Let's try to explain a few things.

Why does the following make conservatives think that everything is A-OK with our tax and banking system in the U.S.A.??

1. Citigroup profit in 2013 of $6.4 billion - so no income tax paid AND IRS gives tax rebate of $260 million
2. JP Morgan profit same year of $17.2 billion - so no income tax at all

B/C the cronies in power of the bank & Wall St want all this money to themselves

Ask the Justice Department who don't prosecute banks criminally, rather they do it in civil cases, the settlements of which are tax deductible. So those multibillion dollar fines write off the tax payments. The DOJ could argue that as punitive fines they shouldn't count, but they don't.

The is the current tax code (law) of the land.

On the flip side, why should 50% of the people working not pay any taxes? Why are over 50% on some type of govt assistance?

(03-04-2015 02:30 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Let's try to explain a few things.

Why does the following make conservatives think that everything is A-OK with our tax and banking system in the U.S.A.??

1. Citigroup profit in 2013 of $6.4 billion - so no income tax paid AND IRS gives tax rebate of $260 million
2. JP Morgan profit same year of $17.2 billion - so no income tax at all

B/C the cronies in power of the bank & Wall St want all this money to themselves

Who says conservatives think this is ok?

I suspect the CAUSE of these untaxed profits is mostly tied to government bail-outs, which conservatives (not republicans, but conservatives) are (by and large) opposed to... and many of them were passed by liberals/Democrats. (not blaming liberals... merely saying that it isn't an issue of 'one party') It's the cronies in Washington who want the cronies of the bank and wall street to have all that money because they can extort their pound of flesh in return.

It's why many conservatives are now part of some version of a third party

It baffles me that more ACTUAL liberals don't see this and join those third parties against 'big' government. The reality is that a small central government means that they would lack the power to issue those sorts of 'waivers'... and that being 'liberal' means a freedom to do as you see fit, so long as you don't hurt others... which is actually what Conservatives want.

Is there really any difference between a typical republican and a typical democrat, other than 'which beliefs' they seek to suppress? Suppression takes power and power takes money.


Having said that, and it is important that you keep that in mind...

I WILL say that conservatives would also argue that 'playing by the rules' set forth by the government is perfectly acceptable. If you don't like the outcome (and we generally don't) you have to change the rules... not vilify the players.

^^^ Word for word, what Hambone said.

(03-04-2015 02:30 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Let's try to explain a few things.

Why does the following make conservatives think that everything is A-OK with our tax and banking system in the U.S.A.??

1. Citigroup profit in 2013 of $6.4 billion - so no income tax paid AND IRS gives tax rebate of $260 million
2. JP Morgan profit same year of $17.2 billion - so no income tax at all

B/C the cronies in power of the bank & Wall St want all this money to themselves

Not exactly.

Citigroup actual numbers - pretax income $19.5 billion, taxes $5.9 billion, after tax income $13.6 billion, effective tax rate 30.1%, reduced from statutory 35% by several factors including 2.2% reduction for foreign source income taxed at lower foreign rates

JP Morgan actual numbers - pretax income $25.9 billion, taxes $8.0 billion, after tax income $17.9 billion, effective tax rate 30.8%, reduced from statutory 35% by several factors including 5% reduction for foreign source income taxed at lower foreign rates

Source: Audited financial statements for 2013 (you can find them easily online if you have questions). Where did you get your numbers?

Otherwise I agree with Hambone.

It starts with the ridiculously high campaign spending. Politicians need tons of money so they agree to **** like this.

(03-04-2015 03:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It starts with the ridiculously high campaign spending. Politicians need tons of money so they agree to **** like this.

This is the old chicken or egg first question. Bottom line is the very rich (banks) have paid off their congressmen/senators for favorable laws that allow those very rich (banks) to lessen tax consequences.

It's a crooked system that those in power are loath to fix as they are the biggest beneficiaries.

While I would love to get the money out of politics, actually doing it is about like putting toothpaste back in the tube. Not so easy short of revolution.

(03-04-2015 02:30 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Let's try to explain a few things.

Why does the following make conservatives think that everything is A-OK with our tax and banking system in the U.S.A.??

1. Citigroup profit in 2013 of $6.4 billion - so no income tax paid AND IRS gives tax rebate of $260 million
2. JP Morgan profit same year of $17.2 billion - so no income tax at all

B/C the cronies in power of the bank & Wall St want all this money to themselves

It's not OK but it's the law of the land. What's also not OK is how somebody can pay no taxes, has nothing but non-taxable (gov't handout) income and somehow still qualifies for a refund? Notice how the 2 compound on each other?

(03-04-2015 03:08 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It starts with the ridiculously high campaign spending. Politicians need tons of money so they agree to **** like this.

This is the old chicken or egg first question. Bottom line is the very rich (banks) have paid off their congressmen/senators for favorable laws that allow those very rich (banks) to lessen tax consequences.

It's a crooked system that those in power are loath to fix as they are the biggest beneficiaries.

While I would love to get the money out of politics, actually doing it is about like putting toothpaste back in the tube. Not so easy short of revolution.

And it doesn't help when the Supreme Court decides that corporations can give whatever they want to help rig the system.

Democrats and Republicans are ALL controlled by money interests. Sometimes the interests are the same, sometimes they're different. But they all answer to someone.

(03-04-2015 03:21 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Democrats and Republicans are ALL controlled by money interests. Sometimes the interests are the same, sometimes they're different. But they all answer to someone.

