The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Auger8.

Um no way in hell are you sticking me inside that with the cover off sorry.
>> ^nanrod:

So why do they cover all that up. That would be so cool to see all that while you're getting scanned. Kind of like a midway ride.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

Sweeping generalizations don't play any better than slippery slopes.

I'm sure someone has told you that government involvement always leads to higher costs, but it's simply not true. Maybe you're new to this argument, but there are tons of examples.

You didn't answer any of my questions. Most importantly, do you or do you not acknowledge the connection between a successful economy and education?

About GE specifically, they wouldn't exist as they do if it weren't for an educated populace from which to draw skills. Without university-educated engineers, chemists, managers, accountants, lawyers and so on they couldn't run the business they do. Where did all these educated people come from? Did GE pay for their education? Nope. The people themselves did. They make GE fantastically wealthy with their labour, and in return, they get crushing debt for years and years while GE reaps nothing but profits.

About sales taxes, I'm no expert, but I believe sales taxes are consumer taxes only, so GE doesn't have to pay them to suppliers, or they get credited back. I could be wrong.>> ^bobknight33:

The government should not be in the education and student loan process at all.
The rate should be at fair market value.
Government involvement has helped caused such high tuition costs.
Government involvement always lead to higher cost, no matter what.
Healthcare cost are going up because government got involved.

The short answer to your question is no. If you're interested in the full answer straight from the horse's mouth, then watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x7o0sNrulg>> ^bobknight33:
Also doesn't he host from time to time on MSNBC who is owned by GE? Doesn't that make him a corporate slave who "hears no evil?"

Its a bit dishonest to say that GE doesn't pay any taxes, especially when compared to a group that TYT (rightly) gives credit for paying sales taxes. I dont know the details, but obviously GE must buy lots of goods and services where taxes apply,(ie: properties and land, misc. maintenance, catering, fuel/repairs on company cars etc, ) and besides their employees pay both income and sales tax and so fourth, so GE must generate a lot of tax income. But its of course true that they manage to avoid paying a fair share of their profits.

Just think if those illegals were shipped out and Unemployed Americans had those job and stop being on warfare.

We have enough unemployed Americans. Let our brothers and sisters work first.

Also doesn't he host from time to time on MSNBC who is owned by GE? Doesn't that make him a corporate slave who "hears no evil?"


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

holy fuck
@Winstonfield_Pennypacker
@quantumushroom
@bobknight33
and the rest.

Now just think about how much those immigrants would pay in taxes if they were allowed to become citizens.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by kceaton1.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

That's not what progressive means, in this context. A progressive tax system is one where you pay a (progressively) higher rate when you have more income.

The US Income Tax is a Progressive tax, exactly as you described and exactly what I said. Since our current tax code has the bottom 50% of wage-earners paying only 5% of the Income taxes, than that's a Progressive system. I nailed exactly what it meant. Whatever you're saying here sounds like a distinction without a difference.

I know that quite a few of your companies weasel their way out of paying any tax at all, but I don't know how many overall manage this.

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/accounting/papers/Hanlon.pdf

Yup. It happens. This particular study suggests that once a company becomes 'big', they find ways to jigger the system to the point where they are paying around 20%. Obama just dropped the corporate tax from a staggering 35% to a more realistic 28%. Hopefully that will make it so companies are compliant, rather than gaming the system to get around the "too high" rate that previously existed.

However, the real problem is in companies that are getting massive political payola. Every administration has companies like this. For Obama, it is sleaze-mongers like Immelt and GE who are pushing the bologna that is "Green Energy", which Obama likes - so he gives them so many tax breaks and subsidies that they paid ZERO taxes in 2011. Not to mention they also got massive subsidy payments on top of it. It is that kind of bogusity that ticks people off.

A reasonable corporate tax rate is fine. Set it at a decent level - say 22% - and get rid of the loopholes, subsidies, foreign incorporation, and all the other gimmicks. I dont' have a beef with "taxes" in general. I have a beef with taxes that are too high, and tax codes that encourage modern patronage.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by jonny.

>> ^renatojj:

@.


Np, glad you liked them. I'm not saying there is only one account of what went down, I'm saying that it is fact that America was most prosperous when taxes were the highest. You don't need to be a historian or theorizer to use Google and check that for yourself.

Your quick Google search brung up an article that deals only in theory, and the argument they use is that people that are taxed 0% are more motivated than people that are taxed 100% - so that the imperitive becomes to cover Govt. expenses while keeping the taxes as low as possible to maintain motivation. That makes perfect logical sense and doesn't disagree with the facts I bought to the table, that America has been most prosperous during periods of high taxation, it simply proves that low is subjective. Taxing someone who earns $10,000 50% of their income means they take home a tiny amount of money, the same tax rate on a billionaire means they still take home five hundred million dollars, more than enough don't you think? If all income was related to productivity then my argument would be different, but quite simply it's not. Look at derivatives trading or inheritence funds as a couple of examples.

Fixing tax rates is also just the beginning, there needs to be a complete overhaul of your taxation system, there is plenty of information out there that details how dozens of your fortune 500 companies are paying no tax at all (e.g. GE and Boeing), Pepco Holdings Inc had a negative 57.6% tax rate for 2010 according to this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A261C20111103

So not only are the tax rates poorly thought out, the tax system allows companies that rake in billions in profits ways by which to avoid paying any tax at all (and even get refunds).

The same goes for individuals as well, Mitt Romney, who made over twenty million in 2010, and has at least thirty million stashed in over 138 investment funds in the Caimans paid close to 15% tax in that same year. That's the same tax rate that someone earning $10,000 would have to pay.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-parks-millions-offshore-tax-haven/story?id=15378566#.Tx-lKm_9PUd

Is he using this additional money he's making from not paying his taxes for productive purposes? It would appear not... His motive is profit, and to that end he's closed plants, cut employee wages, laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries, all while he and his partners have made tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, while the companies he's invested in have often ended up going bankrupt:
http://www.romneygekko.com/mitt/

So my point is that it's a pipedream to think that lower taxes on the rich has only one effect, to make them more productive, it also carries with it a myriad of negative consequences as I've illustrated, the worst one being lobbying, which is rampant in your country. In terms of Chile, you say that all education there is state funded? Have a look at this report and you will see that the total investment in tertiary education Chile makes is probably close to about half a percent of their GDP, which is indeed lower than any other country surveyed, they are also at the very bottom of the list when it comes to actual dollars invested in public education. Meanwhile the cost of education for students is the highest of any OECD country.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/48/37864432.pdf

The reasons for that come full circle back to your economic theories. Have you heard of Augusto Pinochet? America installed him as the dictator of Chile after the CIA organised a successful air strike on the palace of the existing democratically elected leader - Allende, which resulted in his death. It's well known that Pinochet relied on the Chicago boys for economic policy, who in turn were trained by Milton Friedman. Friedman was ... the major free-market economist of his time, and it's these exact same policies that still linger around today in the education system thanks to Patricio Aylwin and others. It's clear evidence that your model has flaws, and it's also clear who benefits the most from it.

The 1% are people making more that 350k/yr. GE is not part of the 1%. They are part of a different group that screws people. >> ^notarobot:

Tell that to GE.
http://videosift.com/video/Giant-US-Corp-General-Electric-Pays-No-Taxes

>> ^lantern53:
They are already taxed at the highest percentage.

>> ^bobknight33:

Quit your wining and pay your fair share of taxes.