OT- CONTEST!!! Guess public sector household earnings

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]Car, those (ridiculously long) posts are referring to University research.

None of this money goes to any corporations. Sure, some corporations benefit from the science, but – except for a handful of small programs (e.g. Solyndra) – there are NO significant direct financial payments from the government to corporations for their R&D or capital investments.

“Do some more research,” and find us some corporate financial statements of local technology companies (publicly available balance sheets & income statements) that show any substantial entries of the form “payment from government.”

Good luck.[/quote]

But, since you asked (and I believe this is NOT included in the spending numbers I posted above):

Research & Development Credit:
Frequently Asked Questions

What is California’s Research & Development (R&D) Credit?
The California R&D Credit reduces income or franchise tax. You qualify for the credit if you paid or incurred qualified
research expenses while conducting qualified research in California. You receive 15 percent of the excess of current
year research expenditures over a computed base amount (minimum of 50 percent of current year research
expenses). You claim the credit on the return for the taxable year you incurred the qualified expenses.

https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/1082.pdf
————–

Section 41 allows taxpayers a credit against tax for increasing research activities. Generally, the credit is an incremental credit equal to the sum of 20 percent of the excess (if any) of the taxpayer’s qualified research expenses (“QREs”) for the taxable year over the base amount, and 20 percent of the taxpayer’s basic research payments.

The research credit provisions originally appeared in section 44F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as added to the 1954 Code by section 221 of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Section 471(c) of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 redesignated section 44F as section 30. Section 231 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 redesignated section 30 as section 41 and substantially modified the research credit provisions. Congress revised the computation of the research credit in the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1989.

The research credit was not in effect for the period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996. The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, P.L. 104 188, reinstated the research credit for the period from July 1, 1996 through May 31, 1997 (i.e., 11 months); thereafter the research credit was extended to June 30, 1998 and June 30, 1999 1). Under the Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999, P.L. 106 170, the research credit was extended to June 30, 2004.2 The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, P.L. 108-311, further extended the research credit to December 31, 2005.

Commerce Clearing House (“CCH”), the Bureau of National Affairs (“BNA”), and the Research Institute of America (“RIA”) have published helpful materials on the research credit. These materials are available on Westlaw and/or LEXIS. 2004 Stand. Fed. Tax. Rep. (CCH); Cohen, 556 T.M., Research and Development Expenditures; 2004 U.S. Tax. Rep. (RIA).

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=156351,00.html

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Aecetia][quote=sdrealtor]Good point. Nowhere is nepotism more prevalent than in government jobs. Don’t believe it? Watch all the job changes and appointments as playoffs when a new politician takes office.[/quote]

Excellent point sdr and absolutely correct. We see it with the D.A., the Sheriff, etc. If they cannot force people that supported the other guy or gal out when they take office, then they transfer them to a dead end job where they will never get promoted. It is as full of cronyism as a D.C. lobbyist.[/quote]

Yes, there is corruption and nepotism at the political level. I’m referring to “boots on the ground” positions. These positions are open to everyone. I know a number of people who could NOT be hired because of their relationship to upper-level management (anti-nepotism rules and/or it was simply frowned upon and everyone knew the union guys wouldn’t like it — that’s one of many positives about unions: they can hold their “bosses” accountable and not worry as much about repercussions).[/quote]

This may be the way things happen in our little corner of the world but that would be the exception. I’m also guessing alot goes on behind the scenes that such a vigilent do gooder doesnt see. Anecdote time.

I have two friends from high school. Lets call them Jack and Joe who both wanted to be firemen and applied together as best friends.

Joe’s dad was a Fire Captain. Jack’s dad was a union elevator repairman. Joe was a very good athelete. Jack was a world class athelete and almost made the US Olympic team. I saw him do back flips off the top of buildings and land on the ground unhurt as well as dive off 100 ft cliffs. He could climb anything and was as strong as anyone I have ever known pound for pound. Joe wore glasses and Jack had eagle eyesite. Joe had just below average and Jack had just above average grades/test scores. Both went to average colleges and I dont think either graduated. Both were great guys and were very popular though Joe had a penchant for drinking a bit too much.

One just retired at age 49 from the fire department with a full pension and ironically just became a realtor. The other is working as an elevator repairman. Wanna guess which is which?

[CA renter]

Anecdote time:

I knew three kids whose fathers worked for some of the largest departments in the country. One of their fathers was one of the highest-ranking officers, and the fathers of the other two were management-level. All were athletic and kept their noses clean, did all the “right” things to get the jobs, but didn’t get them because of their fathers’ positions.

I know one kid whose father was the highest-ranking officer in another, smaller department, and he was also unable to get work in that department.

That’s not to say that friends/relatives can’t get hired. However, in order to get hired, they often have to perform at the very top, and it’s understood that they should have a more humble demeanor if they do get the job. Having the boss’s cocky, unqualified kid get a job over other more-qualified applicants does NOT sit well with unions types.

FWIW, athletic ability is just ONE component necessary to get the job. Work/volunteer experience, education, intelligence, psychological health, personality (you’re living with multiple people in a tight environment for long periods of time — are you easy to get along with?). You have to have a calm personality/not prone to panic or emotional decision-making; have to be trustworthy and dependable, have integrity, etc. All of these factors play a role in whether or not someone will be hired. In many cases, athletic ability is not even at the top of the list.

[sdrealtor]

Jack has it over Joe in every component you mention in a big way. Like I said, maybe its just in CA where cronyism isnt rampant but I find that hard to beleive. Perhaps you only see what you want to see. Its impossible to say the 3 you know didnt get their jobs because of their dad’s positions as you cant see the back room dealings. Additionally, having a dad in the department helps one to know exactly what “doing all the right things” means….wink wink

[Anonymous]

CAR,

“Basic research” is a very small part of the overall economy – and that’s not what we were talking about anyway.

We are talking about RISK.

So, let us return to your claim that private-sector company risk “comes from taxpayers in almost every case.”

So far you’ve provided no evidence to back it up.

But here’s how you can do it:

– Show me a single Fortune 500 corporate income statement that has more than 0.1% of revenue (or even more than 5% of their R&D budgets) coming from government grants.

– Show me a single Fortune 500 balance sheet that has more than 0.1% of shareholder equity or notes payable originating from government money

(No you can’t use GM and other “bailed out” companies for this one – they were unusual exceptions and only represent a small percentage of total market capitalization. Remember, we are looking for evidence of “in almost every case” here, right?)

– Show me examples of common FDA-approved cancer, cardiovascular, or other beneficial drugs that have more than 10% of the total development costs coming from government money.

– Show me the total cost to bring a new cellphone to market (including infrastructure/cell tower costs.) Show me where more than 1% of the cost comes from government money.

– Show me how most start-up companies that fail are bailed out by the government so that the employees can keep their jobs.

In other words, show me how the government bears all the risk, and everyone successful in the private-sector enjoys a worry-free path to riches.

(Huge bonus points if you can provide a few basic examples and coherent argument without cutting/pasting more than 500 words.)

[sdrealtor]

CAR
You just made my point better than I ever could with your anecdote when you said “All were athletic and kept their noses clean, did all the “right” things to get the jobs, but didn’t get them because of their fathers’ positions.”

That is exactly how the system operates. They got their jobs because they know exactly what all the “right” things to get the job are.

Is it a level playing field when one candidate knows the questions and more likely the answers to the test beforehand? Do we really get the best and brightest that way?

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]CAR
You just made my point better than I ever could with your anecdote when you said “All were athletic and kept their noses clean, did all the “right” things to get the jobs, but didn’t get them because of their fathers’ positions.”

That is exactly how the system operates. They got their jobs because they know exactly what all the “right” things to get the job are.

Is it a level playing field when one candidate knows the questions and more likely the answers to the test beforehand? Do we really get the best and brightest that way?[/quote]

Not at all talking about “knowing the answers to the test,” or any such thing.

I’m talking about knowing what kind of education and experience is necessary to get the job. Anyone can get this information if they ask. These kids might have had an advantage only because they probably knew earlier on what to do, but everyone has the same opportunities. This is the same advantage that any kid has if they decide to follow in their parent’s footsteps, though. It’s not exclusive to public service.

If you don’t believe me, go ahead and ask all these public servants who are so open with you about their finances. Ask them how well it would go over if the boss’s kid got hired over someone else who was better qualified.

[Author]

Posts