EAST BAY CITIZEN. EVERYWHERE SINCE 2009

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Stark Pounds Boeing Executive Over Low Tax Rate



'HOW MUCH LOWER A RATE DO YOU NEED TO SURVIVE?' STARK ASKS BOEING EXEC
Some people find Rep. Pete Stark's belittling line of questioning towards opponents in his East Bay district a bit distasteful, but when it's directed towards a multi-nationally corporation angling for even lower taxes rates, it seems to fit just right.

Stark lambasted a Boeing executive Thursday morning during a session of the House Ways and Means Committee where the aircraft producer asked for a lower tax rate, even though a report cited by Stark said the company paid a negative tax rate of 1.8 percent over the past three years on $10 billion in profits.

"I think in testimony that I heard earlier from Mr. Zrust that Boeing would like a lower tax rate," Stark said. "So, how much lower a tax rate should we give Boeing? And why?" When the executive appeared to obfuscate, Stark interrupted, "How much lower a rate do you need to survive?”

James Zrust, the vice president of tax at Boeing never answered the question, but later said the company would begin paying higher taxes once it started the process of delivering orders.

“Oh, yeah? We’re going to get more from Boeing in the next few years?" mocked Stark. "How much more do you think Boeing's going to pay us in the next few years?” Stark then turned towards Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), who also sits on the influential tax-writing committee and asked if he was aware Boeing would pay a higher rate in coming years. In a comic give-and-take, McDermott said he had not. "I didn't know either," said an incredulous Stark.

-STEVEN TAVARES

25 comments :

This is typical jackass liberal bull. It makes no sense, but then Stark never has made any sense. A complete fool and out of touch with reality.
Manuel

The above is typical jackass conservative bull. It makes no sense, but then Manuel never has made any sense. A complete fool and out of touch with reality. Anybody can call people names--try using some facts and/or arguments Manuel/Paul Vargas.

Fact: I'm a communist and a homosexual.

Manuel

Anybody else notice how tightly the Boeing executive balls up his fist when Stark asks how more does he want?

It would seem to me, Boeing's -1.8% percent tax rate cannot possibly be justified by those on the right. That is, those on the right who do not cash large dividend checks from Boeing stock.

Stark should next go after all the other money hungry greedy parasites in this country. Most of which are his voter base. Follow the money, Pete...it will hurt you.

Yeah. Said it.

25% of the fortune 500 companies pay NO income tax! Guess who gets stuck with paying more because of that. Yeah--said it.

Answer...no body that visits this site...and probably few people you've ever met. See for yourself what you pay with your contribution.

You pay more in fees to these companies then you (if you do) do in taxes. Unless you are one of the wealthiest, then I take it back and you can shut up.

Big Sot--Do you think it's right that booing pays no taxes?

I choose to not pay taxes as the state of California will not recognize homosexual prostitution as a legitimate business. if you ask me, the liberal democrats are the real faggots!!

Manuel

Big Shot Nick thinks 72% of the voters in the 13th Congressional District are "money hungry greedy parasites".

He appears particularly angered by those in the District who think the richest country in the history of the world should have a broad-based middle class and can afford to pay for a government which treats all its people with compassion and respect. Even with Steven's comment ahead of him, Nick appears to justify the unjustifiable greed of Boeing while he's at it.

OK....

Anonymous said...
Big Sot--Do you think it's right that booing pays no taxes?
June 3, 2011 7:18 PM

Answer: If they receive income for the sale of a good, yes.

Big Shot Nick thinks 72% of the voters in the 13th Congressional District are "money hungry greedy parasites".

He appears particularly angered by those in the District who think the richest country in the history of the world should have a broad-based middle class and can afford to pay for a government which treats all its people with compassion and respect. Even with Steven's comment ahead of him, Nick appears to justify the unjustifiable greed of Boeing while he's at it.

OK....
June 3, 2011 10:46 PM

Response: Sorry, my dog has a bad case of diarrhea and cleaning it up is more interesting then trying to make sense of your late night gibberish. But I will say this...I'd rather there be no political use of the word "class." And please, I doubt many in the district have a sense of what you even wrote. They just want what Mr. Stark and others THINK is theirs.

OK!

Yes, you would prefer that the public was not made aware of the fact that in recent decades there has been a massive transfer of money from the lower and middle class to the upper-upper class. It wouldn't serve the swill you peddle.

"Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap.

Mr. (Warren) Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”

Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html

Nice cut & paste job.

Class warfare, for sure...played by YOUR elected officials.

Dummies.

What? No facts again?

Who is it who wants to end the Bush tax cuts for the megarich? Obama, right?

Who's threatening to create a devastating financial crisis and violate the 14th amendment by refusing to raise the dedt ceiling unless Medicare is gutted so that we can create more tax breaks for millionaires? McConnell and Boehner, right?

Stark can do us all a favor, die. We vote for him because, why waste a vote?

Unless the Dems had the balls to run someone that really knows us.

Stark forgot about us back in the late 70s when he realized that no one would give him a challenge. We look like a bunch of damn fools sending him back.

72% of us love Stark. Move to Texas or Arizona instead of crying like a baby!

I'm all for the rich getting tax breaks so I can keep my job.

You would be too if you depended on it.

John Evans...lets have dinner, I'll even buy since your poverty stricken, you can even bring a useless parasite with you.

I insist. Steve can moderate, or keep you safe.

Oh look, my concealed hand gun permit renewed...now I don't have to fear inner cities!

That is, until Mr. Obama has his way (like some sad man did with Mr. Evans many years ago). Politically, of course.

Nick you're sick, and I don't mean that in a good way. Get help.

Nick, Nick....can't you see that providing corporate welfare and tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires hasn't worked as a policy to create American jobs? We've done these things at an increasing rate for decades now- it hasn't worked! The rich have put their escalating wealth into their investment portfolios; corporations have paid out their obscene profits to their shareholders and upper-level executives.

When President Clinton altered that trend during his term by getting Congress to slightly raise the Federal tax rates for the rich, what followed was a booming economy, a lower unemployment rate than any Republican President has overseen, and three straight years of Federal budget surpluses.

We haven't raised Federal taxes during the Obama Administration. How could the President be a "job destroyer" when he has negotiated agreements which have followed your tax policy demands (leaving the Bush tax cuts in place)?

I don't take unreasonable chances, but I don't fear inner cities either. Why do you?

So all of you leftists would prefer that Boeing be bankrupt and need taxpayer bailouts like GM and Chrysler???? The Ford Family plucked Allen Mullaly from Boeing and Ford didn't need any bailouts. So Boeing is doing something right.

Manuel

You like Mullaly, do you? Then surely you'll like this statement he made in January 2009:

"...Mulally said...it would take an “event,” such as “the bankruptcy of a major competitor,” which would also drag down some of Ford’s suppliers, to force Ford to ask for government loans.

That’s specific enough, but Mulally went on to say a number of other “events” could also change the company’s mind. “It could be the economy, it could be the industry, it could be (market) share, it could be credit,” he said."

http://www.bnet.com/blog/auto-business/ford-ceo-mulally-says-no-bailout-needed-8212-unless-it-is/365

Alan was explicit. If GM or Chrysler would have gone bankrupt, it would have ruined auto parts suppliers which the Big Three all rely on, forcing Ford to ask for its own govenment money to survive. It's likely that the industry would have been so smashed at that point that even an investment in Ford may not have been enough.

The investments we made in GM and Chrysler, investments which are well on its way to full return and then some, saved Ford as well, and saved the country billions and billions in up-front costs.

I'd prefer that Boeing pay its debts. We all have to pay taxes; they claim they shouldn't have to. The system remained rigged for Boeing in ways that excluded the automakers.

The Big Three and the UAW failed to react to systemic problems, particularly their health insurance obligations, but they would not have been on the brink in 2008 if the financial institutions hadn't actively tried to burn it all down, auto manufacturing and everything else.

The Internet and other business infrastructures, the airline and highway systems, the contracts they have been awarded, the business laws which protect Boeing, the police, fire and other safety services, and more- all these have been created and maintained by our tax payments. Boeing should also pay into the system from which they have taxen massive reward.

Post a Comment