Bill Maher Suffering From Sticker Shock

Where do the Corporations get the money to pay those "taxes"?

Maher says, "I just saw these statistics," he continued, "I mean, something like 70 percent."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz2NpidLCSR

He just saw the stats?
And he claims republicans live in a bubble. Where the fuck has he been? Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Duh, he has been sucking oscumbos dick. Now he is about to get fucked in the ass with a railroad tie, with sand in the vaseline. And he doesnt like it. FUCK HIM AND ALL THE LIBTARD COCKSUCKERS.

Where do the Corporations get the money to pay those "taxes"? Originally Posted by Jackie S

Wal-Mart gets it from the poor and lower middle class...the 48%!!!!!

Where do the Corporations get the money to pay those "taxes"? Originally Posted by Jackie S

DON'T EVEN TRY to cast forth the flimsy notion that they get tax money by charging the public more for their products and services.

All during their record profit years and even as their stocks have now exceeded all historical high water marks, they are SITTING on the cash and they are STILL using every loophole to lower their taxes. They haven't chosen to LOWER their prices based on their good fortunes, moron!

So enough of the EXTRA-STUPID one-liners. Make some sense for once in your pitifully off-course political life.

As WTF said,"Wal-Mart gets it from the poor and lower middle class...the 48%!!!!!"

Originally Posted by WTF
What you numbnuts fail to realize is that Americans want shit but do not want to pay for it. Wow! Of course! None of us numbnuts EVER realized that. Thank heaven for WTF! He's here to explain the obvious that all the rest of us missed. He has such insight. And thank YOU for misunderstanding his point! You failed to connect the next two sentences before condemning this one!

That is a problem with our society as a whole, not just the poor. OK. Now you've lost us. If the rich (top 10% or so) are paying over 70% of taxes, then how can they want shit they aren't paying for? Clearly they ARE paying. And perhaps he was thinking of Exxon-Mobil, General Electric and other corporate asswipes that DON'T pay their fair share but instead get billions in tax subsidies and pay a lower rate than a guy making $40K per year! It sounds as though you think that is a "fair share".

Anybody bitching about the poor not paying their fair share does not understand regressive taxes or the concept of not being able to squeeze blood from a turnip. Nooooo. I don't think the complaint is that the poor aren't paying their fair share. It is that they are only too happy to vote for benefits that OTHERS pay for. Moron alert. Ever try paying to feed, clothe and care for two children on the wages "allotted" by employers who play games with the term "full-time" and hire two workers to work a normal full-time weekly shift in order to avoid paying benefits and even a living wage? Maybe you'd have a more accurate idea of the rut dug for workers if you took some of those things into consideration. Do you realize that Wal-Mart pays a wage so low that over 41% of their work force is eligible for federal income subsidies. You are supposedly a smart guy, right? Why would you think we should be subsidizing Wal-Mart's workforce?

As far as making sense, "Noel the Moron" at the half-witted Newsbusters site is serial misstater of most facts.

While he may not name Obama in this piece, his bashing of liberals effervesces from his polluted blog articles and his decidedly low-information brain. The fact that Maher's taxes were somewhere in the neighborhood of 55% was because of the California income tax.

Obama's measly suspension of the Bush Tax Cuts accounted for less than 4% of the total taxes paid by ANYONE.

Now, explain to us AGAIN why Exxon-Mobil or General Electric needs to pay a lower tax rate than the divorced mother of two cleaning the floors at Wal-Mart!

The federal deficit has hit a five-year low but you wouldn't know it reading posts by the Rat Wing here! Originally Posted by Little Stevie

It is good to see some things never change. You were an asshole on ASPD. You are an asshole here.

Maher's comments were about his tax bite and the 70% of ALL taxes paid by the top 5% or 10%. And their "share" of income is far lower than 70%.

The feds are hitting Maher for 40% in income taxes. California is hitting him for about another 13-14% in income taxes. And only then do you add in property taxes, FICA taxes, Medicare, etc. Progressive politics is probably costing him in the neighborhood of 60% of his income. If he makes $10 million a year and saw that he only kept a little over $4M, then he finally had his "What-the-fuck" moment.

And the corporate strawman is a typical diversion. Sooner or later, that money hits a shareholders pocket and them the government gets its 25%. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world and we insist on taxing incomes that a US company makes in another country at our high rate and give them a credit for the taxes already paid to the other country. Then the dividend gets paid and the shareholder gets hit again. So corporations are smart and they either move out of the country or they create foreign subs that pay a lower tax rate to the foreign government.

You seem to have this ridiculous idea that companies should organize their businesses to pay the maximum tax rate, rather than the minimum one and should further increase their overhead by paying higher than necessary wages.

If a company can cut overhead by hiring two part-timers, rather than one full-timer, what's the problem? If you think it's wrong, then vote for representatives that will pass a law making it illegal. I don't know how you are going to do that unless you make part time work illegal, but that never stopped liberals before. Perhaps we can hire even more bureaucrats to visit every business in the country and decide for each business how many full timers they must have and how many part timers. Again, that sounds just like a liberal project.

We have a problem with shitloads of no skill or low skill workers who cannot get anyone to pay them more than $10 an hour or so. That isn't the fault of corporations. That is the fault of bad government - decades of it - starting in the schools.

Our politicians hand shit out to people in return for votes. No strings attached. Definitely no "work" strings. And it is coming back to bite us in the ass.

And don't put words in my mouth. I don't think the government should be subsidizing 40% of the Walmart workforce.

And the government isn't subsidizing 41% of Walmart's employees because it wants to help Walmart. It is subsidizing them to get votes from the workers.

Cut out corporate tax subsidies, but lower the tax rates. Cut out the amouts of subsidies to low income folks or at least require them to do some work in return for it.

You're all hoped up about Walmart, but how big is their profit margin? It isn't like they are making a 50% profit. If Walmart doubled its workers wages to pay a "living wage" (whatever the fuck that is), do you think it will remain a profitable company? Or will Walmart turn into another GM?

If Walmart does turn into another GM, will you then favor bailing them out because it is 'too big too fail"? And because its supply chain or at least part of it will collapse (like GMs supposedly would have)?

Maybe the government should make sure that the IRS employees are paying their taxes and the Secretary of the Treasury. Then they can go after FOB like GE, Google, Facebook, and Buffet.

We have a problem with shitloads of no skill or low skill workers who cannot get anyone to pay them more than $10 an hour or so. That isn't the fault of corporations. That is the fault of bad government - decades of it - starting in the schools.

)? Originally Posted by ExNYer

I don't walk under ladders, it is a silly belief of bad luck, just like your belief that Gay Marriage contributes to the decline of this country. Lack of education and mismangement of this country's resources will do it. Originally Posted by WTF

This is wtf I said in another thread, maybe we agree on something.

DON'T EVEN TRY to cast forth the flimsy notion that they get tax money by charging the public more for their products and services.

All during their record profit years and even as their stocks have now exceeded all historical high water marks, they are SITTING on the cash and they are STILL using every loophole to lower their taxes. They haven't chosen to LOWER their prices based on their good fortunes, moron!

So enough of the EXTRA-STUPID one-liners. Make some sense for once in your pitifully off-course political life.

As WTF said,"Wal-Mart gets it from the poor and lower middle class...the 48%!!!!!"
Originally Posted by Little Stevie

This is confusing. First you seem to say they don't get it from from their customers but then at the end you say they do. The last statement is correct. Corporations simply pass the tax cost on to their consumers. So anyone thinking that by taxing corporations they are avoiding the tax is simply fooling themselves. Politicians do it because it is politically easy to claim they are sticking it to the rich corporations and the sheeple let them get away with it.

As for Wal-Mart's profits, their margins are kept low. That is the reason they are so competitive. People keep making the mistake of saying that millions of dollars in profits are high when they ignore how much capital is invested to obtain that profit. Once that is considered the profit margins look much more reasonable.

It is good to see some things never change. You were an asshole on ASPD. You are an asshole here.

Maher's comments were about his tax bite and the 70% of ALL taxes paid by the top 5% or 10%. And their "share" of income is far lower than 70%.

The feds are hitting Maher for 40% in income taxes. California is hitting him for about another 13-14% in income taxes. And only then do you add in property taxes, FICA taxes, Medicare, etc. Progressive politics is probably costing him in the neighborhood of 60% of his income. If he makes $10 million a year and saw that he only kept a little over $4M, then he finally had his "What-the-fuck" moment.

And the corporate strawman is a typical diversion. Sooner or later, that money hits a shareholders pocket and them the government gets its 25%. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world and we insist on taxing incomes that a US company makes in another country at our high rate and give them a credit for the taxes already paid to the other country. Then the dividend gets paid and the shareholder gets hit again. So corporations are smart and they either move out of the country or they create foreign subs that pay a lower tax rate to the foreign government.

You seem to have this ridiculous idea that companies should organize their businesses to pay the maximum tax rate, rather than the minimum one and should further increase their overhead by paying higher than necessary wages.

If a company can cut overhead by hiring two part-timers, rather than one full-timer, what's the problem? If you think it's wrong, then vote for representatives that will pass a law making it illegal. I don't know how you are going to do that unless you make part time work illegal, but that never stopped liberals before. Perhaps we can hire even more bureaucrats to visit every business in the country and decide for each business how many full timers they must have and how many part timers. Again, that sounds just like a liberal project.

We have a problem with shitloads of no skill or low skill workers who cannot get anyone to pay them more than $10 an hour or so. That isn't the fault of corporations. That is the fault of bad government - decades of it - starting in the schools.

Our politicians hand shit out to people in return for votes. No strings attached. Definitely no "work" strings. And it is coming back to bite us in the ass.

And don't put words in my mouth. I don't think the government should be subsidizing 40% of the Walmart workforce.

And the government isn't subsidizing 41% of Walmart's employees because it wants to help Walmart. It is subsidizing them to get votes from the workers.

Cut out corporate tax subsidies, but lower the tax rates. Cut out the amouts of subsidies to low income folks or at least require them to do some work in return for it.

You're all hoped up about Walmart, but how big is their profit margin? It isn't like they are making a 50% profit. If Walmart doubled its workers wages to pay a "living wage" (whatever the fuck that is), do you think it will remain a profitable company? Or will Walmart turn into another GM?

If Walmart does turn into another GM, will you then favor bailing them out because it is 'too big too fail"? And because its supply chain or at least part of it will collapse (like GMs supposedly would have)? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Acres of bullshit which is easily disproved just like the bullshit you used post on A**D. I'll be back later to refute this shit as well.

Acres of bullshit which is easily disproved just like the bullshit you used post on A**D. I'll be back later to refute this shit as well. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

You're inability to stick to a topic is impossible to disprove.

Bill Maher doesn't pay corporate taxes. He pays personal income taxes, FICA, Medicare, property and sales taxes. And he is losing about 55%-60% of all his money in taxes.

Rather than address those issues, you changed the subject to what Exxon and/or GE are or are not paying in corporate taxes. Those are completely different taxes. Maher is in the top 1%, but he isn't paying corporate taxes. So, NO, it isn't easily disproved.

And what the fuck does Walmart's wages to its high-school dropout employees have to do with Bill Maher's taxes?

Nothing of course. So you would be easily disproving anything.

Why don't you just be honest and say you want government to have ALL the money and dole it out according to the progressive agenda? Then, when the economy goes into a downward spiral because nobody is willing to work hard or invest, you can use that as proof that government should have even greater control of the economy.

The only thing you are any good for is incoherent rants with lots of "Teapublicans" and "Teabaggers" thrown in.

Someone could post a thread about how NASA squandered taxes and failed to maintain GPS satellites or weather satellites and you would STILL post some crap about how it all the fault of corporate tax avoidance and off-shoring of jobs and McDonald's not paying a "living wage".

