100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Naked
|
|
Kick the soap before you pick it up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
2/3 Pay No Taxes
|
|
So, what do you all think about this? WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress. The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period. Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate. "It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who asked for the GAO study with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called "S" corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes. "Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said. The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits. More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts. The GAO said it analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service, examining samples of corporate returns for the years 1998 through 2005. For 2005, for example, it reviewed 110,003 tax returns from among more than 1.2 million corporations doing business in the U.S. Dorgan and Levin have complained about companies abusing transfer prices - amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. In some cases, multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, cutting their tax liabilities. The GAO did not suggest which companies might be doing this. "It's time for the big corporations to pay their fair share," Dorgan said. The article is vague and is lumping foreign corporations with domestic corporations. Apples and oranges.The MAJORITY of corporations are the little guys and are domestic corporations. The socialist anti-business fanatics make me sick. Who do they think provides the paychecks for most Americans? Here is something for all of you to think about: Most people do not go into business to get rich. If they do they are in a sad state soon enough. Most of us work 16 hour days and often 7 days a week. I should be finishing this estimate on my desk instead of wasting time here. We do it because we love what we do and want to grow our businesses to provide what we feel is a needed service or product. We are the last to be paid and often go home without a check but our employees MUST be paid, even if we have to borrow the money to make it happen. With that being said it is going on 7pm so I gotta get back to it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
2/3 Pay No Taxes
|
|
It amazes me when people who know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about a subject read an article and poof! they are professors of the subject.
Here is a basic description of a C Corp. and an S Corp. This will get boring for some of you but here goes:
General Corporation aka “C” corp. This is the most common corporate structure. The corporation is a separate legal entity that is owned by stockholders. A general corporation may have an unlimited number of stockholders that, due to the separate legal nature of the corporation, are protected from the creditors of the business. A stockholder's personal liability is usually limited to the amount of investment in the corporation and no more. Disadvantages • More expensive to form than proprietorship or partnerships • More legal formality • More state and federal rules and regulation S Corporation With the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the S Corporation became a highly desirable entity for corporate tax purposes. An S Corporation is not really a different type of corporation. It is a special tax designation applied for and granted by the IRS to corporations that have already been formed. Many entrepreneurs and small business owners are partial to the S Corporation because it combines many of the advantages of a sole proprietorship, partnership and the corporate forms of business structure. S Corporations have the same basic advantages and disadvantages of general or close corporation with the added benefit of the S Corporation special tax provisions. When a standard corporation (general, close or professional) makes a profit, it pays a federal corporate income tax on the profit. If the company declares a dividend, the shareholders must report the dividend as personal income and pay more taxes. S Corporations avoid this "double taxation" (once at the corporate level and again at the personal level) because all income or loss is reported only once on the personal tax returns of the shareholders. However, like standard corporations (and unlike some partnerships), the S Corporation shareholders are exempt from personal liability for business debt. S Corporation Restrictions To elect S Corporation status, your corporation must meet specific guidelines. As a result of the 1996 Tax Law, which became effective January 1, 1997, many of these qualifying guidelines have been changed. A few of these changes are noted below: • Prior to the 1996 Tax Law, the maximum number of shareholders was 35. The maximum number of shareholders for an S Corporation has been increased to 75. • Previously, S Corporation ownership was limited to individuals, estates, and certain trusts. Under the new law, stock of an S Corporation may be held by a new "electing small business trust." All beneficiaries of the trust must be individuals or estates, except that charitable organizations may hold limited interests. Interests in the trust must be acquired by gift or bequest -- not by purchase. Each potential current beneficiary of the trust is counted towards the 75 shareholder limit on S Corporation shareholders. • S Corporations are now allowed to own 80 percent or more of the stock of a regular C corporation, which may elect to file a consolidated return with other affiliated regular C corporations. The S Corporation itself may not join in that election. In addition, an S Corporation is now allowed to own a "qualified subchapter S subsidiary." The parent S Corporation must own 100 percent of the stock of the subsidiary. • Qualified retirement plans or Section 501(c)(3) charitable organizations may now be shareholders in S Corporations. • All S Corporations must have shareholders who are citizens or residents of the United States. Nonresident aliens cannot be shareholders. • S Corporations may only issue one class of stock. • No more than 25 percent of the gross corporate income may be derived from passive income. • An S Corporation can generally provide employee benefits and deferred compensation plans. • Not all domestic general business corporations are eligible for S Corporation status. These exclusions include: o A financial institution that is a bank; o An insurance company taxed under Subchapter L; o A Domestic International Sales Corporation (DISC); or o Certain affiliated groups of corporations. Keep in mind, these lists of qualifying S Corporation aspects are not all-inclusive. In addition, there are specific circumstances in which an S Corporation may owe income tax. For more detailed information about these changes and other aspects regarding S Corporation status, contact your accountant, attorney or local IRS office. Soooooo basically a subchapter “S” corporation election is given by the Infernal Revenue Service to help small businesses grow mainly by avoiding the double taxation that hampers owners of larger “C” corps. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Edwards?