Yep. It's like the table of moneychangers in the church. Need a Jesus to go in there and start knocking tables over.

Let me see if I can explain this in few words....

Set a scale for elections. President = $100mm, COngress = 5mm, city council $10,000 etc. AMounts voted on by the sitting members, but all persons who meet certain thresholds of petitioners get that amount. No additional spending whatsoever.

Anyone wanting to give to campaigns gives to the pot which is distributed to all candidates equally. Any group that TRULY wants fair elections would want this. What will keep spending under control is that those amounts will be voted on and it can become an issue in the next election.

Job one would be to work effectively within a budget, which SHOULD be job 1 for ANY politician.

It's the $3 to the Presidential election fund question on steroids. Ultimately we (taxpayers) pay for it anyway. This way we get to essentially have a vote on it.

(03-04-2015 02:30 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Let's try to explain a few things.
Why does the following make conservatives think that everything is A-OK with our tax and banking system in the U.S.A.??
1. Citigroup profit in 2013 of $6.4 billion - so no income tax paid AND IRS gives tax rebate of $260 million
2. JP Morgan profit same year of $17.2 billion - so no income tax at all
B/C the cronies in power of the bank & Wall St want all this money to themselves

Except that didn't happen. See my post above.

(03-04-2015 03:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Let me see if I can explain this in few words....

Set a scale for elections. President = $100mm, COngress = 5mm, city council $10,000 etc. AMounts voted on by the sitting members, but all persons who meet certain thresholds of petitioners get that amount. No additional spending whatsoever.

Anyone wanting to give to campaigns gives to the pot which is distributed to all candidates equally. Any group that TRULY wants fair elections would want this. What will keep spending under control is that those amounts will be voted on and it can become an issue in the next election.

Job one would be to work effectively within a budget, which SHOULD be job 1 for ANY politician.

It's the $3 to the Presidential election fund question on steroids. Ultimately we (taxpayers) pay for it anyway. This way we get to essentially have a vote on it.

Sounds good to me.

(03-04-2015 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 02:30 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Let's try to explain a few things.
Why does the following make conservatives think that everything is A-OK with our tax and banking system in the U.S.A.??
1. Citigroup profit in 2013 of $6.4 billion - so no income tax paid AND IRS gives tax rebate of $260 million
2. JP Morgan profit same year of $17.2 billion - so no income tax at all
B/C the cronies in power of the bank & Wall St want all this money to themselves

Except that didn't happen. See my post above.

Thanks for stating the facts... It is important to debate facts.

having said that, I know that you don't dispute the premise (that because of politicians, corporations can often shield many profits)... only the hyperbole.

(03-04-2015 02:40 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  Ask the Justice Department who don't prosecute banks criminally, rather they do it in civil cases, the settlements of which are tax deductible. So those multibillion dollar fines write off the tax payments. The DOJ could argue that as punitive fines they shouldn't count, but they don't.

This is true.

(03-04-2015 03:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:08 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It starts with the ridiculously high campaign spending. Politicians need tons of money so they agree to **** like this.

This is the old chicken or egg first question. Bottom line is the very rich (banks) have paid off their congressmen/senators for favorable laws that allow those very rich (banks) to lessen tax consequences.

It's a crooked system that those in power are loath to fix as they are the biggest beneficiaries.

While I would love to get the money out of politics, actually doing it is about like putting toothpaste back in the tube. Not so easy short of revolution.

And it doesn't help when the Supreme Court decides that corporations can give whatever they want to help rig the system.

So let me get this straight. When was the decision you're referring to handed down - 5 years ago. So prior to 2010, money didn't run the system? What do you know!

The corporations learned long ago - way before 2010 how to buy off members of BOTH parties to get what they want. You can't be seriously suggesting that only one party is bought and paid for, can you?

As of right now, the only reason Democrats cry about this is it lessens the power of Union dues money funneled to only Democrat politicians. That's the heartburn in a nut shell. The Dems still take their money from the corporations as they always did.

(03-04-2015 03:30 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:08 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:00 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It starts with the ridiculously high campaign spending. Politicians need tons of money so they agree to **** like this.

This is the old chicken or egg first question. Bottom line is the very rich (banks) have paid off their congressmen/senators for favorable laws that allow those very rich (banks) to lessen tax consequences.

It's a crooked system that those in power are loath to fix as they are the biggest beneficiaries.

While I would love to get the money out of politics, actually doing it is about like putting toothpaste back in the tube. Not so easy short of revolution.

And it doesn't help when the Supreme Court decides that corporations can give whatever they want to help rig the system.

So let me get this straight. When was the decision you're referring to handed down - 5 years ago. So prior to 2010, money didn't run the system? What do you know!

The corporations learned long ago - way before 2010 how to buy off members of BOTH parties to get what they want. You can't be seriously suggesting that only one party is bought and paid for, can you?

As of right now, the only reason Democrats cry about this is it lessens the power of Union dues money funneled to only Democrat politicians. That's the heartburn in a nut shell. The Dems still take their money from the corporations as they always did.

No question it has always been bad, at least in modern history. I just think the recent decision wasn't helpful.

And yes, both parties are equally culpable.

(03-04-2015 03:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:21 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Democrats and Republicans are ALL controlled by money interests. Sometimes the interests are the same, sometimes they're different. But they all answer to someone.

Yep. It's like the table of moneychangers in the church. Need a Jesus to go in there and start knocking tables over.