Halliburton leaving the US

[Quinn]

That you, Micheal, would call anyone else gay is hysterical. Know what I mean, White_Closeted_Male.

I think WMC's real name is Timmy, Quinn. Whatever it really is, who cares, I find the guy repulsive, and that's just from what he writes. He really does seem to have a big thing about owning other guys sexually, maybe that's what turns him on about transsexuals? And from what he's said himself, he clearly is active on far more boards than this one. You've definitely hit the nail on the head about him, Quinn, he's a hypocrite and a fraud!!! Not only does he frequently lie to others, he appears to frequently lie to himself. They call that being deluded!

Hey, I_love_Cristina_Bianchini, I see you've come to the exact same conclusion as just about every other poster on this forum – save for WMC’s two NeoCon confederates. Chesterton's – oops, I mean WMC’s – "debates" follow an all too familiar pattern where he will initially make numerous factually unsustainable assertions, which then invariably get obliterated by real facts. This, in turn, invariably causes him to fall back upon secondary assertions, usually based upon selective reinterpretations of his initially disproved assertions. Once these secondary assertions are crushed as well, he falls back again, with the same pattern repeating itself over and over. As the “debate” drags on, White_Morphing_Male will change his position more times than hooker at an orgy. We've all seen him do it during a number of debates – like the climate debate, when Trish bitched his ass – and we’ve most certainly seen it here. It just gets better and better.

No wonder they even make fun of him on the General Discussion forum. Essentially, his NPD fueled ignorance is the gift that keeps on giving.

-Quinn

[chefmike]

That you, Micheal, would call anyone else gay is hysterical. Know what I mean, White_Closeted_Male.

I think WMC's real name is Timmy, Quinn. Whatever it really is, who cares, I find the guy repulsive, and that's just from what he writes. He really does seem to have a big thing about owning other guys sexually, maybe that's what turns him on about transsexuals? And from what he's said himself, he clearly is active on far more boards than this one. You've definitely hit the nail on the head about him, Quinn, he's a hypocrite and a fraud!!! Not only does he frequently lie to others, he appears to frequently lie to himself. They call that being deluded!

Hey, I_love_Cristina_Bianchini, I see you've come to the exact same conclusion as just about every other poster on this forum – save for WMC’s two NeoCon confederates. Chesterton's – oops, I mean WMC’s – "debates" follow an all too familiar pattern where he will initially make numerous factually unsustainable assertions, which then invariably get obliterated by real facts. This, in turn, invariably causes him to fall back upon secondary assertions, usually based upon selective reinterpretations of his initially disproved assertions. Once these secondary assertions are crushed as well, he falls back again, with the same pattern repeating itself over and over. As the “debate” drags on, White_Morphing_Male will change his position more times than hooker at an orgy. We've all seen him do it during a number of debates – like the climate debate, when Trish bitched his ass – and we’ve most certainly seen it here. It just gets better and better.

No wonder they even make fun of him on the General Discussion forum. Essentially, his NPD fueled ignorance is the gift that keeps on giving.

-Quinn

Word.

[White_Male_Canada]

That you, Micheal, would call anyone else gay is hysterical. Know what I mean, White_Closeted_Male.

I think WMC's real name is Timmy, Quinn. Whatever it really is, who cares, I find the guy repulsive, and that's just from what he writes. He really does seem to have a big thing about owning other guys sexually, maybe that's what turns him on about transsexuals? And from what he's said himself, he clearly is active on far more boards than this one. You've definitely hit the nail on the head about him, Quinn, he's a hypocrite and a fraud!!! Not only does he frequently lie to others, he appears to frequently lie to himself. They call that being deluded!

Hey, I_love_Cristina_Bianchini, I see you've come to the exact same conclusion as just about every other poster on this forum – save for WMC’s two NeoCon confederates. Chesterton's – oops, I mean WMC’s – "debates" follow an all too familiar pattern where he will initially make numerous factually unsustainable assertions, which then invariably get obliterated by real facts. This, in turn, invariably causes him to fall back upon secondary assertions, usually based upon selective reinterpretations of his initially disproved assertions. Once these secondary assertions are crushed as well, he falls back again, with the same pattern repeating itself over and over. As the “debate” drags on, White_Morphing_Male will change his position more times than hooker at an orgy. We've all seen him do it during a number of debates – like the climate debate, when Trish bitched his ass – and we’ve most certainly seen it here. It just gets better and better.

No wonder they even make fun of him on the General Discussion forum. Essentially, his NPD fueled ignorance is the gift that keeps on giving.

..let’s look at some other facts

...LLCs have largely replaced S Corps due to the greater flexibility they offer.

Since your latest failed argument, you’ve chosen to fall back to disputing LLCs (also a pass through tax entity, unless it elects C Corp taxation) replacing S Corps. Let’s deal with that too, by citing just a few of the many corroborating sources:

Recently, the popularity of S corporations has waned as limited liability companies (LLCs) have largely replaced them....S corporations have been largely replaced by limited liability companies (LLCs)...
I n recent years, however, S corporations have been largely replaced by limited liability companies ...Today, closely held companies are beginning to show a clear preference for the LLC, according to the latest data from the ...LLC filings have grown to be significant in every jurisdiction, and they not only approach but outnumber new corporate filings

LOL Just too fucking easy !

"Now let`s omit all the facts"

You dumb fucking liar. The old lie by omission trick.

LLCs may account for more new business filings but there are 2 and one-half times more corporations operating inside the USA than there are LLCs (IACA).

Holy old fuck, I just keep putting bait out there and this Idiot keeps biting. LOL

THE VILLAGE IDIOT GETS CAUGHT AGAIN IN HIS BIG LIE BY OMISSION !

WELCOME BACK ASSHOLE, WE DIDN`T MISS YOU

[Quinn]

You know what, I could go on and on obliterating your imbecilically afactual assertions – only to see you fall back like a little bitch again and again – but we have more than enough to work with now. Here are just a few of your moronic assertions and the relevant responses. You can project your own conduct all you want by whining about omitted facts, lies of omission, or whatever – a true irony given that you have been accused of these and other deceptive actions more than every other active poster in the Politics and Religion Forum combined – but the thread is there for every poster to review in its entirety. Hmmmmmm. I wonder why whenever they do this, the overwhelming majority come down against your assertions and not mine?

So, without further delay, here, in not particular, are just a few of your gifts to our collective sense of humor.

1. One instance of idiocy:

Corporations pay very little in taxes. The costs/taxes are passed on to customers,clients,consumers,etc.

Easily disproved:

Your own chart showed corporate income comprising 12.9 % of federal revenue in 2005 – and that’s just a measure of federal income tax receipts, not the myriad of other taxes corporations pay at various levels of government. So, thanks to your own chart we have clearly established that corporate taxes do compromise a crucial part of government revenue. Well done.

2. A second instance of idiocy:

The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing [using transfer pricing to evade taxation] is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with.

Limited !? Holy fuck you’re an arse. It`s limited because it`s not illegal.

Easily disproved:

Not illegal??? Wow, you really don’t know a fucking thing about this, do you? How about part of a nice article from MSN Money:

Some parts of transfer pricing have been illegal for years, especially in the US. The trouble is that policing is difficult.

Now, the US Treasury is bringing forward proposals that formalise most of the regulations, and provide an investor model for subsidiaries to treat each other as if they were unrelated, using fair prices for not only goods and services but intangible assets like intellectual capital.
http://money.uk.msn.com/Investing/In...umentid=143073

3. A third instance of idiocy:

“We are owed” Wow, that money is yours huh ? Those evil corps stole it and now the kook left want it back. How dare they do what is legal and shield their revenues !

Hey don’t let the facts get in the way of your economically and financially illiterate ramblings or anything. After all, we’ve already incontrovertibly established that your opinion isn’t supported by even the most forgiving review of the facts. Still, just to rub your ignorance in your face, here’s an example of a corporation being pursued by the IRS for something you say is legal:

Last week, Merck, the pharmaceutical multinational, announced that it will pay 2.3 billion dollars in back taxes, interest and penalties in one of the largest settlements for tax evasion the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has ever imposed.

Merck had cooked its tax books by moving ownership of its drug patents to its own Bermuda shell company -- an entity that has no real employees and does no real work -- and then deducting from U.S. taxes the huge royalties it paid itself. While setting up a shell company is not inherently illegal, it is if tax authorities determine that its only purpose is to evade taxes. Bermuda is a tax haven that has no levy on royalties
http://www.financialrealtime.com/sto...ews697278.html.[/quote]

4. A forth instance of idiocy:

Taxes? Where were the howls of outrage when Nike and many manufacturing firms moved to China.

Once again, using irrelevant examples that reflect a complete ignorance of the topic being debated:

As to your Nike question, there is, strictly speaking, a difference. Nike has shifted its production from one subcontractor to another (Nike doesn’t actually own the factories that produce its shoes) to save money where production costs are concerned. Nike has long used Asia to produce most of its products (Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia, etc.), so shifting from one Asian based subcontractor to another hurts other Asian states, not the US.

5. A fifth instance of idiocy:

Now after the Job Growth Act of 2003 things dramatically changed and considering the rapid growth of S corporations since the individual income tax cuts in 2003, the dramatic growth of corporate tax collections from traditional C corporations has been just fine thank you.

Easily disproved:

The argument that S Corporations were responsible for the decline in corporate income tax collections was never given any serious credibility. Still, let’s here what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities had to say on the matter:

. . . the average C corporation in 2000 had assets that were 33 times larger than the assets held by the average S corporation. While the S corporation liberalization may have eroded the corporate income tax base when it comes to smaller corporations, it has not significantly affected the large corporations that account for the lion’s share of corporate income tax revenues.

6. A sixth instance of idiocy:

Signs of the recession were only beginning to appear in 2000 and were known in 2001 to 2003,ergo,lower federal revenues. Your ilk enjoy Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession.

Not only was that statement factually irrelevant to the debate, it was funny due to the following:

Quoting from Wiki is akin to quoting from a Bazooka joe comic.

7. A seventh instance of idiocy:

Lowering the tax a corporation pays would lower the costs they pass onto clients,consumers,etc.

Too easy to deal with this farce:

Once again, you seem to have a problem comprehending what is being addressed here. We have been talking about corporations, most specifically Halliburton, evading taxes through transfer pricing – not a corporation legitimately paying lower taxes because of a change in government tax policy.

Furthermore, lower production costs, not lower taxes, are the primary vehicle through which consumers realize savings (think Walmart). Moreover, Halliburton has – thanks to its use of transfer pricing to avoid paying taxes – enjoyed the benefit of paying lower taxes for some time now. Has your argument held up? No, Halliburton and its subsidiaries have been caught gouging the US government, not passing on savings realized through tax avoidance.

Hey, White_Male_Want_ Wit, given the voluminous drivel you spout, I could most certainly post more examples, but this will do for now. See what happens when you attempt to debate things you have absolutely no familiarity with. You are to a factual debate what Enron was to ethical business practices: a fiasco and a fraud.

-Quinn

[Quinn]

You dumb fucking liar.

Well if anyone should know it's you, your the biggest dumb fucking liar here by a million miles, eh "Prof." (allegedly)!

WELCOME BACK ASSHOLE, WE DIDN`T MISS YOU

Who's the WE, you and a fool! guyone seems alright, he's just young and under a bad influence, i.e. YOU! Isn't corrupting a minor illegal?

You caught that, too, huh? My favorite part is "we didn't miss you." Who's we? ROTFLMAO................... This coming from the guy whose only two supporters on this forum happen to be the two posters whose views are as universally disparaged and ridiculed as his own. Wow, he really really gives new meaning to the phrase/slogan "An Army of One." Boy, that "we" sure is compelling

What a delusional little clown.

-Quinn