Enron is a perfect example of why I look at a company's income tax instead of reported income. They might lie to investors, but lying to the IRS means jail time. Obviously, if they weren't paying any income taxes it's because they weren't making GAAP accepted profits.

On a side note: Avoid "Pro Forma" earnings and "goodwill" in the balance sheet. And, always read the footnotes.

__________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ---P. J. O'Rourke

By that method, most US corporations do not make a profit.
Corporations have lobbied and threatened to move out of country and received tax breaks upon tax breaks. Judging a corporations profits by it's tax payments (or lack thereof) can not be an accurate portrayal of what actually happened.

Every company I own stock in pays around 30% income taxes. You must have some really risky stocks.

__________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ---P. J. O'Rourke

And to expand Swoop187,

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that a corporation SHOULD have the right to run, or that it would be a good thing. I do think it would be a good thing because maybe then people would realize how many rights have been afforded to corporations and that it has gone too far.

The thread is a hypothetical question, based upon the power corporations have gained within our government. They use that power soley to increase profits, at your expense (see last post), and not to create jobs or to make this country a better place.

People who are pro-big-business have bought into a false message. Big business wants nothing from you but your money. And they're getting it.

I don't have stocks, but that's an entirely different subject .

Well, it seems you really don't know what you're talking about. Just look up one of my companies, Colgate (CL) a company I've had stock in for many years, their effective income tax rate is right at 30%:

CL: Income Statement for COLGATE PALMOLIVE - Yahoo! Finance

__________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ---P. J. O'Rourke

Thats the whole premise of the business, to make money.

Why do you get up and go to work today?

I guess its safe to assume you aren't doing anyone favors but your self working 40 hours a week. Some how the rules are different for business owners????

Sorry to break the news but businesses aren't in place to solely employ people.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

You obviously have no idea how big business "works."

Its obvious your a typical lib who thinks everything should be free.

This nations wealth was created on the backs of "big business," now show me a healthy nation that neglects capitalism in favor of some form of government that gives everything away for free...

Furthermore if you hate "big business" and "materialism" then I would cancel your internet contract, sell your shit and live on a "hippie" commune thats funded by dirty beggars.

The idea that people should WORK HARD to provide others with free shit is fucking disgusting.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

Wow, another epiphany. Businesses exist to make money.

I guess we'll just skip over the other part, where I stated businesses have very limited liability. BTW this in effect is allowing them to kill more people than all the murders in the US combined, every year. All in the name of profits. Is your life worth a company being able to make millions?

My work and hours are none of your business. My family is provided for from the income that our family makes. The same can't always be said for big business.

Obvious?

When did I state people should get free shit? Have you actually read what I've posted?

Are you sure you are replying the right person?


Big business as it is, has received more in subsidies and tax breaks than all the people in the US, and I showed this in one of my posts, how YOUR TAX MONEY is going to big business. And you're saying I am talking about handouts?

By the very fact that you're arguing, you are defending the fact that your tax money goes to big businesses who don't actually need it.

If you paid attention to my posts, you might have gathered that I am not against corporations. I am also not for big business having influence in the government. Why? Because businesses only seek to profit and would produce and sell a product to you that could kill you, betting that the profits made from that product would outweigh the potential lawsuits that they might have to pay. Is your life worth big profits for big corporations? Are your tax dollars worth paying towards big businesses in subsidies and rebates to keep them happy?

I'm not for the government handing out money or "free shit" as you put it. But apparently you are, but not to the people who are actually the ones protected by the Constitution, no, you apparently like the money that is taken out of your check to go to big businesses.

Seriously man, this type of rhetoric is getting old.

You're trying to inform me that because I don't own stocks, I don't know what I am talking about?

Did I claim that every single stock is as I say it is? If I knew that much, I'd be a billionaire by now.

Did you do well when the stock market crashed? Why did it crash?

In a system where investors have absolutely no liability for the actions of a corporation which they own, yet they can affect the decisions through pressure for higher profits, decisions are routinely made that are not in the best interest of the corporation or the environment. In addition, when a stock becomes a hot item, it becomes overvalued as more people try to get in on the action, forcing the corporation to keep growth and profits high enough to meet the demands of the increased number of share holders, therefore working to create profits beyond it's scope. Eventually whatever they do to keep up, whether it be cutting costs by laying off or tremendous executive stock options, it catches up with them and the stock crashes because it was overvalued. It's damn near a ponzi scheme.

The entire system of Wall Street as it is, is detremental to US industry. There is no correct way for buffering against over-valuing. There is also the factor that even though the shareholder holds no liability, shareholders as a collective group can influence corporate decisions, and where they have no liability for people laid off or people killed or pollution, they don't take it into consideration, and the company will actually lose value should they simply state "we will not lay off 20,000 workers in order to cut costs to make this quarters bottom line match last quarters, because over the long run we will need those 20,000 workers".

Do as you wish with your money, but don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about because your stock goes against the grain. That is how the stock market works. Some stocks buck the trend and some don't. Otherwise when any stock started to lose value, the whole thing would crash.

The idea that you would actually address what was stated remains a fantasy, I see.

The probability that you would be able to from an informed position remains impossible.

So I wasn't the only one confused by that "reply", thanks.

Anybody remember which three SC cases established 'corporate personhood'? One was a railroad case involving the Santa Fe RR, a California case, I believe, but I don't recall the other two; all three were after the Civil War. Before that, only state legislatures could grant charters to limited liability corporations, and ostensibly they were only to be granted to corporations that would benefit the public and state as well. No way would the 'Founding Fathers' allow the kind of legalized theft and larceny that passes for 'business' these days to operate under limited liability corporations. If stockholders were held liable for what their corporations do, then we wouldn't be having the kind of boom and bust cycles and massive fraud we have these days in place of a real economy.

__________________
"The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problems this really solves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

"A day without sunshine is, you know, night."- Shannon

The Santa Clara case of 1886 was the turning point. The court reporter was an ex employee of the railroads and so was the judge he "quoted". The work was published after other key people passed away many years later.

Prior to that case, in the 1830's the largest bank in the US started pushing to have it's executives in office, the government withdrew over 200 million from the bank and did everything short of revoke it's corporate charter, but did make them go out of business.

As for the part in bold, that's what I'm saying. What is the norm today, is the type of thing that sparked the American Revolution.