AfterDawn: Tech news

AT&T donated almost $1 million to lawmakers who petitioned for their acquisition of T-Mobile

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 21 Sep 2011 14:20 User comments (33)

AT&T donated almost $1 million to lawmakers who petitioned for their acquisition of T-Mobile Yesterday, 100 House Republicans signed a letter that urged the current administration to end the DOJ lawsuit and let AT&T purchase T-Mobile for $39 billion.
Today, Bloomberg is reporting that 99 of those 100 reps have received political donations from AT&T since 2009, raking in a total of $963,275.

Earlier this month, surprisingly, AT&T's bid to buy the rival carrier was blocked by a DOJ lawsuit which calls the acquisition anti-competitive.

Additionally, the DOJ has said that blocking the deal will help save jobs in the U.S.

If successfully blocked, AT&T will have to pay a huge breakup fee of $3 billion to Deutsche Telekom (TMo's parent company) as well as $4 billion worth of wireless spectrum.

Previous Next  

33 user comments

121.9.2011 15:14

i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 21 Sep 2011 @ 15:17

221.9.2011 15:21

In Canada, unlike the US, our lawmakers can't be bought.
They are merely rented.

321.9.2011 15:22

How is this any different from a bribery? Sounds like you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. I'm unfortunately broke at college and on a family plan though my father on AT&T. I wouldn't wish their shitty service onto anyone. If it wasn't for the fact that I own an iphone, I would have ditched them and stuck to payphones

421.9.2011 15:35

Every one of those Reps needs to be be publicly rooted out, tarred & feathered & thrown out into the street. their assets frozen and made to fend for themselves like all the other Americans they've fleeced (for how many years?). I most assuredly cry, "BULLSHIT!"

In the the cryptic words of Louis Woo, "TANJ!" [There Ain't No Justice]

I just can't help but wonder what kind of windfall this world is going to have to suffer in order to smack the pious from their perch once again so the huddled masses (& of a common playing field) can get things back into a more common working order.

I'm not saying a guy can't have a Ferrari. Nor am I saying everybody deserves one. But I damn sure say there are a BUNCH at the top that don't deserve 40 of them & there are 150,000 people walking that could sure use a Prius, an efficiency apartment & some decent groceries about now.


521.9.2011 15:50

All those US Politicians should be wearing Nascar-Suit's. So every body will know: Who are they really working for.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Sep 2011 @ 2:26

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

621.9.2011 17:22

Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
The hell are you talking about? The DOJ is there for a reason, reasons such as to block companies that can potentially become a monopoly. Good competition means the consumers benefit in the end.

721.9.2011 17:40
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by LordRuss:
Every one of those Reps needs to be be publicly rooted out, tarred & feathered & thrown out into the street. their assets frozen and made to fend for themselves like all the other Americans they've fleeced (for how many years?). I most assuredly cry, "BULLSHIT!"

In the the cryptic words of Louis Woo, "TANJ!" [There Ain't No Justice]

I just can't help but wonder what kind of windfall this world is going to have to suffer in order to smack the pious from their perch once again so the huddled masses (& of a common playing field) can get things back into a more common working order.

I'm not saying a guy can't have a Ferrari. Nor am I saying everybody deserves one. But I damn sure say there are a BUNCH at the top that don't deserve 40 of them & there are 150,000 people walking that could sure use a Prius, an efficiency apartment & some decent groceries about now.
If we got rid of these guys we'd have to get rid of everyone in Washington. That's the beauty of the supreme court ruling allowing corporations the ability to spend unlimited funds on "lobbying." They're all wh*res for big business now, not as if they haven't been for a long time.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 21 Sep 2011 @ 17:48

822.9.2011 0:01

Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
edited by ddp
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Sep 2011 @ 23:01

922.9.2011 0:45

Originally posted by llongtheD:

If we got rid of these guys we'd have to get rid of everyone in Washington. That's the beauty of the supreme court ruling allowing corporations the ability to spend unlimited funds on campaign contributions They're all wh*res for big business now, not as if they haven't been for a long time.

