Fox News/News Corp Tax Breaks & OWS

Fox News/News Corp Tax Breaks & OWS

someone you know the last week we will
show you off boxes lives where they’re totally inside by wall street apparently
these guys are crack heads and they’re having sex every night to break it all the laws in their cost
without too much money with their first amendment rights et
cetera everything they had boxes throughout nine one oh one of the reasons why it turns out that fox’s parent
corporation newscorp run by rupert murdoch acquires has been lobbying in
favor of power tax havens the free trade deals that
created the tax havens or not only detective is about already says
that advice is already takes advantage of that but the free-trade deal basically
sanctions because of the united states government cannot do anything to check in soapbox is of course loves that because they have one hundred thirty-six
subsidiaries you know offshore tax havens gabe
countries that have been identified as tax havens biking cayman islands bahamas etcetera do you know you know that that they are legislators and fox’s played all we did
see great economic benefits for the country why do i deal with hamas hamas that economies so was small that
it’s less than newscorp some work so news corporal is workplaces much as with the entire panamanian in other
news fox news doesn’t care about handle
because of how it’s going to help the american economy they care about it this week at the
height of all their money offshore in places like that about that’s why they wanted to pass now you
also had to be shocked to find out that fox news and wall street journal current
owned by news corp unit all their stories they gave you would get started by wall
street word favor those free trade deals never mentioned that their parent corporation was
actually lobbying to get those laws passed and that they had a conflict of
interest weird how they never mention that at least in the stories regarding the
free-trade deal that had to be mansion and of course it was a now foxnews
newscorp overall despite either tremendous amount of
money offshore and he gave me a sense out what that
effect is on their tax rates remember we all of this ship and to make
sure that everything rocks right as they keep sending lots of water
bodies we don’t want the city to burn out would only a houses the burnett we
need a government money we need to build roads bridges that are so we all have to
check that no one during our fair share lavish american citizens through payroll
tax income taxes that are now corporations i suppose for a thirty
five percent versus two thousand three forty two
their the public records published by news corp thereupon average paid about
fifteen percent so this giant corporation worth bowl for
forty four billion dollars a lower tax rate than the average american they pay about
fifty percent that’s why they want the taxi because that’s how they greet the
loopholes so they may very well taxes and they right off of you so the milky governmental although
services and all of those benefits analysts either paid back they don’t do it and in new user propaganda justify
that’s what the whole point of fox news it’s so that they could have a
propaganda outlet that allows them his save all that money by pushing out the
message whatever oppose the corporations dole ever oppose those free trade deals daughter oppose wall street or any of
the guys who are trying to protect is basically were try to protect
ourselves that’s why murdoch spends lose has fifty million
dollars a year on the new york post placed so he’s a going why would while a stabbing businessmen
choose to lose fifty million dollars a year every year with no hope of recovery he does it because the propaganda value of the new
york post in the new york market is worth it alone so that we can save twenty percent on
taxes which is the billions of dollars that’s how it works


96 thoughts on “Fox News/News Corp Tax Breaks & OWS”

  • PatriotNotGovernment says:

    That's all great Fox News sucks but ummm MSNBC is owned by Microsoft a GIANT multinational corporation! You think they don't have conflict of interest? Same for Al Gore and current TV, Al Gore wants more green regulations no b/c he gives a shit about the environment but b/c he has ton of investments in them. He got $560 million in investment from the DoE into his projects in 2009. Cenk WAKE the FUCK UP!

  • @PatriotNotGovernment So Gore wants more green regulations, because he invested in companies promoting green initiatives? and what's wrong with going green? What Gore is doing is promoting good health and clean living, perhaps trying create jobs through those 'green' initiatives. nothing wrong about giving a shit and making a profit from it.

    Wall-Street (and News Corp) doesn't give a shit, and profits from the unfortunate…

    Also Cenk left MSNBC months ago so there is no conflict anymore

  • News Corp is TRULY a HOUSE of GOD HERSELF and Fox is HER NEWS CHANNEL! They TRULY SERVE GOD and EXECUTE HER WORD and WILL! Rupert Murdoch is Sarah Palin's DICKLESS and BALLESS BITCH and PUSSY. He is controlled by GOD's CHOSEN ONE as HER PUPPET!

  • UtubeMyAccountName says:

    So corporate media is the business of advocating corporate interests?
    You don't say!
    Did you know liberal media is in the business of advocating liberal interest?
    Did you you know christian media is in the business of advocating christian interests?
    …and so on, and so on, and so on… What's the point here?

  • @RegioLunar – Yes, but if corporations should be considered "persons", like the government has insisted since the late 1800s/early 1900s, they should be able to be executed since the US is a country with the death penalty. I guess the equivalent of "executing" a corporation would be the government forcibly disbanding it and liquidating all assets.

  • Funny that Cenk keeps saying that corporations are not people, so if FNC evades taxes how is this non-person going to be sent to prison?

    talk about corporations hiding money off shore, GE the biggest villain sheltering billions, its CEO jeff Immelt is OBOWMA'S chief advisor and supporter. Cenk reaks of filthy bias! Get your fucking act together you smear merchant

  • Income taxes and corporate taxes and payroll taxes must be 0.

    Corporations don't pay taxes, individuals pay taxes. A corporation is owned by individuals, the corporate tax is their individual tax.

    When a corporation pays say 35%, that means the shareholders are deprived of that money. Then shareholders pay 15% on say dividends (if they choose to pay themselves in dividends), the effective tax rate is then 44.5%.

    If effective tax on corporation is 15%, add 15% dividend tax, you get 27.8% tax.

  • When corporation pays 15% corporate tax and dividends are taxed at 15% (for those, who pay themselves in dividends), the EFFECTIVE tax rate becomes 27.8%

    That's VERY HIGH.

    There should be no income tax, payroll tax, corporate tax, but listen to this Cenk's nonsense, he wants people to pay MORE than 1/3 of their money in taxes. This is ridiculous.

    The only fair AND economically sound way to tax to maintain gov't is by taxing consumption, because gov't IS consumption, it should be proportionate

  • Cenk,

    Don't follow Fox News Path. Do your research.

    Panama's Economy Facts:
    GDP $40.32 billion (2009 est.)
    GDP growth 3.2% (2009)
    Inflation (CPI) 2.3% (2009 est.)

  • @bigvirgotube Gov't is consumption. Every single thing gov't does is consumption, it's not production. Even building a highway is consumption when it's done by gov't, because it's not driven by market need. A war is consumption – it may or may not be legitimate and needed, but it's consumption. Any gov't service is consumption.

    As a consumption item, gov't spending should be proportionate to what people are consuming, not what they are producing.

  • @bigvirgotube Allowing gov't to run on production taxes (income/corporate/payroll) means allowing gov't to live beyond the means of economy, because if economy produces X but consumes Y, it means it is trying to save and invest the difference X-Y, which is what market dictates economy needs then. But if gov't takes a chunk of X and not of Y, then it's cutting into the savings/investment. If gov't takes a chunk of Y, then people can moderate how much is spent on gov't by spending more/less.

  • @dsquaredmlg First off. I am not trying to be "clever" as you concluded. I get the whole point. I am just telling Cenk not to fall for the same tactics Fox News Uses… As a word of advise. He criticizes Fox News a lot (And trust me I am not defending them), to do the same little due diligence. And how you dare you come and doubt the numbers. This is the world wide web, you either take them as I tell you or do the research to prove me wrong.

  • @xxxxPaladinxxxx

    "cenk's supposed bias"??? you're a fuckin idiot, Cenk is a progressive, will vote Dem ALL THE FUCKIN TIME!!! if that's not having a bias what the hell is??

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 Corporate tax should be zero, but sales tax is insane, you are stifling purchasing, which our economy relies on. It also hits the poor harder, cause they have less buying power. Income tax is the only way that makes sense. As far as having high tax rates on high earners, that is fair. If you think anyone can become rich without a society to rely on to grow their food, teach them, cloth them and so on, they can keep every dime, otherwise they take from society, much more than others.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 The problem I see is people seem to be less concerned on how to run a society that benefits everyone and more concerned with how to make money. We need to subsidize food and education. Stop the welfare, stop the medicare and all the hand outs that get people nowhere and level the playing field. Proper nutrition is a must for proper brain development. Proper education is fair for all so we have an educated and intelligent populace.

  • @scienceismyjesus Consumption should be taxed, gov't is a consumption item and thus gov't spending should be proportionate to consumption, not to production.