Edited by
Zapchaser
on
Mon 08/11/08 08:36 PM
|
|
There are far more important issues in this country and real criminal corruption among political candidates to worry about than a man's personal marital problems. I know the Christian Right and the Republican party, all try to drive a minor issue like this into the public's brain to distract their minds away from the real issues, but let's get real. John Edwards admitted his mistake, and is not a political candidate right now. He's not running for any office anywhere. His problem is a private matter between him, his wife, and god now. He had already, months ago, said he wasn't interested in the VP position, and the fact that this is even in the news is because the Republicans know no other way to campaign than to throw out tabloid trash and hope it distracts Americans away from their weaknesses. "THE REAL ISSUES" facing this country! Now there is the fanta we all know and love! Shift! Dodge! Change up and change out! HE WAS CAUGHT!!!! HE LIED AND THEN ADMITTED HE HAD LIED!!!! HE WAS HOPING FOR A CABINET POSITION IF NOT VP!!!! Get real.The hypocrisy reeks of pig sh*t in here. So it doesn't raise an eyebrow for you that he lied, covered the lie, then admitted to the lie and you would still vote him in to public office? Stop your friggin side stepping and answer the damned question!
Remember McCain's issue with his supposed infidelity? Oh how nice you were to not bring that up. I think I'm gonna be sick! What the hell? Do you not see your own deep rooted hypocrisy? Here's a shocker for you........ the rest of us DO. 
Maybe more Republicans should read their good book and remember the words of Matthew 7:3-5 - "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." There is more than enough hypocrisy to go around. In both parties. Remember what ye say oh ye hypocrite when thy republican brethren get thyselves into trouble and thou forgeteth just what the hell you just sayeth for I will be sure to pointeth out the hypocrisy of which yo just spaketh. Amen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zap, You never add anything to a thread other than name calling and inuendos, insults, accusations, and bad attempts at humor! Are you afraid to add facts or even an opinion that can stand solidly without all your self-bravado and hype? You never add anything of value to a thread at all. I sometimes wonder how your insults are not moderated as others are! I have been warned and suspended for far less than you have posted daily! You need to grow-up!! Facts? What facts? Facts to refute a fallacy? Callin' it like I see it pal. Just what happens when someone posts facts to either of your soap box hawkings? You blast them as being incorrect. Right? Need proof?Check your previous posts. Discussing ANYTHING with either of you is a waste of time. It is an impossibility that you two who are blinded by hate can ever see anything beyond your blood thirst. Sooooooo, I will have fun! You remember how to do that don't you? Like I told you yesterday, it is a dating site so if you try to not appear to be wound up tighter than an eight day clock you might get what you are looking for. Madman asked a question and I answered it. Do I need to elaborate? Nope. I will only engage in intelligent debate with, well, you know the rest. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose you need to have a "FAITH" type belief system to have reality in your face and then deny it. I suppose thats why so many born agains run drooling to the republican party. Wow! Where the heck did that come from? No, it's called COMMON SENSE my good friend. Your diatribe falls short of it. Waaaaaaaay short. Being the National Enquirer might be fun for you but eventually you will start to believe the crap you dig up. Uh..... oops, too late. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So about those navy seals Cheney was willing to sacrafice so we could kill more people................. true or false? the ramblings of a mad man who happens to have won the pullitzer prize? Or just another long list of war crimes from the neocons? I vote for ramblings of a liar being quoted by a liar for the reason of perpetuating the lie.
Speaking of Someone
 who is so good with words
One who is absolutely brilliant
& experienced and knowledgeable,
as well & a true Gentleman too
Zapchaser You are the Man
you smoke these guys every time
 and leave them in your vapor trail 
Uh, not really. I have a gud spill chucker sew my werds are currekt. The vapor trail? Dang! I knew I should have passed on that second burrito at Chipotle's!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So about those navy seals Cheney was willing to sacrafice so we could kill more people................. true or false? the ramblings of a mad man who happens to have won the pullitzer prize? Or just another long list of war crimes from the neocons? I vote for ramblings of a liar being quoted by a liar for the reason of perpetuating the lie.
In Hersh's most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The "meeting took place in the Vice-President's office. 'The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,'" according to one of Hersh's sources. During the journalism conference event, I asked Hersh specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney's office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them. This idea, intended to provoke an Iran war, was ultimately rejected: http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/page/article/id/10822 I vote for ramblings of a liar being quoted by a liar for the reason of perpetuating the lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So about those navy seals Cheney was willing to sacrafice so we could kill more people................. true or false? the ramblings of a mad man who happens to have won the pullitzer prize? Or just another long list of war crimes from the neocons? I vote for ramblings of a liar being quoted by a liar for the reason of perpetuating the lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
your kindess is as fake as your reality darling you have a good night too
Now THERE is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and most people over look typing and spelling errors and focus on the topic unless of course they cannot make a realistic argument that is logical. Maybe you should just leave my threads alone if it bothers you so much eh? But I would prefer you stay on topic in my threads. Sorry your not able to see how "unamerican" our country has become but I am sure over time it will beging to sink in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFQyib5ZQZY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Edwards?
|
|
Guilt by association? One Democrat had an affair, so all democrats are adulterers. One Republican took bribs, so all Republicans are crooks. 
Judge each person seperately and fairly. I am. Power breeds corruption.Where did I state that all Democrats are adulterers?
Did I say you did? You posted this: Guilt by association? One Democrat had an affair, so all democrats are adulterers. One Republican took bribs, so all Republicans are crooks. noway Judge each person seperately and fairly. directly after my post I assumed you were directing your post to me. There was no name mentioned so there was no reason to believe otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Second Front!
|
|
Even as Putin rushed home Saturday to manage his military, the sports-loving Bush refused to let the fighting completely ruin his trip as the first sitting American president to attend an Olympics on foreign soil. He gave pep talks to U.S. athletes, posed for photos with them - which he later called the best part of the trip - and then was their biggest fan. Glenn, give the man the benefit of the doubt and consider that we don't know what is going on behind the scenes.I am sure that he is getting continual advice from all sources. I doubt that he is ignoring the situation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
bullys of usa
|
|
Well, after reading over the last 5 pages of disheartening name calling, I can see that the topic has degraded itself into nothing but baseless insults. Hopefully one of these days people will realize that you can disagree without being right or wrong (even when both people are working with the same facts). When it comes to war with Russia, I don't think there's a clear answer. My personal opinion is that it would be a very close conflict, although there is certainly evidence which supports the opposing view as well. I do dispute anyone who claims it would be "easy", but again there is no way to prove or disprove that. As for the person who mentioned that this thread turned into a worthless "who could kick who's ass" thread...I think that it was a pretty informative thread. Nothing like some good controversy to enlighten people. Sure it got a little ugly, and of course the sources have to be weighed (how do we know which news reports to trust), but it was intellectually stimulating, and that's worth a lot. Chaz - Thanks for the civility and intelligent debate. Congrats on the job and good luck. If you are talking about me and Fanta, we are good friends. It's what we do, have always done, and will always do and when he needs someone to go to bat for him he knows I will be there as will he for me. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Edwards?
Edited by
Zapchaser
on
Mon 08/11/08 08:48 AM
|
|
Guilt by association? One Democrat had an affair, so all democrats are adulterers. One Republican took bribs, so all Republicans are crooks.
Judge each person seperately and fairly. I am. Power breeds corruption.Where did I state that all Democrats are adulterers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Edwards?
|
|
Ah, the plot thickens in the Edwards saga.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Edwards?
|
|
i,m really not sure why anyone should be surprised. after all Edwards is a politician. so he is a crook. Gary numerous names and personalities including several female ones including jeanstotight,you stated in the other thread that Edwards is a good guy and that people should mind their own business. I think the dating site you were looking for was www.funnyfarmdatingforpathologicalliars.nut 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
bullys of usa
|
|
I appreciate the enlightening tete-a-tete Glenn, but I have to hit it. Can't catch anyone coming in late for work if I am late.I know you are proud of your service and I thank you for serving. See ya tomorrow!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
bullys of usa
|
|
meanwhile....
the owls & bats are getting ready for their evening hunt
the crickets are beginning to chirp
and the sun is slowly sinking down
behind the expansive Pacific Ocean 
to the soothing sound of the rhythmic waves crashing ~ where the shoreline meets the sea...
 ((((Vanessa))))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
bullys of usa
|
|
Tell me how much you know about GPS Steve. All three words!
I am not your teacher. I can assure you that you would have been the first one booted from my classroom. Look it up. You know, in the same manner you look everything else up. Incorrectly.
Oh No he dint MMMMM HMMMMM, I did. Why am I the onky one here that will kick the goat out of the garden?
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
