's numbers include all income taxes, while this chart includes only FIT, but Ford lists $2,705 million in income taxes, while the first site lists $598.5 million as the amount Ford paid. I know one cannot necessarily compare the company financial reports directly with the income tax returns, but I wouldn't have thought the difference could be so large.
PlantBoy, while I appreciate your effort at attempting to prove your latest lie, you have done nothing but show your lack of knowledge of finance. You seem to think that tax breaks equal tax profits. This is simply ludicrous. Tax breaks can come from *many* different sources, many of which are beneficial to the economy. What is often the source of tax breaks is legislators attempting to stimulate economic activity in underdeveloped industries. When a company fills this need, they receive preferential tax treatment. When companies suffer earnings losses, they obtain tax-loss carryforwards. These are also areas where 'tax breaks' come from. What you are unable to grasp is that companies run their businesses to maximize shareholder value. Shareholders in companies like MSFT, GE, and Ford reach out well into the middle class and in some cases, the lower economic classes. These companies are simply fulfilling their duty as efficient allocators of capital by minimizing their tax burden and thus maximizing value for the shareholders -- the vast majority of which are American taxpayers who will ultimately pay taxes on capital gains or dividend income. Thanks for playing, rookie
The $23 billion NOT paid by these corporations came out of OUR pockets. You can say "It's not a profit, Plantboy" or "You don't know finance, Plantboy" or "Duh, I can't think for myself so I regurgitate the 250-year-old conservative capitalist lies I read in outdated economics textbooks, Plantboy," but the fact remains: your tax dollars went into Enron coffers, just as your tax dollars are spent to make up for taxes NOT spent by corporations. If you don't think that's a "profit," you're taking your second-hand Adam Smith too literally. Oh, I'd totally forgotten about the thousands of jobs created by all the tax stimulus plans. I was too busy turning down job offers to remember that. My bad.
Ok, so you admit that you misused the word "tax profit". You also admit to not understanding *why* tax breaks exist and how they help aid the economy by encouraging investment in less-than-desirable fields. Fine, with that out of the way, let's move on to the tax side: 1. When corporations minimize their tax burden, their cash flows rise. 2. Equity values (stock prices) represent the discounted present value of future expected cash flow streams. 3. When you pay less in taxes, cash flows rise. 4. When future cash flow streams rise, stock prices rise. 5. When stock prices rise, tax revenues go up through increased capital gains taxes being paid. 6. When cash flows rise, corporations have the ability to pay out more in the form of dividends. 7. When dividend payouts rise, tax revenues go up through increased ordinary income tax receipts. CLASS DISMISSED
I agree with all of these and think that, in concert with publicly funded elections, they could help dramatically.
Increased dividend taxes DO NOT make up for corporate tax breaks. If they did, our treasury would be swimming in a surplus after the recent "stimulus" packages. Instead, treasury funds are plummeting, while effective tax rates (for you and me) are going up to make up for the lost corporate tax revenue. If tax cuts lead to better cash flow streams, please explain why so many people are unemployed, corporations are cutting jobs and benefits, stocks prices are declining and debt burdens have never been higher? Wait, lemme guess: it's cyclical.
