And because of losses in the US, they paid no taxes for 2009.

"GE had plenty of earnings last year — just not in the United States. For tax purposes, the company’s U.S. operations lost 8 million, while its international businesses netted a .8 billion profit.

That left GE (GE, Fortune 500) with no U.S. profit left for Uncle Sam to tax. Corporations typically face a 35% federal income tax on their earnings. Thanks to its deductions and adjustments, GE reported an actual U.S. federal income tax rate of negative 10.5%. It got to add a "tax benefit" of .1 billion back into its reported earnings."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=T2

Regarding the GE Bailout: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062802955.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009062803183

Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he repeatedly ripped Hillary Clinton’s plan for proposing one. "To force people to buy coverage," he insisted, "you’ve got to have a very harsh penalty." What will this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to garnish their wages?" he asked Hillary in one debate.

Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for "making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and making employers share in the cost."

But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do to those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health care approach: It is called TonySopranoCare.

Dear Leader Obama believes he’s better than the Dear Leader of North Korea it seems. Will America soon regress in the image of NK? Past time to stop this IMO.

Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast bulk–if not all–of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn’t think it’s enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."

Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the .6 trillion or so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama’s allegations, McCain’s plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator’s plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.

In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in history.

Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector.

Ignoring the reality that Medicare–the government-funded program for the elderly–has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to model a government insurance plan–the so-called "public option"–after Medicare in order to control the country’s rising health care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs and overhead than private plans–to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal coverage.

But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised Medicare’s lax attitude on this front. "The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach," it noted on page 93.

In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin–not improve–even the functioning aspects of private plans.

Lie Four: A public plan won’t be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.

Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with a public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more options–not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer monopoly. As I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking given that government programs such as Medicare have a history of controlling costs by underpaying providers, who make up the losses by charging private plans more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare will greatly increase this forced subsidy, eventually driving private plans out of business, even if that weren’t Obama’s intention.

But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided to run for office–and even during the initial days of his campaign–Obama repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer system. What’s mo

I attend an American University in Beirut Lebanon. Yesterday, in my business class this "professor" told the class that in the U.S. "the Jews are allowed to claim anything they want to on their taxes, to make any sort of deduction they wish to make." His point being that when he tried, (a Muslim) he was turned down. So my question is …do you believe this and other such myths that the "Jewish" run the United States. And if you do, what is your basis, any solid proof? Why do you feel that way? (don’t say because the Americans hate the Muslims either, give some good answers)
hi_girlwow: Did I say I was Muslim? No. I do not belive I said that. I never said that I was from this part of the world either. I never said I agree with these ideas…I am American in fact…I have lived in the Middle East for 6 years. Did you read my question?
And what is with the blonde statement?
hi_girlwow: acctually your statement raises a good point. How people "assume" things" You "assumed" with no evidence except that I said I was Lebanon that I am Muslim and hate Jews. Kind of the same way they assume that everyone from the States feels the same way towards Muslims?

Strangely enough…. as poorly thought out and implemented as this program is it actually is a very good concept for healthcare "reform".

This program sets aside a pool of money. American citizens can choose to use this money or not. They can use this money to buy a car of their choice, as long as it meets certain standards.

There is very little government interference in the choice of the consumer or the choice of the automobile dealer. The Consumer can buy the car they want…the dealer is free to advertise it’s merchandise and to offer additional incentives.

Apply this concept to healthcare. The government can offer tax credits to people to pay for insurance. You can get the insurance that you want from the provider you want. The government will then offer up to "X" amount annually in tax credits to pay for it. This will modify your deductions on your W4 so you keep the money in each paycheck. It never goes to the government and forces you to apply for a refund.

To be eligible you need to be enrolled all year…any partial year enrollments are credited on a pro rated basis.

American citizens can choose their providers….companies are free to compete for new business and will likely see a rise in enrollments (driving down prices) as a result.

Of course we will still need to take additional steps to reduce the actual COST of healthcare (tort reform, reduced regulatory costs) but isn’t this is a great start?
Regrugg -
Agreed.

