Job creators? Tax cuts? Unions? Health care? Social Security? HA!

[Scat]

So the left is for more government in economic issues and for less government in social issues?

Kinda like how the right is for less government in economic issues (except when it comes to tax cuts and other handouts for big business) and for more government in social issues (why again exactly does the Utah legislature get to control the distribution of liquor?)

A true conservative is for less govt across the board.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

One followup question: why are you dating that guy? You're obviously out of his league.

Kicky's insecurities once again shining through.

 

[Scat]

Kicky's insecurities once again shining through.

The funny part is that she never replied to Kicky's question.

 

[billyshelby]

Well Ms Serp knows a lot more about this than me, so I won't try to argue any of her figures. I have emailed the CTJ and asked for clarification. If I get a response, I'll post their defense of their claim.

I will, however, take issue with a couple of things she posted.

This sentiment was obvious reading the post, but let me point out what I find troubling.




You seriously justified a 20k reduction in compensation, mostly to medical and retirement benefits, and then also justified paying the top execs hundreds of millions of dollars.

Also, just to be clear about something, Verizon's wireless business is using Verizon backhaul from the landline business. Those two businesses are linked at the hip. So while Verizon's landline business may show a decline on the consumer side, with LTE rolling out all over the place the landline business is still going strong. Maybe not as strong as it was 10 years ago, but still solid. And FIOS is doing good too.

Anyway, my point is it just isn't right to ask all your blue collar employees to take a 20k reduction each, while paying hundreds of millions to the top execs. Especially if your company made 12 billion in profits. If this is the norm, then this country is doomed. Ignored in that response though, was that Verizon also wants to outsource thousands more jobs. You can bet those jobs would already be outsourced if it weren't for the union opposition, so the union definitely still serves a purpose.

While I agree that many Americans would line up for those jobs in this economy even with the 20k reduction, the same can be said about those exec jobs. Plenty of people would be lining up for those exec jobs even if they took a several million reduction.

Hopefully the CTJ responds and clarifies how they came to their conclusion regarding the taxes. That's kind of a major claim to have out there if they aren't totally sure.

One reason top execs of major corporations make millions of dollars is because they can write posts like Salmon Hobo's wife. To make a crude parallel, Deron Williams makes approximately 70 times the salary of an NBA minimum wager. And that's a CBA restricted pay gig. The disparity is even more dramatic in private companies. You get paid what you're worth in life. Deron isn't expendable just like the top guys at major corporations have skills that you can't find on monster.com.

Now I'm not saying there isn't greed involved. Or that compensation is always fair. But no company, private or corporate, has a responsibility to keep people employed, let alone ensure they don't ever suffer a reduction in pay or benefits. It's entirely reasonable that a corporation would conclude retaining its top execs at their pay is more important to the longterm financial profitability. If they reduce those guys pay, those guys might leave, and that might have a far more significant impact -- kinda like letting Deron Williams walking away and signing Ramon Sessions for the cost savings.

 

[SaltyDawg]

One reason top execs of major corporations make millions of dollars is because they can write posts like Salmon Hobo's wife. To make a crude parallel, Deron Williams makes approximately 70 times the salary of an NBA minimum wager. And that's a CBA restricted pay gig. The disparity is even more dramatic in private companies. You get paid what you're worth in life. Deron isn't expendable just like the top guys at major corporations have skills that you can't find on monster.com.

Now I'm not saying there isn't greed involved. Or that compensation is always fair. But no company, private or corporate, has a responsibility to keep people employed, let alone ensure they don't ever suffer a reduction in pay or benefits. It's entirely reasonable that a corporation would conclude retaining its top execs at their pay is more important to the longterm financial profitability. If they reduce those guys pay, those guys might leave, and that might have a far more significant impact -- kinda like letting Deron Williams walking away and signing Ramon Sessions for the cost savings.

Those union workers are skilled too. Those are phone techs, fiber optic techs, and electricians. The average Joe can't just step into their jobs either.

The execs would be KOC and Greg Miller. The union workers are the D-Wills.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

The funny part is that she never replied to Kicky's question.

You obviously missed the part where she said she has never re-registered and was simply using my account. I doubt we're going to be passing my laptop back and forth just so she can respond to dumbass questions or people like Salty who post a thread in which they ask a question to which they've already formed their own misinformed answer.

 

[SaltyDawg]

You obviously missed the part where she said she has never re-registered and was simply using my account. I doubt we're going to be passing my laptop back and forth just so she can respond to dumbass questions or people like Salty who post a thread in which they ask a question to which they've already formed their own misinformed answer.

I did not ask a question to which I have already formed my own misinformed answer, lol. I stated a bunch of facts. Someone else told me one of my facts was wrong, so I contacted the source of those facts. They reiterated that they were correct, so I asked for clarification.

If you'll notice, I said I am not disputing her findings on the Verizon taxes unless I hear back from the CTJ. What I had formed my own opinions on are things that I am very much informed about, and I never asked any questions about any of those things.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I did not ask a question to which I have already formed my own misinformed answer, lol. I stated a bunch of facts. Someone else told me one of my facts was wrong, so I contacted the source of those facts. They reiterated that they were correct, so I asked for clarification.

If you'll notice, I said I am not disputing her findings on the Verizon taxes unless I hear back from the CTJ. What I had formed my own opinions on are things that I am very much informed about, and I never asked any questions about any of those things.

What facts did you state? Who told you they were wrong?

On what are you very much informed?

 

[babe]

Just to recap for those who are not somehow personally involved somehow: OP and his original source are not corporate hacks and are susceptible to perceptions that corporate officers know how to work things out to their own advantage at every turn.

While lacking actual insider information, they know when the little guy is losing out somehow.

The fact that they were wrong on the details does not mean they were wrong on the essential implications of the action.

corporate apologists trying to drive this to a complete victory are just about as smart as Marie Antoinette disregarding the shortage of bread by saying " Then let them eat cake".

American corporates have largely broken faith with the Americans who have worked for them or patronized their business out of loyalty to America. The whole UN globalization movement, all the cozy trade arrangements that have rewarded outsourcing production/labor and the illegals influx of virtual slave labor, the co-opted "unions" who now are largely in the management corner, have transformed America into another third-world bankrupt outfit. We still do the whole world-cop militarism thing, but we are drugging up the soldiers with PTSD with prescription ecstacy? Who's looking out for us?

 

[SaltyDawg]

What facts did you state? Who told you they were wrong?

On what are you very much informed?

Verizon made 12 billion in profits, paid billions in dividends to a foreign company, and paid their top execs hundreds of millions, while demanding their union workers take a 20k reduction each and give the green light to outsource more jobs.

Nobody is disputing any of that. The only thing being disputed is whether or not Verizon actually paid any taxes while all of this was happening. The published reports say they did not, but a few people on this board are disputing those published reports.

 

[moevillini]

One followup question: why are you dating that guy? You're obviously out of his league.

well, there's the matter of that rejected screen name, do you think that could be a factor?

 

[SaltyDawg]

So I copied the part of Ms Serp's post that was relevant to Verizon's taxes and emailed it to the CTJ. Here is the response I got:

"CTJ compiles its information about Verizon and the other corporations we study from the 10-Ks that they file each year with the SEC. The taxes Verizon says it paid in “actual cash” do not split out U.S. taxes from worldwide taxes, so that’s not helpful. I think we will agree that the question here is what taxes Verizon paid to the U.S. government for its U.S. profits, and not what Verizon paid to foreign governments on profits it made in other countries.

It seems that the commenter agrees with CTJ that the only way you can say Verizon paid taxes in 2010 would be to count the “deferred” taxes for 2010 along with the “current” taxes. So I would just ask one question: Are the “deferred” taxes for 2010 taxes that Verizon ACTUALLY paid in 2010?

No, they’re not. They did not actually pay these taxes in 2010. And if you only count the taxes Verizon actually paid in 2010 (current taxes for 2010) then you find that Verizon had negative tax liability in 2010. That’s why our report says they had negative tax liability in 2010. Where is the disagreement here?

It’s often the case that these deferred taxes are never paid because the companies find ways to defer them each year. But let’s assume they are eventually paid. If the “deferred” taxes for 2010 are actually paid in 2012, they will show up as “current” taxes in 2012. In other words, if you want to track what taxes corporations are actually paying each year, you need to focus on the “current” taxes paid for each year. "


So, it seems they are sticking to their guns on this and claiming Verizon did not pay any taxes. Well, at least not any US taxes.

Also, I must note again that Verizon actually responded to the CTJ's claims. And in Verizon's response they claimed they followed all tax laws but never said they actually paid any taxes.