Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Curbing Growth In Government

September 23, 2013

Liberal activists in West Virginia must be hoping no one will notice the distracting but unsupportable language they use in their attacks on an effort to begin the necessary shrinking of our......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(39)

oldsteelmaker

Sep-26-13 9:15 PM

Do you REALLY think the IRS would let them dodge a dime of tax liability? And even if they paid big bonuses, so what? Your buddy obie will still get his cut. Personal income tax rate in that bracket is about the same as the corporate one.

Still that two sets of books mentality. Are you still missing your mouth with your fork when you eat?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Sep-26-13 9:09 PM

Dyin, Since ADM is NOT private, and they are playing in the same sandbox as Cargill, the idea that one makes a little under 1% on sales and the other makes 60% selling to the same customers must mean the ADM people are idiots. Or the Cargill customers are.

Or you may be just a little gullible. Cargill may have a few transactions that net 60%. I bet if I dig through my records I could find a few too. But the vast majority are far, far less.

I must conclude you have never had a job with management considerations like meeting payroll, managing sales or reading a balance sheet.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Sep-25-13 7:32 AM

rangnar, And the profit margin was the argument! Cargill "sells" grain to the US goberment at a PROFIT of 60%, look it up! They "invest" in many different companies in many different countries. They be a multi-national company! Profit in the US operations are kept to a minimum. They don't need to create a "shell" business in foreign countries, they already have a presence!

The big picture is too large for the common poster.............

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ragnar

Sep-24-13 10:48 PM

dying

You still have to pay taxes on this. Think about it. If you have a pre-tax profit of $10 billion and you are in a 25% bracket, you net $7.5 billion-as a company.

If you distribute any of that $7.5 billion in the form of bonuses, profits, etc. those who receive the funds have to pay taxes on them.

Now, let's assume you have a $10 billion pre-tax profit and you pay out $2 billion in bonuses. At a 25% bracket, your net is now $6 billion. It looks much lower, yes, but what did you get out of it? As the owner of a private company, you can't issue more VALUE to yourself in the form of stock. If you issue a bonus, you have to pay earned income rates on that (vs. capital gains on after tax profit distributions).

In the first example, your actual net was $7.5 billion.

In the second example, your actual net was $7.2 billion (after taxes).

How did you benefit from paying bonuses vs. distributions from net profits?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Sep-24-13 11:04 AM

old, You don't need two sets of books to show a lower profit! You can simply compensate yourself more money, bonus, investments, stock, etc.....

They are PRIVATELY held! Do you understand what that means?

Knock on a door in the Midwest and tell the "small" farmer you are representing Cargill and you want to talk, better be packing.......

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Sep-24-13 10:21 AM

Dyin, People have been writing hatchet pieces about corporations since there have been corporations. So what? There was a book in the 70s called "DuPont, behind the Nylon Curtain." At the end of the first page I knew it was a fraud, because the author lied about stuff I knew from personal experience was wrong.

Just because someone writes something does not make it so. Look at some of the nonsense you post here.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Sep-24-13 10:14 AM

Dyin,

I once heard that nonsense from a union rep at McLouth Steel. Since the rank and file OWNED the company, I asked him who would benefit. Got a deer in the headlights look back. No one had ever questioned that before. Sputtered briefly, then stomped off.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Sep-24-13 10:13 AM

Dyin, The IRS takes a VERY dim view of companies, public or private, that fake stuff. Unless you think the IRS, which is controlled by the Secretary of the Treasury, Tim tax dodger Geithner, who works for a guy with the initials BHO, is conspiring with Cargill to hide stuff, that is. You are delusional.

That's the valley union mentality all over. "There's two sets of books, to hide the true profits from us." Small problem that since all the big steel companies were publicly traded, between the SEC and the IRS that would be a quick road to Lewisville for securities fraud.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Sep-24-13 7:21 AM

ragnar, Cargill is a privately held company, we don't really know what the "profit' is! Read the article that I referenced!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LogHog

Sep-24-13 5:21 AM

something is very wrong in Obama's Banana Republic

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ragnar

Sep-23-13 10:02 PM

All farmer subsidies, crop insurance, etc. should end. If farmers want to quit or if this drives up the price of food, so be it. That is the free market at work.

Able bodied people should never receive handouts for nothing. All able bodied adults should be employed at real jobs or at makework jobs. We can then kick the illegals out of the country and give Americans the satisfaction of a solid day's work. This will restore some pride and maybe make people stop looking down at work.

As for Cargill, they profited $2.31 billion on $136.7 billion in revenue in fiscal 2013. If they had 25% of the profit margin of Apple (26.7%), their net profits would have been more than $9 billion.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Sep-23-13 8:50 PM

old, read: "Cargill the invisible giant" by Brian Ahlberg. They be into more than not making enough profit! Private held company that is not in the business of telling much about the business....

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Sep-23-13 8:30 PM

old, So how much of our tax dollars should we send them? Profit is nice except they have to pay taxes on profit. I'm sure they spent billions on improving the processes! Just because it is not "profit" does not make mean they are not investing in the company. Sure they should invest in the company, just not with tax payer money......

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvhoopie

Sep-23-13 8:29 PM

Why are we not cutting corporate welfare at all? Corporate welfare dwarfs social welfare yet the republicans are dead quiet about that. The disabled veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan war will have their food reduced. Corporations do not get cut but our veterans do. This is how we say thanks for your service.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Sep-23-13 8:07 PM

Dyin, Now Cargill, they are more the pillaging looter you envision. Did you bother to find out what their margin was? Qarterly sales for that 483 million was a mere 35.4 billion. A walloping 1.22%.

Yes, no doubt about it, they are clearly gouging the American public. How dare they, marking up our food 1.22%? Why can't they be more like the Federal Government, that takes a third of what we make, and mostly gives us nothing.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Sep-23-13 7:58 PM

old, ADM 223 million in profits for the second quarter and Cargill 483 million for the same time period! So keep giving them tax payer money because profits are not "high" enough........

Dyin, how much did ADM sell to get that profit? They reported sales of $22.5 billion. To put it on your level, for every hundred in sales they put 90 CENTS in their pocket.

0.9% profit. Man, that's obscene.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Sep-23-13 4:44 PM

Yeah, maybe the Huffington Post is not the best source for concise language, but their rather left leaning so I like to source them.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OLearySW

Sep-23-13 1:23 PM

WVEXPAT,

You won't find me claiming the recovery has gone so well.

"Lazy surfer dudes"?

I guess we'll just hope no one notices "distracting but unsupportable language," right?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Sep-23-13 1:01 PM

old, ADM 223 million in profits for the second quarter and Cargill 483 million for the same time period! So keep giving them tax payer money because profits are not "high" enough........

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Sep-23-13 12:20 PM

SW, Yes the NR filters prohibit links! Much easier to just cite relevant search terms.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Sep-23-13 12:14 PM

SW, You are correct in part about the eligibility requirements. From the Huffington Post, "WASHINGTON -- Lazy surfer dudes wouldn't be able to keep their food stamps under a Republican bill the House of Representatives will consider Thursday, but it's not just beach bums who'd be swept up in the wave of proposed new restrictions.

The GOP wants to change the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program so that more recipients must be working or in training to qualify for food stamps. "Newscasts tell stories of young surfers who aren’t working, but cash their food stamps in for lobster,"

There will also be an across the board component as a provision from the Stimulus expires, but since the recovery has gone so well that's not really needed anymore. Right?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Sep-23-13 11:32 AM

Because it gives more power to the ruling class. And that's not the Koch brothers, despite what some here claim. It's the Washington elites, and their supporters. The rest of us exist to supply two things for them: tax money and votes.

This country was built on the concept that the individual mattered. The current gang are doing their best to destroy that.

One of obie's political mentors, Bill Ayres, was once quoted that he wanted the Chinese and North Koreans running the country. When asked if that wouldn't end up killing several million, like it did in their own lands, he had no problem with that. The elite have no problem with YOU suffering to promote their ideas. Just not them.

And this is one of obie's primary mentors. Makes you wonder...

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Sep-23-13 11:31 AM

You know, our country got along okay for over 200 years without most of these programs. We didn't have mountains of dead bodies from famines or political executions. In fact, for most of the last 200 years we were a magnet for people trying to better their lives, and in general they did do better here than where they came from.

But now, it seems life in America is so terrible we have to subsidize almost everyone. And of course it all has to come from some benevolent government agency. Never mind we can look at even well-run places like France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, or the like, and see overloaded social programs that do NOT provide the standard of living we seem to expect.

Yet we are told we should copy them. WHY?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Sep-23-13 11:19 AM

SW, historically, economic bad times caused a big upswing in startup businesses. People know how to do stuff, and the need to eat is a powerful incentive to take whatever skills you have and try to make a buck.

Not this time. Thanks to big mounds of new regulations, and lots of handout programs, the rate of startup formation is at one of the lowest points since they started keeping records.

One of the founders of Home Depot said if they had the rules then they have now, Home Depot would not exist.

I guess this is part of that "laser-like focus" obie has brought to job creation every year since he was elected. I notice he doesn't use that phrase any more...

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Sep-23-13 11:11 AM

As for Big Food, the question is where to spend the money. If you look at the annual reports, ADM and Cargill don't have big margins. So if you kill the subsidies, the predictable result is more expensive Cheerios. We already have one dumb drain on food stores, ethanol, that the Feds are trying to increase even though it drives up food prices.

So where do you want the bill to be paid? More tax or more to Kroger?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 39 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: