Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (644100)	1/30/2012 10:13:17 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580812

We aren't giving them subsidies, or net tax breaks. They pay more in extra taxes, then they have in tax breaks, even if you count all the claimed tax breaks, and most of those are not tax breaks, just normal business taxation principles that apply to all businesses. To put it simply if they made the same revenue and profit, in some other industry, the tax burden would be less. They are tax disadvantaged, not tax advantaged. Large profits are irrelevant to that. If the government actually was giving them a net tax break, it would still be just as bad if they were making small profits, breaking even, or making a loss. "Large profits" just doesn't matter in that context. It also is irrelevant to the point where they get a net negative subsidy, both in that the flow of money is from them to the government, and that their special extra taxes are larger than any special tax breaks they get. Also they were not making obscene profits. There is nothing obscene about profits. ---------------- “It is a socialist idea that making profits is a vice; I consider the real vice is making losses.” - Winston Churchill