You are a trumpet that can play only one note and it is a sour note.

Oops!

It looks like Bill Maher served up quite a gaffe (in this case, the sudden and unexpected utterance of a statement highlighting an obvious truth, but which seems blatantly contrary to the speaker's political beliefs).

Beyond some point, even such a committed leftist as Maher must think that enough is enough. Affluent Californians now pay a 52.9% tax rate on ordinary income, not to mention all the other taxes levied on them. Perhaps even he has arrived at a point where he realizes that we have a completely unserious government that's made all sorts of promises it can't possibly afford to keep. Politicians who want to go on never-ending vote-buying sprees need to be honest about the obvious fact that they can't even remotely pay for all the largesse by loading the burden of providing virtually the entirety of the additional tax revenue needed to pay for it on the top one percent.

It's amusing to see apologists for the progressive agenda conflate (or become confused by) multiple issues in an effort to deflect attention from the subject of the thread.

Acres of bullshit which is easily disproved just like the bullshit you used post on A**D. I'll be back later to refute this shit as well. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Little Stevie to do anything of the sort. The "acres of bullshit" he's referring to don't exactly present a target-rich environment for anyone who decides to go into debunking mode. In fact, ExNYer's posts are spot on.

In one respect, Little Stevie regularly exhibits commonality with several other of this forum's participants.

He has a penchant for letting his impetuousness write checks that his brain can't cash.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Little Stevie to do anything of the sort. The "acres of bullshit" he's referring to don't exactly present a target-rich environment for anyone who decides to go into debunking mode. In fact, ExNYer's posts are spot on.

In one respect, Little Stevie regularly exhibits commonality with several other of this forum's participants.

He has a penchant for letting his impetuousness write checks that his brain can't cash. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

See what I mean?

Little Stevie isn't about to try to debunk what he described as "acres of bullshit."

The reason is simplicity itself. He can't. There isn't anything to debunk.

This should be a cautionary tale for those with a penchant for hectoring others on subjects of which they have little or no understanding.

Look what can happen when some cretin lets his obnoxiousness score a decisive victory over his ability to reason!

I find it interesting that you've got a lot to say about Little Stevie and only occasionaly (if at all) do you present anything other than personal attacks. No refutation. No links. Nothing.

Did y'all date in a previous life?

Never let it be said that I didn't link to the source of my argument.

I find it interesting that you've got a lot to say about Little Stevie and only occasionaly (if at all) do you present anything other than personal attacks. No refutation. No links. Nothing. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Bullshit!

Little Stevie is the one who never posts anything of substance, and little at all except personal attacks and rambling collections of non sequiturs. He has been one of this site's (as well as ASPD's) most annoying assholes for years. He can hardly go two posts without calling everyone with whom he disagrees "morons," or "dumb fucks," or something similar, and generally without demonstrating any knowledge at all of the subject under discussion. All I did was hand him a small dose of his own medicine. If that bothers you, too fucking bad.

On the other hand, I try to present my own opinions and arguments, although much of what I post is copied and pasted from draft copies of stuff I've written for other purposes.

But if you want links, here's one:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=246692&highlight=

Notice how he plagiarized almost the whole opening post?

Nice. Then he got upset about that fact that I posted a link in a thread on this site. (WTF??) But he had no problem with it when one of his fellow leftists subsequently did the same thing. (Hypocrisy, anyone?)

What a man of "substance," huh?

If Little Stevie continues to act as he has in the past, he should not be surprised if I continue to treat him with utter contempt, and to hold him up to ridicule when his behavior warrants it.

He has earned nothing less!

I find it interesting that you've got a lot to say about Little Stevie and only occasionaly (if at all) do you present anything other than personal attacks. No refutation. No links. Nothing.

Did y'all date in a previous life?

Never let it be said that I didn't link to the source of my argument. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Seriously, Assup? You're the least substantive and most vapid poster on here. Do you really want to go there?