    Don't forget this: while you can't escape income tax as long as you don't buy something and instead reinvest your money and grow the econoy, you can escape consumption tax by not buying.

    Poor are better off with strong economy and falling prices, which is only possible in a competitive growing economy, similar to USA 19 century.

  • @scienceismyjesus The richer people, who do investment and own businesses give to society much more than any theoretical 'fair share' before they pay 1 single cent of income taxes, because they provide goods and services and jobs, and those jobs go abroad only when the gov't causes the domestic labor to be too expensive, otherwise people prefer to hire domestic, it's easier.

  • @scienceismyjesus Society is ran not by subsidies (BTW, who are you going to tax, to subsidize your food and education, when all jobs leave because of the high costs that are going to cause with such policies?)

    Society is ran by businesses, who create the productive class of people, who produce and thus create the wealth that is then dissipated by the government on various programs. Society creates businesses and industries first, gov't is just a parasite on top.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 The 19th century wasn't a great time for America. While it was a great time for companies to rape and pillage, it was not a wonderful time.

    Companies do not provide jobs, this is a misnomer. Jobs are the result of a need, not some magic factory they use to churn jobs, this is a word game people in power like to use to allow them to run without contributing to society. They need the workers to make wealth for themselves, period.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 I explained the reasoning behind those subsidies. The poor stay dumb cause they can't properly afford food and education, this is a cycle and unfair. You can say they can get better, but this is lip service to ignore the reality that is, poor diet and education begets more poor. The brain cannot properly develop on a poor diet and a lack of decent education. Poor schools have horrible facilities, so even if they eat properly, they can't learn properly.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 We already pay for welfare and medicare and medicaid and school, so I don't see how that will destroy our economy all of a sudden, we just remove that and stick with education and food. I stated clearly that we cut corporate tax entirely, so they have no reason to leave. Sales tax is gone, the only thing is income tax which taxes an individual, not a corporation. Explain the need to move at this point. No one gets to take from society and not give back.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 You may think that running a business is some amazing feat, but it isn't. I know many rich people, they all scammed someone to get where they are. One cooked the books of a business and sold it. Another one skimmed investment interest off the top so he could invest that after the fact. Look back at most any mega rich person and you will see an act of theft from society. It is insane to think any man's contribution is worth billions of dollars.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 On top of that, people like Nikola Tesla die in poverty. Thanks to the horrible thief that was Edison. The man spent his life stealing from others and got rich doing it. He is a major example of why unregulated capitalism is both unfair and bad for society. Level the playing field with proper education and diet, then you will see more successful people and we will actually catch up to the rest of the world in engineering, math, science and technology.

  • @scienceismyjesus 19 century elevated a subsistence farmer to a city dweller. Rape and pillage? You mean come up with great new products and get rich because everybody wants those products and competition pushes the prices down.

    Jobs are created by private individuals, who are interested in making money. I hire people on regular basis because I want to make money, there is no magic factory here, just an attempt to make money and for that people must be hired to do certain work.

  • @scienceismyjesus As the businessmen get eventually rich enough to never have to work again, they normally do not stop, which means they are the BENEFACTORS of the society, because now they are definitely NOT working for themselves.

    When Steve Jobs died, he only quit his job 6 weeks before that moment. He spent all of his life working, yet he absolutely didn't need to do that after 1985 for sure. He could have just chilled and relaxed somewhere, instead he increased wealth of society. Wake up

  • @scienceismyjesus Yes, rich people are doing an amazing feat, much more than any salaries worker. A businessman who is running his business has to come up with a product, has to come up with money, has to manage land/capital/labor to achieve some form of success by building something that market wants and then by successfully turning up revenue and profits. This is a constant job. While salaried worker goes home after 8-9 hours, the owner works all the time, no vacations, no weekends.

  • @scienceismyjesus I'll give you hundreds of names of individuals who have produced much more for society (definitely in millions and some in billions) than any salaried worker, they are taking upon themselves much more work than anybody else, and when they start they have no idea if they will make it or not. If they fail, nobody will be standing there to help, but if they succeed, the gov' will be standing there with a gun and a hand sticking out, saying how they are not doing their 'fair share'

  • @scienceismyjesus The poor stay poor because there is no overall wealth. As I said 19 century CREATED a city dweller out of a subsistence farmer/hunter/gatherer.

    19 century industrialization and free market capitalism created so much wealth, that has never been seen before, and the workers became specialized, it became necessary for people to get more education for the more complex jobs, THAT is what drives more education, not subsidies.

    Food became CHEAP and PLENTIFUL over 19 century

  • @scienceismyjesus 18 century subsistence farmer was working most of his life just to feed himself.
    19 century capitalism created the tools, which increased the efficiencies enough so that eventually only 5% of population was working on the farms, feeding 100% of population, and you are talking about the horrid times?

    Do you know what the population growth was prior to 19 century in terms of year to year increase and what it became in 19 century and 19 century decreased child mortality by 75%?

  • @scienceismyjesus

    It is impossible to subsidize the population with food, who is going to do that? Who is going to grow all that food just to subsidize the entire population?

    WHY would people want that?

    I am in Switzerland today, 2 weeks ago I was in Singapore. There are no food stamps in Switzerland or Singapore, they just don't exist. And the unemployment is about 4%. REAL unemployment. And these currencies are STRONGEST in the world and the regulations are LEAST

  • @scienceismyjesus What are you talking about, Tesla and Edison? Both did all sorts of innovations and inventions, Edison was a much better businessman, Tesla was more of a visionary, but he was a awful businessman and didn't hire help in that department, he blew away hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    SO WHAT that HE died in relative poverty? He used his talents to create so much in this world, he made all sorts of money and then blew it on a few useless projects. I am sure he thought he did ok.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 That is exactly what I said, people hire so they can make more money, not to make jobs. Representing it like people hire as a service to give jobs is misrepresentation and often done to push an agenda, you know they do it often.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 Steve Jobs was a narcissist at the very least, if not a full on sociopath. I wouldn't use him as an example. He didn't increase the wealth of society, his workers did, he was merely a marketer as he was a professional sleazeball. He kept pushing cause he wanted more money, that is the definition of greed, he didn't do it for society. His engineers and designers were the ones that made that company, not him. Figureheads often get undue credit.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 Explain to me how any of these things are that tough? Explain to me how that is harder than even biology or chemistry, let alone engineering or physics? Most of these things are taken from the inventors and exploited, Nikola Tesla being a fine example of the exploited and Edison a fine example of the exploiter.

    I know many people who have owned businesses, I have seen maybe 1 or 2 that work that hard, usually extremely small businesses.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 This is misrepresentation as rich people are not the ones running small businesses. You are weighing individual contribution based on an imaginary system of wealth, not on how well it benefits society. People clamor over Justin Bieber and he produces quite a bit of wealth, but do you think he contributed more to society than Bach, Mozart or Beetoven? You are trying to measure societal benefit in purely financial measurements and that isn't right.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 We subsidize food as it stands, I hate to break it to you, but food is cheap cause we subsidize farms heavily. If we didn't, we would have an unstable and impossibly expensive food supply. Food is a major player in proper brain development, you can't just work hard and get past a poorly developed brain, that is a physical problem that cannot be overcome without proper diet. Society should strive to level things in that fashion so everyone has a chance.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 You are arguing something I never brought up, industrialization is fine, the problem was clear exploitation which we regulated. Unbridled capitalism is dangerous without regulation, we have seen that in the 19th and early 20th century.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 Impossible? I guess you have never met farmers. Farms actively destroy crops or stop planting to keep prices up all the time. They plant certain subsidies as it is, corn for example is HEAVILY subsidized in this country.

    We currently feed our entire population and even give tons of food to other nations like Africa. We have plenty of food, just some can't afford proper diets as healthy food is pricey, I buy lots of it and it adds up.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 Edison didn't event all sorts of things, you are very misinformed. He hired tons of researchers and stole their ideas. He had one major idea, which was the modern light bulb and socket and the only reason he was big on it was so he could corner the market. He was a sleazebag through and through. I don't understand why people like Tesla should be punished monetarily for not desiring to do business. He invents things for the better of society.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 His projects were hardly useless, you clearly aren't very knowledgeable on the man and his inventions. You can thank him for power distribution, that alone is worth more than anything Edison cheated to get. Edison was the man that fought him to the grave against AC, which was insane. The man was a stubborn thief, he just wanted DC cause he was in control of it. He had no concern for the better of society, just himself.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 Also, it appears that Switzerland subsidizes about 70% of their agriculture and imposes severe import tariffs. Apparently they increased that subsidy even further in 2007. You seem to be misinformed about a lot of the things you are talking about. I would probably stay away from the EU for comparison to the US as they are very fond of subsidies and socialism and they tend to be better off than us in many metrics. They also subsidize college. No wonder they have low unemployment!

  • @scienceismyjesus Imagine you start a business. Are you starting it to give people jobs or to make money? Think about that for a moment.

    Why do people hire others? It's because to make money they need to build something, to provide some service and/or product. What is your position? That people should hire people NOT to make money, I don't understand it at all.

  • PatriotNotGovernment says:

    @ryanell666 ok so he left there and went to Gore. My point is Gore wants the regulations to give his green investments an advantage which is what the left is against supposedly, government helping businesses get ahead. Promoting good health and cleaning the environment are great except Gore flies in a private jet and has an entourage of 9 to 12 BMW's following his ass wherever he goes.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 Explain to me how any of this is contrary to what I said? You are making up straw men to try to prop up your silly argument. You clearly have a dog in this race, you said it yourself, you hire and run a business. You are propagating propaganda so you can benefit, nothing more.

    There was a day when people started businesses and gave back to the community, you can make money without being a piece of shit, but don't tell that to most businessmen these days.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 Side note, why are you dodging all the other things so obviously? Just accept that you are fucking people over to get ahead and admit it, no one knows who the fuck you are anyway, just say it. The problem with capitalism in its purest form is it has no reason to treat people with any sort of morality. The funny part is most of those charlatans claim to be Christians all while fucking everyone they meet, gotta love it.

  • scienceismyjesus says:

    @romanmir01 I love how people hide behind capitalism so they can compartmentalize things and ignore people behind it. I say that we are trying to run a society and you just chant the mantra. The reason people get together in groups is to survive and make societies, stop trying to hide behind an economic system, benefiting all in the society is the reason we have them.

  • @scienceismyjesus I don't see what your point is. You'd rather people did NOT hire other people in order to run business? Who is FORCING anybody?

    You'd rather have what, command economy? I was born in USSR, I saw command economy fall apart over my life time, it can't work anywhere.

    People don't start businesses in order to give to anybody, they start businesses to make money. IN PROCESS they create value – products and services that BENEFIT everybody. It's not about giving, it's about value.

  • @scienceismyjesus Fucking people over? Where does that come from? Nobody is forced to do anything. Nobody is forced to take any jobs.

    In fact if a person has a job and doesn't find a new one, he should be THANKFUL that he has this excellent employer who values his work so much, that this person can't find a better deal at a different place.

    I used to work on salary then as a contractor and then created MY OWN PRODUCTS and that's why I need people and everybody benefits, except your head.

  • @scienceismyjesus I love how people think they have a right to force others to subsidize them. It's a wonderful place in their heads, where they have all the entitlements and everybody else has all the obligations.

    Carry on.

  • @romanmir01 the easiest way to spot a moron is if they start saying "straw man".

    you said "People don't start businesses in order to give to anybody, they start businesses to make money. "

    Just because a fact got in the way of your stupidity, doesnt make said fact a straw man argument. Like 99% of the people that use the term "straw man", you are WRONG. Dont think that by somehow invoking the term "straw man" you cannot get out of the quite obvious scenario of being ENTIRELY WRONG.

  • @LiekABaus you are the idiot.

    "according to you non profit businesses dont exist" – your stupid sentence, not mine, with the grammar errors and all.

  • @romanmir01 how am i an idiot? you said business is only created for the purpose of personal gain. Non profit businesses being a direct and obvious contradiction to your statement.

    and if the diversionary tactic of an incorrectly used straw man wasnt bad enough, now you are using a grammatical argument as a diversion?

    At this point you just look desperate, pack it in man.

  • @LiekABaus non-profit is not a business, not profit organizations don't generate profit by definition, even though they are normally very profitable for certain people.

    A business is there to generate profit. Your contention is that there are no non-profit businesses, but in reality there are non-profit organizations, not non-profit businesses.

    Thus you are an idiot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *