TEA party compared to 47% pay no fed income taxes
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's investment income. I thought you weren't going to tax income.
It is not income, it is a sale. Payment from employment is considered income. Sales are subject to sales/vat.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I understand completely, but like I keep saying, you're shifting the tax burden onto the lower class... The ones who can LEAST afford it.
I'm simply suggesting a proper and fair tax system, as I have already stated several times, the poor are already paying for the taxes imposed on the more productive and skilled workers.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I suspect the poor would see a GREATER tax burden
Your argument is based on suspicion and therefor not binding in this discussion.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I know you're firmly opposed to #2, as you hate anything having to do with government, but the simple reality is that what's profitable isn't always what's best for the nation, so the invisible hand can't be depended on to make all of the decisions.
You are talking non-sense. Profitable activities should be encouraged, unless of course we are talking about an activity that violates the constitution, such as bailouts, subsidies, and regulations that encourage excessive risk taking or regulations that promote monopolies like the financial, health, and agricultural legislation. Nobody knows whats best for everyone else, that is especially true for those in a position of power. The only person who knows whats best for me and my business, is me or perhaps any consultation that I hire for an opinion, but in the end, I make all the decisions on how I want to run my life/business. The government should stay out of the way and do the tasks delegated to it by the constitution with the powers enumerated by the constitution, in a manner consistent with the consent of the governed.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It is not income, it is a sale. Payment from employment is considered income. Sales are subject to sales/vat.
Except now you're not taking the SALE of the stock. You're taxing the profit made. That falls under the realm of Capital Gains. So you should revise your proposed policy to state that you support only Sales Tax and Capital Gains Tax. They're two different things.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm simply suggesting a proper and fair tax system, as I have already stated several times, the poor are already paying for the taxes imposed on the more productive and skilled workers.
Sure, some of the taxes translate to retail price increases... But if the rich are no longer paying taxes (Sales tax is minimal compared to their income tax), then that missing tax revenue is going to come from everyone else. Right now, the top 10% pays most of the total tax revenue... With your idea, the burden on the other 90% of us will almost double.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Your argument is based on suspicion and therefor not binding in this discussion.
So is yours. Unless you're going to provide actual numbers, then suspicion is all we have to work with.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are talking non-sense. Profitable activities should be encouraged, unless of course we are talking about an activity that violates the constitution, such as bailouts, subsidies, and regulations that encourage excessive risk taking or regulations that promote monopolies like the financial, health, and agricultural legislation.
As I said, the invisible hand doesn't always know what's best for us all. Pollution is profitable. Worker exploitation is profitable. Slave labor is profitable (But I repeat myself...). Price fixing and collusion are profitable. Should those activities be encouraged?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Nobody knows whats best for everyone else, that is especially true for those in a position of power. The only person who knows whats best for me and my business, is me or perhaps any consultation that I hire for an opinion, but in the end, I make all the decisions on how I want to run my life/business.
What's best for you and your business may very well be harmful for someone else. If you ran a manufacturing plant,
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
At least now, we can theoretically vote in people with brains (Blame "the people" for our inability to do that).