1022.9.2011 0:49

Originally posted by hearme0:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
edited by ddp
swearing and telling me to grow up makes sense? right
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Sep 2011 @ 23:01

1122.9.2011 0:59

@xaznboitx:
First of all, the DOJ is NOT telling Deutsche Telekom they can't sell off T-Mobile. They are attempting to prevent AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile. ATT&T claims the merger will improve their network and service overall but what they are really doing is eliminating some of the competition. Which would make them the larger half of a duopoly along with Verizon. This is strictly an anti-trust issue and the DOJ have every right to investigate. If Cox Communications or Time Warner were seeking to buy out T-Mobile, the DOJ would NOT have a problem in that regard.

1222.9.2011 3:16
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by Azuran:
Originally posted by llongtheD:

If we got rid of these guys we'd have to get rid of everyone in Washington. That's the beauty of the supreme court ruling allowing corporations the ability to spend unlimited funds on campaign contributions They're all wh*res for big business now, not as if they haven't been for a long time.

My bad, "campaign contributions." Lobbying isn't PC I guess. Whatever you want to call it, its legalized bribery.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Sep 2011 @ 3:34

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

1322.9.2011 5:32


My bad, "campaign contributions." Lobbying isn't PC I guess. Whatever you want to call it, its legalized bribery.
Not legal at all, it is bribery and extortoin. These days if you do business with the government you are required to make political contributions at the maximum level or loose your contracts, and they tell you that up front. If you are a big company and don't make large political contributions, you run a very high risk of being harassed by multiple government agencies, and while you may be innocent, they can use almost unlimited taxpayer funded resources to shut you down or make it so expensive that you will pay them off to be able to stay in business. Happens all the time, although most large businesses realize the bribes are a cost of doing business, even though the tax law does not allow political contributions as a business expense. Two of the biggest problems are that they police themselves, like that ever happens before being convictes, and the FBI and DOJ are the ones to prosecute. Two organizations who's budget is 100% controlled by congress. Investigations rarely happen and even with evidence that would get a normal person convicted 100 times over it takes many years to actually get them to court and convicted.(@xaznboitx: DOJ IS NOT A LAWMAKING BODY, they only enforce laws, and at the direction of a person appointed by the President, and more recently they have been enforcing laws for purely political reasons.)

We have the worst government money can buy, but hopefully between the president playing golf almost every day and congress' inability to even pass a budget we can survive till the next election, but i have little hope for seeing any honest people on the balots.

Please do not have any doubt in your minds, this has nothing to do with the law and is just one more battle between the president and congress, nothing else matters to these people right now. It's all election season politics, nothing more, and it will cost everyone a lot.

1422.9.2011 5:51

The DOJ is a lawmaking body, or rather, they enforce laws that were never passed. Same with the DEA and ATF. Of course, they often ignore laws that were passed...Operation Fast and Furious sounded like a crazy conspiracy theory until all the facts came out...now it is a crazy conspiracy fact.

...So, while the ATF was enforcing a law requiring all guns sales to be reported (a law that was struck down before it was passed due to being EXTREMELY unconstitutional), they were ordering other gun stores to sell guns to convicted felons so that they could be smuggled to Mexico where they would be used to kill police and innocent people...no other reason, just to cause gun violence in Mexico (and to then exploit said violence).

This is how the whole government works...it just isn't often you get something so cut and dry.

This AT&T thing is just more of the same...congress taking bribes to do things that hurt the country, and demanding extortion money to stay out of the way of things that will help the country. In this case it is the former, but I am sure that Sprint has contributed to the latter for other congressmen.



1522.9.2011 10:09

Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
I happen to agree with the DOJ's decision's and no, they are not lawmakers, they are enforcers of the law, the way they are trying to stop this merger is by filing lawsuit. It would be scary if an agency could do whatever they want. This is why anti-trust laws exist, to keep a company from destroying competition in the market. If AT&T wants to buy Verizon, yes, they should try to block that as well. What do you really think will happen if there are less wireless carriers in the U.S?
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Sep 2011 @ 10:19

1622.9.2011 12:18

I think I saw a quote from the Verizon's CEO on the matter.


"AT&T buying T-Mobile is like gravity," he said. "It had to occur. T-Mobile has spectrum, but no capital. And AT&T has the capital but needs the spectrum. If the government wants to stop this merger, it needs to get more spectrum out on the market."

If this is the case and Tmob is endanger of going out of business than maybe ATT taking their spectrum wil atleast be put to use. But if not I hope Tmob stats independent, I'd rather be with them.



"Cable thief is a victimless crime."

1722.9.2011 16:00

I'm just brought right back around to the profound story about life being the one gigantic sandwich of ca-ca. You know, the one where everyone gets to take a bite. Some getting to take more than one bite. Other getting to take a bite for others. And then there is the situation where some folks come to take there turn to take a bite but they have more bread. And as we all know, the more bread you have the less shit you have to eat.

And that's about as Buddha as you'll get Russell to be...

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Sep 2011 @ 16:01

1822.9.2011 19:03

Originally posted by llongtheD:
Originally posted by LordRuss:
Every one of those Reps needs to be be publicly rooted out, tarred & feathered & thrown out into the street. their assets frozen and made to fend for themselves like all the other Americans they've fleeced (for how many years?). I most assuredly cry, "BULLSHIT!"

In the the cryptic words of Louis Woo, "TANJ!" [There Ain't No Justice]

I just can't help but wonder what kind of windfall this world is going to have to suffer in order to smack the pious from their perch once again so the huddled masses (& of a common playing field) can get things back into a more common working order.

I'm not saying a guy can't have a Ferrari. Nor am I saying everybody deserves one. But I damn sure say there are a BUNCH at the top that don't deserve 40 of them & there are 150,000 people walking that could sure use a Prius, an efficiency apartment & some decent groceries about now.
If we got rid of these guys we'd have to get rid of everyone in Washington. That's the beauty of the supreme court ruling allowing corporations the ability to spend unlimited funds on "lobbying." They're all wh*res for big business now, not as if they haven't been for a long time.


You are right, the Supreme Court was packed with Justices during the past decade that favor the welfare of the rich/businesses over middle class people's constitutional rights. In this case, it wasn’t easy for the Justices to justify this "legal bribery”, the only way they could was to twist it into being the protection of free speech. As Americans, each of us must fiercely defend free speech, but here is the problem with their free speech ruling, I can only afford $100 worth of free speech and AT&T can afford $963,275 worth of free speech. If we are protecting free speech, shouldn’t everyone get the same $’s worth of free speech? How much free speech lobbying can you afford?

I hear/read it every day from Americans being interviewed, saying that everyone should allow Corporations and Billionaires free rein and keep their tax rates lower than the tax rate paid by the middle class, since the rich are the ones that create jobs. Also, that it is okay that the jobs they create are minimum wage...saying that employees should just feel blessed to have any job in this bad economy. What??? Weren’t these the guys/gals making tens and hundreds of millions a year that plunged us into this crappy economy? I am trying to understand, how does bowing down work, we give tax breaks to billionaires, hoping and wishing they will create new jobs with the money.

Come on now, we all know Billionaires are too smart to just create jobs for no reason…like everyone else, they will only create jobs when they have someone willing to buy whatever these new employees produce. We have come to accept that we shouldn’t raise taxes on the rich, since that will drag down the economy, but I propose that we should tax the rich and use that tax money to give tax breaks to the middle class. That will without any doubt stimulate spending and spending will stimulate the economy and as we know, a stimulated economy will create job growth.

We have been sold a theory, that if we raise the taxes on the rich, then the rich won’t create jobs. I am trying to understand this concept, and if I am missing something, then please explain it to me using dollars and cents. As an example, let’s say Billionaire Mr. Rich’s tax rate increases from 15% to 30%. Also assume that this rich person plans on hiring a new employee for $60,000, and that the employee will increase their revenues by $100,000, yielding a $40,000 net profit. At their current rate of 15%, their after tax profit = $34,000, but if they are taxed at 30%, their after tax profit = $28,000. Anybody who would give up $28,000 because their tax went up by $6,000 won’t be a Billionaire very long.

1922.9.2011 19:39

Originally posted by hearme0:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
Your moronic, narrow-minded, meritless, clueless statement just pissed me off and I must say, against my better judgement since AD doesn't like this "you're an F'ing IDIOT". Monopolies are "unfair business practice" and need to be regulated or the people get screwed. You can't be a U.S. citizen. You just can't be. A single voice or "the little guy" can't fight city hall (as the saying goes that you seem to be grossly unfamiliar with) therefore big business needs to be regulated.

Get a clue and IF you are indeed a U.S. citizen, GET THE F OUT OF THIS COUNTRY........or grow up and correct your adolescent thinking.
Obviously hearme0 works for AT&T

2022.9.2011 23:02

hearme0, knock off the flaming & swearing or i'll flame you off this site, posts edited.

2122.9.2011 23:08

Quote:
We have been sold a theory, that if we raise the taxes on the rich, then the rich won’t create jobs. I am trying to understand this concept, and if I am missing something, then please explain it to me using dollars and cents.
I'm not going to comment on your number's because its not a complete economic model. However, I will explain this theory that most Americans have been sold on. The GDP equation:

GDP(the economy)= Consumer spending + Net capital investment + Government Spending + Net exports

Who are the largest spenders in the country? The rich. What the U.S. is trying to do is to both increase taxes and reduce government spending. If you think through it logically you can conclude that this reduces two parts of this equation which lowers GDP. In addition, increasing expenses for corporations (taxes, regulatory, etc..) might have a negative effect on capital investment. Capital investment is closely tied to employment rates and when it goes down unemployment tends to rise.

This is all just basic supply-side theory though. The truth is it gets more complicated than this and like all theories what happens in the real world can be drastically different. The issue here is do you wanna risk it? Increase taxes on the rich and potentially send the economy into a bigger crap hole than it already is.

And that's where we're at. A giant stand-off between corporate America, who is too timid to invest in American infrastructure, and the federal government, who is desperate for funds. We're in a stagnant economy. Instead of a positive economic growth trend we're beginning to flat line. This is just as bad (and potentially worse) than a recession.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Sep 2011 @ 23:10

2222.9.2011 23:49

Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
You are a senior member but haven't heard of Anti Trust law or Predatory acquisitions?

2322.9.2011 23:51

Originally posted by cleverick:
Originally posted by hearme0:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
Your moronic, narrow-minded, meritless, clueless statement just pissed me off and I must say, against my better judgement since AD doesn't like this "you're an F'ing IDIOT". Monopolies are "unfair business practice" and need to be regulated or the people get screwed. You can't be a U.S. citizen. You just can't be. A single voice or "the little guy" can't fight city hall (as the saying goes that you seem to be grossly unfamiliar with) therefore big business needs to be regulated.

Get a clue and IF you are indeed a U.S. citizen, GET THE F OUT OF THIS COUNTRY........or grow up and correct your adolescent thinking.
Obviously hearme0 works for AT&T
You are mistaken. He does not work for AT&T. He must hold a substantial stake in the company.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Sep 2011 @ 23:52

2422.9.2011 23:56

I can't believe the reps have devalued themselves to such an extent. The amount per rep is hardly 10k. By Washington standards this is not enough for even a one night of private partying!

2523.9.2011 0:00

Originally posted by attar:
In Canada, unlike the US, our lawmakers can't be bought.
They are merely rented.
How do you differentiate the two? My take on this would be ....

"Rented" meaning only get payment while holding an office

"Bought" meaning receive payment even before (in anticipation) and after (lost in election/retired) they were out of office.

Please enlighten me !

2623.9.2011 0:10

pmshah, why do you have 4 posts in a row which is a forum rule violation?
12. Repeated posts to increase total number of posts is not allowed. Especially if your message is the last in the thread, edit it rather than post a new message.
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487

2723.9.2011 0:18

It's called corruption and conflict of interest.. and it's up to US.. y'know.. THE PEOPLE THESE CRIMINALS ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK FOR.. to do something about it.. every few years these bastards want our votes to secure them a few more years to shove their noses in the trough.. it's the ONLY time we get ANY SAY in how our countries are run.. not democracy, plutocracy.. so get out there on the streets and make it known exactly who got paid what, and what for.. and while you are at it see if they declared their illegal bribe windfalls and paid tax on them.. bet they didn't!!!

