30 Companies Paid Lobbyists More Than the IRS

[boutons_deux]

http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegrou...+the+Headlines

And bet that a lot of that money was spent lobbying to kill E Warren/CFPB, gut the rule-making of financial reform, and generally skew tilt the playing field even more in favor of the corps and disenfranchise Human-Americans.

[Winehole23]

in other words, money well spent

[Wild Cobra]

Again, you blame the symptom. Not the root cause. The people in congress who can be bought are corrupt. get rid of them.

[DMX7]

Again, you blame the symptom. Not the root cause. The people in congress who can be bought are corrupt. get rid of them.

The problem is systemic. It doesn't matter who is in Congress because anyone who is in Congress is going to be influenced by that kind of money and because half the time on their job is spent collecting money for their next election.

[DMC]

I would rather spend it on jobs (lobbyists) than taxes (IRS) as well.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem is systemic. It doesn't matter who is in Congress because anyone who is in Congress is going to be influenced by that kind of money and because half the time on their job is spent collecting money for their next election.

I disagree. I do however find people who can be bribed think that way. Think that everyone else has their weakness. Are you corruptible?

[boutons_deux]

Again, you blame the symptom. Not the root cause. The people in congress who can be bought are corrupt. get rid of them.

you can't win, be re-elected without UCA money on your side, and are intimidated with threats that their money will go to opponents

It's pay to play, and if you don't play, they don't pay (you).

I predicted the astro turfer tea baggers would be taking corporate money, Ayn Rand Paul did before he was even elected, and they are all on the UCA "payroll" now. "legit" tea baggers were totally duped by the Kock Bros astro turfers.

USA will NEVER get UCA/financial money out of the political process and legislation because UCA/financial money controls the politics, power they will never yield.

[scott]

Corporate taxes are too high

[Yonivore]

Corporate taxes are too high

Corporate taxes are stupid since they're merely factored into consumer prices.

[DMX7]

I disagree. I do however find people who can be bribed think that way. Think that everyone else has their weakness. Are you corruptible?

It's nearly impossible to get elected without pandering to campaign contributors and lobbyists whose interests are not always best for America or even the district of a specific congress person, so someone who is not "corruptible" (by my definition) isn't going to last long if that person is even elected in the first place.

[Yonivore]

It's nearly impossible to get elected without pandering to campaign contributors and lobbyists whose interests are not always best for America or even the district of a specific congress person, so someone who is not "corruptible" (by my definition) isn't going to last long if that person is even elected in the first place.

If Congress did not have the ability to shift the tax burden around to whomever they wanted, they'd have no reason to pander. Maybe then they could concentrate on doing what's right instead of buy votes with tax policy.

[Spurminator]

If Congress did not have the ability to shift the tax burden around to whomever they wanted, they'd have no reason to pander.

How do you figure? Tax breaks aren't the only thing companies lobby for.

[Yonivore]

How do you figure? Tax breaks aren't the only thing companies lobby for.

Are you suggesting the price point on every product and service offered by a corporation isn't based on the cost to produce or provide -- combined with compe ion?

Companies lobby to get a compe ive advantage. But, if you tax them, they will increase the price of their products and services to compensate.

[Yonivore]

All taxes. Every single penny, are paid by individuals.

[boutons_deux]

tax breaks and salary slashings go towards enriching the mgmt and shareholders, NOT to reducing product selling prices.

[Yonivore]

tax breaks and salary slashings go towards enriching the mgmt and shareholders, NOT to reducing product selling prices.

So, don't buy from companies that engage in such practices. And, if you can't do that, because they're colluding or a monopoly, sue them. For inspiration, see Bill McGowan.

[Spurminator]

Are you suggesting the price point on every product and service offered by a corporation isn't based on the cost to produce or provide -- combined with compe ion?

Taxes aren't the only thing that goes into that production cost. Even if they were taxed at a rate of 0% across the board, there would still be things to lobby Congress on.

Companies lobby to get a compe ive advantage. But, if you tax them, they will increase the price of their products and services to compensate.

That's not necessarily true. Subway does gangbusters with the $5 foot long because that price is so appealing to consumers. They're not going to suddenly start offering the $5.50 foot long just because their taxes increased, because they would lose customers. They would find a way to make up for it elsewhere, and it could be in any number of areas besides price increases. Labor, supply costs, marketing... there are countless options besides raising prices.

[Yonivore]

Taxes aren't the only thing that goes into that production cost. Even if they were taxed at a rate of 0% across the board, there would still be things to lobby Congress on.

You're right. That and receiving subsidies from collected taxes are the only two reasons companies lobby Congress.

I propose you end the other practice, as well.

That's not necessarily true. Subway does gangbusters with the $5 foot long because that price is so appealing to consumers. They're not going to suddenly start offering the $5.50 foot long just because their taxes increased, because they would lose customers. They would find a way to make up for it elsewhere, and it could be in any number of areas besides price increases. Labor, supply costs, marketing... there are countless options besides raising prices.

And, all of those things have consequences that degrade the quality of their product -- making them less compe ive.

Subway does gangbusters with the $5 foot long because the price is appealing and their profit, at that price point, allows them to employ adequate labor, use quality ingredients, engage in appealing marketing...and make whatever "countless option" you care to throw in better and, thus, a compe ive data point in their effort to lure the consumer.

Raise taxes and they have to sacrifice something in their recipe for success.

[Spurminator]

You're right. That and receiving subsidies from collected taxes are the only two reasons companies lobby Congress.

I propose you end the other practice, as well.

So companies never lobby on regulations?

And, all of those things have consequences that degrade the quality of their product -- making them less compe ive.

Shaving your marketing budget rarely impacts the quality of your product.

Subway does gangbusters with the $5 foot long because the price is appealing and their profit, at that price point, allows them to employ adequate labor, use quality ingredients, engage in appealing marketing...and make whatever "countless option" you care to throw in better and, thus, a compe ive data point in their effort to lure the consumer.

Raise taxes and they have to sacrifice something in their recipe for success.

But not necessarily by raising prices, which you said was the only thing that happens when a company's taxes are increased.

They might just have to reduce some executive bonuses that year.

[Yonivore]

So companies never lobby on regulations?

Which, I think is a legitimate function of lobbyists. Companies should retain the ability to lobby for regulatory conditions that make them compe ive. I was merely speaking in the context of inflow/outflow of tax dollars.

Shaving your marketing budget rarely impacts the quality of your product.

It does, however, cost you market share...which, reduces profits which, causes cut backs in other areas. Companies aren't going to spend any more than they must, nor are they going to spend any less than they have to, in order to market their product to seek the most profit.

But not necessarily by raising prices, which you said was the only thing that happens when a company's taxes are increased.

Point taken.

My point is that Subway would have to do something that would result in negative consequences to their profitability. Their price point is based on all cost factors and, taxes are one. Any change to those, causes an adjustment elsewhere -- if they hope to retain the same price point and remain compe ive.

They might just have to reduce some executive bonuses that year.

I don't know what type of bonuses Subway awarded last year but, I would suggest the bonuses awarded to any of the companies of which you would criticize for doing so, are a speck in the ocean that makes up their balance sheet.

[scott]

Corporate taxes are stupid since they're merely factored into consumer prices.

An over-simplification, often repeated by you in these forums, that is flat out incorrect.

As explained in this thread San Antonio "best performing city in the US", taxes are not merely factored into consumer prices and passed on to the consumers, but burden is split between producers and consumers - the degree to which is determined by the respective elasticities of supply and demand.

[scott]

Are you suggesting the price point on every product and service offered by a corporation isn't based on the cost to produce or provide -- combined with compe ion?

That's a suggestion that is actually quite easy to make. There are countless examples of products and services which bare a price that has very little or nothing to do with the cost to produce/provide. They are priced the way they are because the market will support it, and for no other reason.

I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with that, just that it's true.

[Yonivore]

An over-simplification, often repeated by you in these forums, that is flat out incorrect.

As explained in this thread San Antonio "best performing city in the US", taxes are not merely factored into consumer prices and passed on to the consumers, but burden is split between producers and consumers - the degree to which is determined by the respective elasticities of supply and demand.

From where do the producers get the dollars to satisfy their portion of the equation, scott?

[Yonivore]

That's a suggestion that is actually quite easy to make. There are countless examples of products and services which bare a price that has very little or nothing to do with the cost to produce/provide. They are priced the way they are because the market will support it, and for no other reason.

I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with that, just that it's true.

That's usually only the case when there is no compe ion with another provider/supplier...or when crisis severely outstrips supply...when, such practices are typically called price-gouging.

But that's at the other end of the spectrum where compe ion for market share (either due to collusion or monopoly) allows it. I dare say if the market will only bear a price lower than the cost to produce/provide, the company won't produce or provide -- or -- they will sacrifice in one of the areas already mentioned.

But, back to the other question, from where do the dollars to satisfy the suppliers side of the equation come?

[scott]

I don't know what type of bonuses Subway awarded last year but, I would suggest the bonuses awarded to any of the companies of which you would criticize for doing so, are a speck in the ocean that makes up their balance sheet.

The same can be said about taxes paid.

In any event, I'm not advocating corporate taxes be any higher, any lower, or any more identical than they currently are. But so far as companies benefit from the services provided by governmental agencies (whether municipal, state or federal), they should pay into the system that creates those benefits (in some form or fashion).

I feel The LLC structure addresses this issue quite well with pass-through taxation. This works well for businesses of this size (and the same with S-Corps) because there tends to be a more direct link between the company's profitability and the cash flows the shareholders receive.

My personal opinion is that pass-through taxation loses its feasibility when a company reaches a certain size (either in revenues or number of shareholders) because profitability (in the accounting sense) and actual dividends start to see a major disconnect.

With that said, my personal belief is the US would be better suited with a lower nominal corporate tax rate with fewer loopholes and exceptions, resulting in an overall higher effective tax rate.