This is pretty much at the crux of another issue, near and dear to my heart. ;P Campaign finance reform. If you want the average Joe to be able to run, then all elections need to be publicly financed and corporations have to be forced to disclose any funds they give to candidates through whatever means. "the people" as you put it have elected the people "we" have deemed smart enough already given our current system. The difference being now we have large corporations and people of vast wealth who influence elections and perceptions for their own benefit and not what's good for the country.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
I think St. Robin (Williams) had it right... We should make the candidates wear jackets with the logos of all their major supporters, like NASCAR sponsors :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Politics as usual. The Democrats are in charge right now, so it's up to them to actually do some work. The Republicans don't want anything to get done. Their goal is to prevent the Democrats from accomplishing anything, and simultaneously BLAME the Democrats for failing to accomplish anything. That'll make them look better, so when elections roll around again, they can say "Vote for us! We'll actually get things done!"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
The Democrats are in charge right now, so it's up to them to actually do some work. The Republicans don't want anything to get done. Their goal is to prevent the Democrats from accomplishing anything,
All they do is spend trillions at a time, give money to wall street, create monopolistic and clearly illegal legislation (healthcare, and financial bill). I just don't understand your psychology. Is it painful for you to face the truth and want to do something about it? You just want to live in your cube and live in a fantasy world?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You are thinking of the people who are exempt from taxation, like Goldman Saches cronies and military contractors who are the government. The select few corporations get special deals because they are the big monopolies that are needed to promote the agenda of command & control over society. Like communism, but more closely related to fascism or corporatism. When big talking heads talk about taxing the rich, they mean the middle class. Anyone who owns a restaurant or gas station, small businesses are actually the backbone of the economy. Only the big mega corporations are allowed to survive and profit. The little guys get shut down, and everyone survives off of the little bit of chicken feed (welfare), and the rest is history. Remember, 1/4th of the entire population of America is now on food-stamps and is rapidly increasing like never before.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And how would you reform that? If I buy a few thousand shares of stock, why should I pay sales tax?
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The rich people still aren't paying.
You don't get it. Nobody should have to pay taxes on money not spent.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right, so the poor won't see a huge difference, but the rich will be paying substantially less.
This is not a bad thing. The more money so called rich people have, the better off the economy. "Rich" people tend to invest their money, which is excellent for the economy, good for the "poor" because jobs are created from investments.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some of those actually make sense. Extra taxes on cars are, I presume, to help offset the cost of federal regulations and safety standards. Extra taxes on cigarettes are SUPPOSED to help pay for lung cancer research and treatment (As in, if you want to damage yourself, you help pay for the extra health care you'll need). Sure, they're abused to some degree by politicians, but just like the idea of switching to just sales tax, they're better in theory than in practice.
I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "Keep it simple stupid".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Henize, are you basing your knowledge of VAT on something known, such as VAT as applied in EU Countries (Britain for example), or on some guestimates forwarded by Uncle Alex? If the former, you are wrong, if the latter, then, do have happy "fantasy" days. Want references, here you go - a couple - let me know if you want more, you could be kept very busy for the next few years trying to understand this thing called VAT ... http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/index.htm?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageVAT_Home[^] http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_PublicNoticesAndInfoSheets&propertyType=document&columns=1&id=HMCE_CL_000111#P18_1505[^]
-
Henize, are you basing your knowledge of VAT on something known, such as VAT as applied in EU Countries (Britain for example), or on some guestimates forwarded by Uncle Alex? If the former, you are wrong, if the latter, then, do have happy "fantasy" days. Want references, here you go - a couple - let me know if you want more, you could be kept very busy for the next few years trying to understand this thing called VAT ... http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/index.htm?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageVAT_Home[^] http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_PublicNoticesAndInfoSheets&propertyType=document&columns=1&id=HMCE_CL_000111#P18_1505[^]
-
You are thinking of the people who are exempt from taxation, like Goldman Saches cronies and military contractors who are the government. The select few corporations get special deals because they are the big monopolies that are needed to promote the agenda of command & control over society. Like communism, but more closely related to fascism or corporatism. When big talking heads talk about taxing the rich, they mean the middle class. Anyone who owns a restaurant or gas station, small businesses are actually the backbone of the economy. Only the big mega corporations are allowed to survive and profit. The little guys get shut down, and everyone survives off of the little bit of chicken feed (welfare), and the rest is history. Remember, 1/4th of the entire population of America is now on food-stamps and is rapidly increasing like never before.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are thinking of the people who are exempt from taxation,
No, I'm talking about very rich people, not corporations. Irrespective of citizens united, corporations are not people.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
When big talking heads talk about taxing the rich,
No, I don't think so, but what does that have to do with anything? The top 10% of households that control 70% of the wealth in this country are not middle class and they are not corporations(of course these are the people that own corporations). They are actual extremely rich people. What talking heads talk about is irrelevant.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Remember, 1/4th of the entire population of America is now on food-stamps and is rapidly increasing like never before.
And you really think that creating a society where all the wealth is concentrated in the top 10 percent of the population is going to make it better for the rest of us? No we won't even have chicken feed or catfood to survive on.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The Democrats are in charge right now, so it's up to them to actually do some work. The Republicans don't want anything to get done. Their goal is to prevent the Democrats from accomplishing anything,
All they do is spend trillions at a time, give money to wall street, create monopolistic and clearly illegal legislation (healthcare, and financial bill). I just don't understand your psychology. Is it painful for you to face the truth and want to do something about it? You just want to live in your cube and live in a fantasy world?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
All they do is spend trillions at a time
Changing things costs money.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
give money to wall street
To stop the economy from collapsing.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
create monopolistic and clearly illegal legislation (healthcare, and financial bill)
If they're so "clearly illegal," then why hasn't the non-partisan Supreme Court done anything about them? Just because you say it's illegal doesn't make it so.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I just don't understand your psychology. Is it painful for you to face the truth and want to do something about it? You just want to live in your cube and live in a fantasy world?
You'd rather I lived in YOUR fantasy world? You just assume that whatever you think is "the truth?" Nice deal ya got going there... You decide what's true, and everyone else is deluding themselves, huh?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You said yourself that Wikipedia is not a recognized source of authority. What Wikipedia have stated is very minute of what VAT actually is. Now, the references I gave was from the UK Government's Customs and Revenue whose job it is to apply the law on VAT, and other UK taxation. So what I gave you is a small introduction to the subject. As suggested, there is sufficient "real" information to keep you busy (as in learning and comprehending) for some years.
-
Henize, are you basing your knowledge of VAT on something known, such as VAT as applied in EU Countries (Britain for example), or on some guestimates forwarded by Uncle Alex? If the former, you are wrong, if the latter, then, do have happy "fantasy" days. Want references, here you go - a couple - let me know if you want more, you could be kept very busy for the next few years trying to understand this thing called VAT ... http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/index.htm?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageVAT_Home[^] http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_PublicNoticesAndInfoSheets&propertyType=document&columns=1&id=HMCE_CL_000111#P18_1505[^]
I am an accountant in the UK, I understand VAT. This is because I spent years learning the Tax Code and how it applies to businesses, and how it changes from week to week as new laws and rates are applied, or how international standards change or any of 100 other reasons cause the Tax Code to differ all the time. And as a professional, I can say that I am often confused by these things and need to sit down and think, or get a letter from the Tax Office so that I have direction as to how to present things to stay legal. There is no way a pizza boy could ever understand this.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
You said yourself that Wikipedia is not a recognized source of authority. What Wikipedia have stated is very minute of what VAT actually is. Now, the references I gave was from the UK Government's Customs and Revenue whose job it is to apply the law on VAT, and other UK taxation. So what I gave you is a small introduction to the subject. As suggested, there is sufficient "real" information to keep you busy (as in learning and comprehending) for some years.
See Here[^] And this is just the oversite, it doesn't go into the detail, exceptions or other rates. It doesn't include the 5 different rates of VAT, it does not show the materials differential based on subcontractors trade. Etc There is so much tax law just on VAT that there is a whole profession based on it. VAT Accountancy is hard. I am a management accountant, but I know enough.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
I am an accountant in the UK, I understand VAT. This is because I spent years learning the Tax Code and how it applies to businesses, and how it changes from week to week as new laws and rates are applied, or how international standards change or any of 100 other reasons cause the Tax Code to differ all the time. And as a professional, I can say that I am often confused by these things and need to sit down and think, or get a letter from the Tax Office so that I have direction as to how to present things to stay legal. There is no way a pizza boy could ever understand this.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
Dave, you are, of course, quite right. Taxation as applied in the UK is hard to fully comprehend. All those Statutory Instruments that alter the main Acts are phenomenal and make "War and Peace" a mere bedtime story (so to speak). Over the years I have had dealings with HM Customs & Revenue over VAT etc, and they don't make it easy, but you got to have a basic knowledge, the penalties are stiff and draconian.
-
See Here[^] And this is just the oversite, it doesn't go into the detail, exceptions or other rates. It doesn't include the 5 different rates of VAT, it does not show the materials differential based on subcontractors trade. Etc There is so much tax law just on VAT that there is a whole profession based on it. VAT Accountancy is hard. I am a management accountant, but I know enough.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
Dave, you are, of course, quite right. Taxation as applied in the UK is hard to fully comprehend. All those Statutory Instruments that alter the main Acts are phenomenal and make "War and Peace" a mere bedtime story (so to speak). Over the years I have had dealings with HM Customs & Revenue over VAT etc, and they don't make it easy, but you got to have a basic knowledge, the penalties are stiff and draconian.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And how would you reform that? If I buy a few thousand shares of stock, why should I pay sales tax?
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The rich people still aren't paying.
You don't get it. Nobody should have to pay taxes on money not spent.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right, so the poor won't see a huge difference, but the rich will be paying substantially less.
This is not a bad thing. The more money so called rich people have, the better off the economy. "Rich" people tend to invest their money, which is excellent for the economy, good for the "poor" because jobs are created from investments.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some of those actually make sense. Extra taxes on cars are, I presume, to help offset the cost of federal regulations and safety standards. Extra taxes on cigarettes are SUPPOSED to help pay for lung cancer research and treatment (As in, if you want to damage yourself, you help pay for the extra health care you'll need). Sure, they're abused to some degree by politicians, but just like the idea of switching to just sales tax, they're better in theory than in practice.
I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "Keep it simple stupid".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
That is a capital gains tax, not VAT. Others have linked you to the required reading to overcome your ignorance. You do understand, I hope, that any system of taxation will be totally screwed to favour those who pay your legislators the most. Do you reckon that will be the bottom 40% or the top 1%?
Bob Emmett "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" -Charles Babbage, Passages from the Life of a Philosopher
-
You said yourself that Wikipedia is not a recognized source of authority. What Wikipedia have stated is very minute of what VAT actually is. Now, the references I gave was from the UK Government's Customs and Revenue whose job it is to apply the law on VAT, and other UK taxation. So what I gave you is a small introduction to the subject. As suggested, there is sufficient "real" information to keep you busy (as in learning and comprehending) for some years.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So what I gave you is a small introduction to the subject
I don't care about your tax system. It sure isn't like the simple one I proposed.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So what I gave you is a small introduction to the subject
I don't care about your tax system. It sure isn't like the simple one I proposed.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
If the United States chooses to go down the route of adopting into law the system of VAT, it will become an almost certain universal system of complex regulation. Simplicity it won't be, that you can guarantee. And VAT is not a substitution for income taxation and never has or will ever become so. And as the EU member nations use this VAT system, you can almost guarantee that if the United States adopts VAT then it will take existing systems as its benchmark. As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke then don't mend it" and that is what the United States will most likely do if they adopt a VAT system such as presently used in Europe.
-
If the United States chooses to go down the route of adopting into law the system of VAT, it will become an almost certain universal system of complex regulation. Simplicity it won't be, that you can guarantee. And VAT is not a substitution for income taxation and never has or will ever become so. And as the EU member nations use this VAT system, you can almost guarantee that if the United States adopts VAT then it will take existing systems as its benchmark. As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke then don't mend it" and that is what the United States will most likely do if they adopt a VAT system such as presently used in Europe.
Our tax code is insanely complex also, and we don't have VAT. The problem isn't necessarly the type of tax, but the endless regulations. I'm for 1 simple VAT for each level of government, and no other taxes. The tax would be part of the end price displayed on the price tag of goods and services, and the amount of tax paid would be on the receipt.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
puromtec1 wrote:
Your attempt to cast the movement as a bunch of paranoid bean counters who are bad at math is accompanied by a strong fecal aroma.
Ad Hominem attack -Fail
puromtec1 wrote:
The people do not like what is being done with tax money and are sick of the arrogance of those who make policy and believe themselves to be above it all (ex: Charles Rengal), and believe in a smaller set of responsibilities for the Federal government than is currently held. The reasons for this are covered by CSS rather well on a daily basis.
There is corruption, but not to the extent portrayed by the movement. The movement is hypocritical by the tax laws and spending levels for programs they say they want. Polling has shown this.
puromtec1 wrote:
The government has been found to do stupid things when given the chance which is enabled by our tax dollars and our tacit approval of borrowing or printing money. The power to tax is the power to destroy--in so many different ways. This makes statements of the Tea Party movement consistent with the philosophy of our founders.
This has nothing to do with the point being made and neither does your last paragraph. Complaining about being taxed too much and then wanting to not cut back on anything is a logical fallacy of completeness. You can't have it both ways. That's the point in the thread, nothing else. Talking about printing money, the fed, or anything else has nothing to do with it.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
hypocritical by the tax laws and spending levels for programs
The rough and corrupt passage of the incoherent intrusive costly health care reform bill and the (two?) non-stimulus stimulus bills pretty much put people over the top and got people traveling the country to hold signs. Enough said. What will happen as result? Think about how Chris Christie got elected. The people of liberal new jersey had enough of bad government and chose him to clean house. The state had no revenue problem, btw.
wolfbinary wrote:
movement is hypocritical by the tax laws and spending levels for programs
If given the choice between Charlie Christ and Obama, I believe the Tea Party supporters would choose Christ. That is all that matters. Pressing folks with survey questions can yield whatever results a poll-taker wants. This happens all the time. Nevertheless, it does not matter, because we will be electing a leader that follows in the footsteps in the New Jersey governor in the end. That is what a leader is for. I could probably entice with nice language a self-described conservative follower to accept a policy that goes against their core beliefs. It does not make them any less principled, just not a leader.
wolfbinary wrote:
Ad Hominem attack
This is The Back Room, right? Gotta start out with something like that. It is a requirement.
-
puromtec1 wrote:
The people do not like what is being done with tax money
Does anyone?
puromtec1 wrote:
(ex: Charles Rengal)
Finally, something we all agree on! For the record, Rangel's district starts several miles NORTH of me, so I can't be held responsible for his... well... anything.
puromtec1 wrote:
The government has been found to do stupid things when given the chance which is enabled by our tax dollars and our tacit approval of borrowing or printing money.
So do people... And corporations... And other countries... No matter where the power (and money) rests, whoever has it is going to do stupid things with it. If that group is "the people" (Which has a fecal odor of its own, since power will inevitably be concentrated somewhere), then not only do we have stupid things being done, but we have no easy way to stop it. At least now, we can theoretically vote in people with brains (Blame "the people" for our inability to do that).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
whoever has it is going to do stupid things with it.
The problem here is that the government has track record of setting up programs to increase faster than inflation even many times. When a policy-maker suggests slowing down the GROWTH of an out-of-control program, they are rail-roaded politically by a populist lying piece-of-shit who makes outlandish claims that they are going to make old people choose between dog food and medicine, for example. This use to be a sticky matter. Only until recently, with the blossoming of the internet, we can see through this smoke-screen by passing information easily about this trash coming out of washington to each other. Corporations screw people right and left, but they have been at the mercy of a generally more informed public than when it comes to US politics, IMO.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
we have no easy way to stop [corporations]
Don't like them? Don't buy from them. And, you may not share my view that making obscene profits is a sign that a company is providing a great service or product to its customers. You can always compete against them, and people can vote the winner with their dollars.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
vote in people with brains
It is common to hear this approach where we should just elect "thought kings" to run our country. The same crowd is always mis-characterizing domestic disasters as the result of a lack of government controls and the result of profiteers run amok. When in fact, it is a frank lack of trust in a free market that leads policy makers to make artificial bridges in the market which induce bad or irresponsible behavior on the part of the citizens. Be it a poor inner-city kid to impregnate an equally inept teen mother, or a mega-corporation to play games with a goverment sponsored enterprise, they all have one thing in common; the government gave them the go-ahead. Even with the BP oil spill IMO (which isn't that bad), government forced them to drill in super depths because of environmental reasons, but then capped their damages to 75 million dollars.