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/09/22/oc...e-to-manhattan/

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 23 Sep 2011 @ 0:19



ARR! Them pesky Navy! Get out of my sea!
irc://irc.villageirc.net/afterdawn http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/

2823.9.2011 0:22

All the readers arguing on the subject is not going to yield any positive result.

AT&T has money and desperately needs additional spectrum. There is no way in the world they would have agreed to part with both if there was even a remotest chance of the merger not being approved. So you can take is that the matter is going to drag on till the next presidential election approaches. The democrats will stop opposing as their funds dwindle and need replenishing. The republicans have already sold out.

BTW any idea of the party wise breakup of those 99 representatives? Might prove interesting!

2923.9.2011 0:47

Originally posted by ddp:
pmshah, why do you have 4 posts in a row which is a forum rule violation?
12. Repeated posts to increase total number of posts is not allowed. Especially if your message is the last in the thread, edit it rather than post a new message.
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
I am sorry and will not repeat it. I was not quite sure as to how to club responses to different readers in a single post. I guess I have some learning to do.

3023.9.2011 5:19

Originally posted by pmshah:
All the readers arguing on the subject is not going to yield any positive result.

AT&T has money and desperately needs additional spectrum. There is no way in the world they would have agreed to part with both if there was even a remotest chance of the merger not being approved. So you can take is that the matter is going to drag on till the next presidential election approaches. The democrats will stop opposing as their funds dwindle and need replenishing. The republicans have already sold out.

BTW any idea of the party wise breakup of those 99 representatives? Might prove interesting!

AT&T antitrust case gets a trial date. (February 13th 2012)
http://cnet.co/nYDPUA
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:20

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

3123.9.2011 18:15

Originally posted by Mrguss:
AT&T antitrust case gets a trial date. (February 13th 2012) http://cnet.co/nYDPUA
I suppose they hope everyone will have Holiday amnesia or something by then & forget about them? Possibly try for one more pay-o-la thrust into the congressional pockets for a Valentines Day vote?

3224.9.2011 7:52

Originally posted by rick_la:
As Americans, each of us must fiercely defend free speech, but here is the problem with their free speech ruling, I can only afford $100 worth of free speech and AT&T can afford $963,275 worth of free speech.
If I remember correctly they also said something like $1 = 1 vote when it comes to lobying. Mt question is, why are corporations allowed to contribute when they are not allowed to vote. In fact the corporation in this case is a proxy for the stockholders and acting in their interest not in the interest of the company. Only registered voters should be allowed to donate and that should be limited to something like $20/ year. An amount almost everyone can afford.

Quote:
I hear/read it every day from Americans being interviewed, saying that everyone should allow Corporations and Billionaires free rein and keep their tax rates lower than the tax rate paid by the middle class, since the rich are the ones that create jobs.

Obvoiusly you have not thought things out, corporations don't pay taxes, only people pay taxes. When the Government taxes a corporation, the customers pay not only the tax, but the cost for recordkeeping and reporting for that tax which is frequently more than the tax itself. The cost for the tax is just added to the cost of the products, and the politicians know this as does the press. They just assume a majority of the people are too stupid or trusting to understand, and they are correct. In reality, raising taxes on corporations hurts the the people and the economy.

You are watching the news too much and not looking at the facts. The number of people making over $1 million a year and paying a lower rate than people making less than $1million is very small, just over 1k and requires very specifiv things the government wants people to do. Government's fault not millionares. In general "Rich" people pay far more than everyone else in both total taxes as well as effective tax rates. Obama is attempting to shift the blame and start a class war in hopes he will get reelected. He is in that class he calls "Rich" although not by his own efforts. His ghost written "biographies", which apperantly he has not read as he contradicts all the time, are what have made him his millions. The numbers are there if you look.