I was using the model as an example. In the healthcare implementation people would keep their OWN money to pay for their insurance.

The principle is that the government allocate the money to be spent in the free market (as ironic as it is to allocate a person their own money)
ej -

It really didn’t fail. It was just overwhelmed and may run out of money. This was a failure of planning and implementation (an Obama Administration trademark)

The healthacre wouldn’t run out of money because it just allows people to keep their own money to be spent on their own needs.

It’s simple in concept

Strangely enough…. as poorly thought out and implemented as the Cash for Clunkers program is it actually is a very good concept for healthcare "reform".

This program sets aside a pool of money. American citizens can choose to use this money or not. They can use this money to buy a car of their choice, as long as it meets certain standards.

There is very little government interference in the choice of the consumer or the choice of the automobile dealer. The consumer can buy the car they want…the dealer is free to advertise its merchandise and to offer additional incentives.

Apply this concept to healthcare, but rather than create a pool of money from other people’s taxes the government can offer tax credits to individuals to pay for insurance. You can get the insurance that you want from the provider you want. The government will then offer up to "X" amount annually in tax credits to pay for it. This will modify your deductions on your W4 so you keep the money in each paycheck. It never goes to the government and thereby you do not need to apply for a refund to benefit from it.

To be eligible you need to be enrolled all year…any partial year enrollments are credited on a pro rated basis.

American citizens can choose their providers….companies are free to compete for new business and will likely see a rise in enrollments (driving down prices) as a result.

Of course we will still need to take additional steps to reduce the actual COST of healthcare (tort reform, reduced regulatory costs) but isn’t this is a great start?
zaza –

I voted for McCain albeit reluctantly. I was more inclined towards Mitt Romney the former Governor of my State.

I want to claim 7 allowances, my payroll manager said that was an awful lot. She would not offer any "adivse" or help to determine the number. So am I crazy? Perhaps someone out here can help me out…

I am filing jointly.
I make 000 with 00 annual bonus
My wife makes 000 with no regular bonus
No significant dividends, interest, etc.

Itemized Deductions:
000 Total Mortgage Interest for the year
00 Property Tax
0 Ad Volerum Tax (My State’s "Birthday" Tax)
00 State Tax
0 Charity
0 Car Loan Interest (does this even qualify?)
00 Business Mileage (this was reimbursed, do I still use it?)
00 Health Insurance (this may be pre-taxed?)
50 My 401K contribution (this may be pre-taxed?)
50 My Wife’s 401K contribution (again might be pre-taxed?)
No Children

I am guessing whatever the magic number is that I would do that only one W4, and would claim 0 on the other form…
In response to the third reply:

I was under the impression that deductions were most definitely revelant to Allowances you would claim. Is this not true? Isn’t the point to claim enough allowances so that you are very close to what you actually owe at the end of the year after deductions and credits.

Also, I was about 99% sure the Car Loan, Mileage, 401K, and Health Insurance did not qualify. I just wanted to check.

DES MOINES, Iowa — A state labor agency has fined a Postville kosher slaughterhouse nearly million for alleged wage violations, the largest such fine against a company in state history.
Since advocates and La Raza claim the illegals do not know it is wrong to buy or use stolen documents ?
Labor Commissioner Dave Neil assessed the civil penalties against Agriprocessors for what he called repeated violations of Iowa’s wage laws from January 2006 to June 2008.

"Once again, Agriprocessors has demonstrated a complete disregard for Iowa law," Neil said in a written statement. "This continued course of violations is a black mark on Iowa’s business community."

Iowa Workforce Development, the state’s labor agency, spent months before and after a massive May 12 immigration raid examining internal company documents, said agency spokeswoman Kerry Koonce. Documents included time sheets, payroll and wage stubs, she said.

The penalties include 9,700 for the alleged illegal deduction of "sales tax/miscellaneous" costs nearly 3,400 times; .6 million for illegally deducting money from 2,001 employees for protective clothing more than 96,000 times; and failing to pay 42 employees their last paychecks on May 16 and May 23, following the immigration raid.

The civil penalties totaled .99 million.

An Agriprocessors spokesman didn’t immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. The company has 30 days to contest the proposed fines.

The fines are the latest trouble for Agriprocessors since the May raid in which 389 people were arrested.

In August, Iowa Workforce Development also fined Agriprocessors 1,000 for alleged safety violations. At the time, that was the second-largest of the year — behind another Agriprocessors citation in March for 2,000.

"It seems to be a trend with Agriprocessors," Koonce said.

In September, the owner and managers of the plant were charged with 9,311 misdemeanors alleging they illegally hired minors and let children younger than 16 handle dangerous equipment. The complaint filed by the Iowa attorney general’s office said the violations involved 32 illegal-immigrant children younger than 18, including seven who were not yet 16.

http://news.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=28&a=368658

How is this "pushing back the undue influence of special interests" when this bill had RECORD LOBBYING by multiple special interests?

"Tonight," President Obama intoned near midnight Sunday, after the House had passed two health care bills, "we pushed back on the undue influence of special interests. … We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people."

But even before the president spoke, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America — whose .1 million lobbying effort in 2009 was the most expensive by any industry lobby in history — hailed the health package as "important and historic."

The second-biggest industry lobby in America, the American Medical Association, also cheered, as did the American Hospital Association, the No. 5 industry lobby. Throw in the goliath senior lobby AARP and Beltway powerhouse General Electric, and you realize Obama’s underdog tale is all bark and no bite.

The health care bill Obama signed into law Tuesday is a triumph for the special interests. It will benefit the biggest businesses, and by injecting more government into the economy, it will permanently stimulate K Street.

Yet all along Obama has claimed the opposite. The Democrats’ party-line Senate vote for the bill represented "standing up to the special interests," Obama said in December — just before the health care lobbyists and pharmaceutical political action committees hosted fundraisers for Martha Coakley to try to preserve the Democrats’ 60-vote supermajority.

Throughout March, as momentum built for passing the bill, and as Democrats adopted the mantra, "You’re either with the American people, or you’re with the insurance companies," health insurance stocks climbed in tandem with the bill’s odds of passing. The health sector outperformed every other sector in the S&P 500 over the last month.

And once the bill passed, health care stocks rallied. Insurance giant Aetna — whose product you are now required by law to own — hit its 52-week high the morning after. Drug maker Pfizer rose 4 percent Monday and Tuesday, increasing its market capitalization by .8 billion — almost a two-hundredfold return on the company’s .9 million lobbying effort.

In Washington, talk of who’s getting rich or taking a hit often distracts pointlessly from substantive issues. But it’s important here for two reasons.

First, there’s the unsettling but unavoidable conclusion that our president is willing to deceive us if he thinks he can get away with it. He knew the drug makers were on his side — after all, he cut a private deal with top drug lobbyist Billy Tauzin. He also knew that the media would consider any big government proposal a blow to big business.

Second, showing who benefits most makes clear that this "reform" wasn’t designed to "work for the people," as Obama claims. It works for the deep-pocketed companies who wrote it. Come January, you will no longer be able to buy over-the-counter medicines with your health savings account money — if you want the tax deduction, you’ll need to get more costly prescription drugs. That hurts customers and taxpayers while driving up health care spending — but it profits Big Pharma.

The bill is loaded with sugar plums for the drug industry:

o Taxpayers will subsidize drug makers even more. o Employers will be forced to give prescription-drug insurance to workers. o Generic versions of biologic drugs will be kept off the market for 12 years. o States will be forced to subsidize drugs through Medicaid. o Americans will still be prohibited from importing cheaper drugs from China. o Medicare will continue overpaying for drugs.

If the bill’s actual provisions paint a different picture from Obama’s rhetoric, so does the money trail.

Standing behind Obama at the bill signing Tuesday were Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the leading Senate and House recipients, respectively, of health-sector political action committee money in this election cycle. The 2008 champs of health PAC fundraising, Max Baucus and Charlie Rangel, were also on stage.

And the man with the pen in his hand had received more money from drug companies and health insurance companies than any politician in the history of the country.

We won’t know for years whether Obama was right about the effects of this law. But we already know that Obama’s story of how we got here — the people triumphing over the special interests — is a tall tale.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-gives-sugar-plums-to-the-special-interests-88958037.html#ixzz0j93bEWth
Benito – you should read this. You ignorance is showing.

CPAS, Please confirm through experience how true this is? Pros and Cons?

There is a great way to buy a house if you have less-than-perfect
credit.

It’s called equity sharing, and how it basically works is that
a strong, established buyer helps out by putting up a down payment and
qualifies for the loan as a co-buyer.

The investor (parent, friend, or business associate) who puts up the down
payment usually does not live in the house. However, they can still get some
hefty tax benefits from the equity sharing arrangement.

…the way it’s done is that the nonresident partner officially rents his or
her half of the house to the resident partner.

The rent is precisely equal to the nonresident’s half of the mortgage
payment plus taxes and insurance. That way, the nonresident can also
claim depreciation, deductions, under IRS Schedule E. "Depreciation"
is an income tax deduction availabe to landlords to compensate for
general decline and upkeep.

I just heard on one of those forum-type conversational shows (from an all-woman panel every week) One of the women use the statement that "I think the american taxpayers’ money should be used to benefit the American public".

My question is this ;

Shouldn’t the American Taxpayers’ money be used to benefit the American TAXPAYERS, and any profits from the rest of government be used to benefit "the rest of" the American public?!?.

Is it not the American Taxpayers that keep the money of the country flowing in multiple directions and keep the economy in flux and operating?, and don’t the people doing those jobs continually generate government income from penalties, fines, tariffs, production and licensing fees, gas taxes, renewals of licenses and registrations for vehicles, medical insurances, treasury bonds, etc, etc, etc ?…

Shouldn’t the Taxpayer be creating a route to better income from the money it costs to actually HAVE a job these days, and be promoting an actual worklife that CAN lead to a better worklife?.

And wouldn’t this money be put to GREAT use to provide a fair pay for same work law in all companies by job-class structure, legitimate tax deductions for people who really benefit the country with their products, or a cost-of-living increase that actually relates to the genuine cost of living yearly?.

People who drive would get related increases when gas goes up, people who ride the trains and public transportation would get a traffic decreasing benefit refund – that actually pays for more than a couple train tickets for the year, etc.

And at the other end, companies who cause actual damage to the cost-of-living, produce non-assisting items that don’t run or operate as "green" as they could would get bigger penalties until they DO operate properly for the future benefit of the employees and customers, and any business that provides services to non-employed people who are of emplyment age would be getting subsidies from sources OTHER THAN taxpayer dollars, meaning the actual Government income from all other sources.

And the people who run the government would get their salaries from those other sources as well.

Now I need to decide where in Y! Answers this would be categorized.

Good luck!.
ThAK YOU – JOHN C!, I agree very much with the teaching of job skills at middle school ages, but find that most 8th graders these days are not only unwilling to work and think they will be sports or music stars, or are under-educated by laxidazical teaching systems to properly answer even basic job training questions in some major areas.

Just seeing the mispellings and some of the questions here on Y! Answers shows a huge lack of desire to get money any legitimate way, or live "above the system" that supported their ill-planning childhoods.

At the same time, should that be MY financial problem when I earn a living, donate time and money to getting the people who I know who have lived "on the systemn" for years com-uters and training them in software for decent jobs, and helping them learn skills with ebooks and mentoring?.

Am I not already doing enough, and wouldn’t keeping more of my $ let me do more anyway?, especially in a larger free classroom environment?.
BTW – On the notes of the insability to filkl out an application, and colete an interview successfully, that word especially, isn;lt that the purpose of the high-school Civics class (called that in my days, now it’s economics and government usually), which is supposed to teach the absolute basics of not only big business, but running Your own as well?.

In that respect I think thousands of kids would benefit from a revamp of the business teaching part of the process, and relate better to managers, supervisors, and store and division managers and how they interact, as well as what each of them looks for in an employee for promotions.

Should they also use some of the Taxpayer money to create a business-minded education above the simple "Young Republicans clubs" and after-school programs for the "geek-set" and private schools?.