Quote:
Weren’t these the guys/gals making tens and hundreds of millions a year that plunged us into this crappy economy? I am trying to understand, how does bowing down work, we give tax breaks to billionaires, hoping and wishing they will create new jobs with the money.
Again, in reality this is not true. Some people did take advantage of government regulations to make money, as we all do, but the fact is our governments (not just the US, although they probably had a larger part in it) created this mess. The whole morgtage bust was totally their fault and they know it. Again do the research, the information is there.

Quote:
we all know Billionaires are too smart to just create jobs for no reason…like everyone else, they will only create jobs when they have someone willing to buy whatever these new employees produce. We have come to accept that we shouldn’t raise taxes on the rich, since that will drag down the economy, but I propose that we should tax the rich and use that tax money to give tax breaks to the middle class. That will without any doubt stimulate spending and spending will stimulate the economy and as we know, a stimulated economy will create job growth.

We have been sold a theory, that if we raise the taxes on the rich, then the rich won’t create jobs. I am trying to understand this concept, and if I am missing something, then please explain it to me using dollars and cents. As an example, let’s say Billionaire Mr. Rich’s tax rate increases from 15% to 30%. Also assume that this rich person plans on hiring a new employee for $60,000, and that the employee will increase their revenues by $100,000, yielding a $40,000 net profit. At their current rate of 15%, their after tax profit = $34,000, but if they are taxed at 30%, their after tax profit = $28,000. Anybody who would give up $28,000 because their tax went up by $6,000 won’t be a Billionaire very long.
Again, you need to look at the numbers. The problem is not with taxes at all. The problem is Government spending and regualtion. Billionares are too smart to create new jobs when it will cost them more than they could possibly make. The current economy, taxes and very expensive regulations make it almost impossible to make money. They won't create more jobs until that changes, and untill the government starts helping economic growth rather than hurting it. The theory about raising taxes is correct, check your history. Increased taxes decreases the economy, always has, what has changed to change that?

The one thing that has changes is the government has consistantly increased spending well past the sustainable level. Regardless of the tax rate tax revenue stays at about 19% of GDP. Logically the government should do whatever they can to improve the economy even if that means reducing taxes on the people who are in a position to spend more. THe middle class isn't spending more when they get more money, they are too worried about losing their jobs! They are paying off their debt and saving. Also a historical fact in a bad economy. Besides, you could tax the "Rich" at 100% and still not balance the budget the first year, and because of the negative effect that would have on the economy, the next year's spending on social programs would skyrocket and revenue will plumet.

Educate yourself and you would see the Fair Tax is the most logical solution. Basically no taxes except a national sales tax with credits to everyone for the cost of basic necessaties. Also as everyone who is not living with their parents knows, you have to control spending, yet our own government can't grasp this basic concept. It's very simple, but is constantly rejected bacause it limits their power. We all are being screwed by political power struggles in our own government.

Ploiticians have to start looking out for what is best for the country and not themselves, unfortunately that is counter to the definition of the word politician, as well as their actions.


3324.9.2011 9:14

Although we are a third world / developing country I think we have a better and smarter tax structure.

The founder of the largest Indian private sector corporation, Reliance Industries, had worked out some method of reinvesting whereby they never paid taxes. At that point of time there was ZERO tax on the dividends paid out. It was taxed at the individual recipient level.

The government quickly plugged that loophole with an amendment requiring minimum tax % for the corporates. Now we have a straight 40% tax on corporate net taxable income. There is further 10% tax of dividends paid out. There is no further tax on these amounts.

At personal level there is zero income tax below a fairly decent subsistence level income for a family of 4 which goes up to 33⅓ % at the maximum. With this new level the governments' estimates have proven wrong for the past 5 years. Their collection has exceeded their yearly estimate in less than 9 months. every year!

BTW remuneration paid out to every employee - in excess of a certain amount - regardless of form (salary, bonus, holidays, medical benefits or what have you - HAS to be precisely detailed in annual general reports, which can be questioned by any shareholder.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive