Author Topic: AMC  (Read 2783 times)

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: AMC
« Reply #45 on: June 14, 2013, 11:45:34 AM »
I support all three, AMC, AAC, and AAA, because I believe in each organizations missions. The reason for the difference in size is directly related to the proportion of climbers/hikers. I'm not surprised at all.

Offline markvnh

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
Re: AMC
« Reply #46 on: June 14, 2013, 12:28:46 PM »
DMan - I certainly expected the AMC to be bigger based on the larger demographic of hikers and general outdoor enthusiasts. Was just surprised how much bigger!

Offline frik

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 538
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: AMC
« Reply #47 on: June 14, 2013, 01:45:46 PM »
Mark; Revenue for the Access fund is pretty close that of the AAC.... do people actually "join" the access fund?
Anyhow for a long time, membership in the AAC was very... "selective", something i think many ex-dirt bag climbers may still have an issue with. A lot more hikers, canoeists, & woods walkers out there than "alpinists" so it shouldn't be surprising the AMC membership dwarfs that of AAC..... There aren't  a lot of good reasons for joining the AAC.  IMO there aren't a lot of good reasons for joining the AMC either, but most folks feel differently.

Offline pappy

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
Re: AMC
« Reply #48 on: June 14, 2013, 04:48:24 PM »
That whole tax equality issue is another conversation - and wouldn't be surprised if the small company I work at pays more in taxes than ExxonMobil!


I'm going to hijack this.

I get into this argument all the time, because there are lots of ignorant people in the PRV: The only 'subsidy', tax or otherwise, that the oil companies get specific to oil involve an accounting rule that lets them expense drilling costs immediately, which has a rational basis I'm not going to get into here. They do receive the same breaks all other manufacturers do, so Exxon had an effective tax rate in '10 of 17.2%. When you include all taxes paid by the oil industry, they pay more in taxes than they earn in after tax profit.

Their profit is a big number, because their sales is a big number. But their profit margin, which is the only thing that matters, is nothing to write home about, in the 6-8% range as I recall. Remember that this is a very capital intensive and risky business, and a smaller return would mean they simply could not raise the capital needed to operate. The other thing to remember is that it is mostly the little people who benefit: some 50% of American families own Exxon stock either directly or indirectly. If you have a pension or a mutual fund, you almost certainly are one of them. The executives get paid a lot, but you try running a $250 billion company with fortunes of hundreds of thousand of employees and millions of shareholders depending on your decisions. People who bitch about that kind of executive pay, as opposed to what the heads of many non-profits get--are simply clueless (and often envious, and envy is the most contemptible of all the sins).

I'm not really here to defend Exxon--they certainly don't need my help--nor do I have any connection to the oil industry. But there is a strain of anti-oil and anti-big business in this country that grates on me when it is based on ignorance and a desire to feel good through a cheap and easy assumed moral superiority. Just think the next time your rope keeps you from splatting on the ground: 'Ummmm, petroleum.' (Although most polymer feedstocks these days are made with natural gas, of which come to think of it Exxon is now the US's largest producer.)

Let the flames begin.
If you're gonna be stupid, you gotta be tough.

Offline markvnh

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
Re: AMC
« Reply #49 on: June 14, 2013, 06:02:43 PM »
Pappy - my ExxonMobil comment was a bit "toungue in cheek" in regards to my small company paying more taxes then they do. And as you point out - I can bet if you have any sort of retirement account you most likely own a piece of ExxonMobil and other big companies. 

Frik - yeah I looked and saw that the Access Fund is about the same size as the AAC. And agreed the AAC was selective at one point in getting in however that was eased about the time I became a member. While I'd some some nice climbs in a few different mountain ranges up to that point if having a "special climbing resume" was required I probably wouldn't have gotten in. As for me, the AAJ, ANAM, library access and insurance are reason enough to be an AAC member.

Offline eyebolter

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
Re: AMC
« Reply #50 on: June 14, 2013, 07:28:09 PM »
Well Pappy, I wish I didn't have to pay any tax either, LOL, Exxon paid ZERO in 2009, I don't know about other years.  But i'm sure it was all perfectly legal since they help write the laws.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/04/06/90299/exxon-tax/

If making billions of dollars, having your tankers defended by a multi-billion dollar military, and paying ZERO in taxes isn't a subsidy, then I don't know what is.


« Last Edit: June 14, 2013, 07:29:49 PM by eyebolter »

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: AMC
« Reply #51 on: June 14, 2013, 10:07:47 PM »
As for me, the AAJ, ANAM, library access and insurance are reason enough to be an AAC member.

Ditto. Benefits are more tangible then Acsess Fund but I feel the AF does alot of good at the national level so I joined them too.

Offline JBrochu

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Doing God's work
Re: AMC
« Reply #52 on: June 15, 2013, 04:14:11 PM »
I get into this argument all the time, because there are lots of ignorant people in the PRV: The only 'subsidy', tax or otherwise, that the oil companies get specific to oil involve an accounting rule that lets them expense drilling costs immediately, which has a rational basis I'm not going to get into here. They do receive the same breaks all other manufacturers do, so Exxon had an effective tax rate in '10 of 17.2%. When you include all taxes paid by the oil industry, they pay more in taxes than they earn in after tax profit.

As far as I know, taxes are paid on taxable profit not on sales. If their tax rate was 17.2% that means 82.8% of their taxable profit was "take home."

82.8 > 17.2

How exactly do they pay more in taxes than they take home in profit? 
Have a quiche, now, or maybe a tort.  You deserve it!
-bristolpipe

I like to keep things simple, even if it's faaaken painful and miserable.
-Stoney Middleton

This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine means of consumption.
-Friar Tuck

Offline frik

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 538
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: AMC
« Reply #53 on: June 17, 2013, 10:31:46 AM »
Pap - is the oil depletion allowance no more?

Offline terminusnout

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
Re: AMC
« Reply #54 on: June 17, 2013, 02:04:37 PM »
As someone who worked for the AMC for a good stretch I got to experience extreme highs and lows of working for a non profit.

1. The AMC does not pay shit for the people who do the most work. Seasonal employees even though full time are paid overtime only after 50 hours a week, total fucking bullshit. The only reason I survived up there was because of tips and the fact they held a contract with REI Adventures. Guiding a 12:1 ratio for 9.75 per hour is fucking thievery to the highest.

2. The Highland Center is a total and complete plastic facade and an insult to sustainable engineering. Their GARN heating/hotwater system was only used when visitors wanted a "green tour" of the building. Their composting unit was barely ever turned on and 90% of the food waste end up in the trash.

3. Most of the seasonal employees come from Eastern Europe or South America, they make at least 2 dollars less an hour than the stateside employees. Not only is this completely asinine they only stay for two to three months at a time and very little is put into training for these people, making it EXTREMELY stressful for anyone with a permanent position.

4. I have never in my whole life found more elitist people than in the AMC. I was very happy to have a job guiding at the Highland Center but I was ridiculed by people working in the Huts, PNVC and Teen Adventure Programs. Such superiority complexes should be left other types of employment. I found less social discrimination being a framing laborer.

on the bright side the people I got to meet and the situations with them in the backcountry were totally priceless, Met some of the coolest folks and climbing partners that took me from mexico to north carolina.

and for real strando......dont know what it was like in the 80's but the pickens were anything but slim up there in Crawdaddy......

Offline pappy

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
Re: AMC
« Reply #55 on: June 19, 2013, 03:58:25 PM »
I get into this argument all the time, because there are lots of ignorant people in the PRV: The only 'subsidy', tax or otherwise, that the oil companies get specific to oil involve an accounting rule that lets them expense drilling costs immediately, which has a rational basis I'm not going to get into here. They do receive the same breaks all other manufacturers do, so Exxon had an effective tax rate in '10 of 17.2%. When you include all taxes paid by the oil industry, they pay more in taxes than they earn in after tax profit.

As far as I know, taxes are paid on taxable profit not on sales. If their tax rate was 17.2% that means 82.8% of their taxable profit was "take home."

82.8 > 17.2

How exactly do they pay more in taxes than they take home in profit?

Note that I said all taxes--including sales, property, royalties, etc. And that is US profits, US taxes. Too many people, like the ones quoted by eyebolter, want to distort things for ideological reasons by comparing worldwide profits to US taxes so they can shriek about how corporations don't pay their 'fair share'.

Guess what, economically speaking corporations don't pay taxes, they just collect them for the government. A corporation exists to produce goods and services useful enough that someone wants to buy them and then make a return by doing so that justifies the cost of capital and the risk incurred. That's it, and the after tax return required to justify the continued existence of the business does not change regardless of how much it is taxed. Therefore, most taxes are rolled into the price of the product (some also comes out of reduced pay for employees, but most just goes into increased prices), so when the dopes scream to increase taxes on evil corporations they are really just screaming to increase the price of the goods they buy. Because they are stupid, which is one of the reasons why I referred to the "Occupy" movement as 'The Temper Tantrum of the Economically Illiterate.'

The US actually has the highest corporate income tax among developed countries at 35%. Few big businesses actually pay all of that (and most small businesses are organized as pass through entities so that income taxes are paid personally by the owners) because the politicians understand that the these businesses would be at a huge competitive disadvantage. But they love the tax rate because they can point to it and say they are sticking it to big business while they cut deals with corporations for the specific tax breaks they need to compete (in return for campaign donations and other considerations). When the loons over here in the PRV were freaking out about the Citizens United decision I told them that if they wanted to reduce the influence of corporate money in politics then cut the corporate tax rate to 20% or less, which would be about the worldwide average. Most corporations would rapidly lose interest in politics because they are really only interested in their business. Of course, this was a concept that escaped the bozos completely. We just saw Apple get an education in how this system really works: Apple operated as we would like all big businesses to operate, they focused on their business and didn't even have a Washington office, because they didn't think that politics was their business. You can bet they're establishing a big Washington presence now. We saw Microsoft make they same mistake in the '90s, when as the most valuable company in the world they had exactly three employees in Washington, and then got mugged by the government for billions for somehow harming consumers by offering a free product.
If you're gonna be stupid, you gotta be tough.

Offline kenreville

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 468
Re: AMC
« Reply #56 on: June 19, 2013, 10:20:31 PM »
Very nice factual well thought out response pappy.

And still, IMO, the AMC pretty much overall sux the bag.

Online rbirk

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
Re: AMC
« Reply #57 on: June 20, 2013, 09:17:05 AM »
I just want to add something as someone who has volunteered a lot for the local AMC Bostson committees.

There's a HUGE difference between what I called "corporate" AMC and the local chapters/committees. Please don't mix them up. Corporate AMC is what you see in the glossy magazines and have trips, hotels and classes that charges a lot of money. I have not much to say about that.

Then you have the local chapters in Boston, NH, CT etc and each chapter have local committees for climbing, hiking, biking etc. Each committee is totally independent from any other committee and chapter. They don't even know what others are doing and are purely run by volunteers without any pay.

So when you meet an AMC group, its very important to know if its a corporate group or a local committee as its' very different and you cannot lump they all into one group. Again, each committee is an entirely different entity from another committee. If you see one group behave a certain way, it has nothing to do with another group. They may as well be a group called XYZ. They just happen to have the same three letters at the front.

As someone who led many climbing and hiking trips for local Boston committees I would say that most leaders (if not all) in our committees are very accommodating with people outside the group. There is no such thing as "ours". Sometimes, yes, the group for the location got big, but we always tried accommodate other parties. We also continuously have discussed among us how to make that smoother and really respect other people as the locations is for everyone.

We also focus on teaching people about the outdoors and what proper behavior and etiquette is out on the cliff and mountains. As someone who didn't know any climbers before I started climbing with AMC Boston, I thought I learned a lot from the people there about being respectfully for others, about the nature, mountains and the area.

Please don't lump all of AMC all together and when you find an issue, find out which committee had the trip and contact their chair. They will most likely take the issue seriously and take care of it. I know the local Boston committees always do that.

Offline steve weitzler

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 447
Re: AMC
« Reply #58 on: June 20, 2013, 01:24:24 PM »
Guess what, economically speaking corporations don't pay taxes, they just collect them for the government. (Pappy)
 

Guess what Pappy, I owned a business for 17 years and paid lots of taxes.  Local taxes, state taxes and federal taxes. Sure, I collected taxes (payroll) for the government but I also paid social security taxes equal to what was deducted by law. I also paid property taxes on things owned by the business. Although I agree with much of your thesis, businesses do pay taxes.

Offline pappy

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
Re: AMC
« Reply #59 on: June 20, 2013, 02:18:36 PM »
Guess what, economically speaking corporations don't pay taxes, they just collect them for the government. (Pappy)
 

Guess what Pappy, I owned a business for 17 years and paid lots of taxes.  Local taxes, state taxes and federal taxes. Sure, I collected taxes (payroll) for the government but I also paid social security taxes equal to what was deducted by law. I also paid property taxes on things owned by the business. Although I agree with much of your thesis, businesses do pay taxes.

Yes, you sent money to the government, and you included that into the cost calculation when you priced your product. If you and your competitors had not had to pay those taxes, then the price of your product would have been reduced through competition by roughly the same amount. Your customer paid the tax, you just had to deal with the aggravation (and cost) of passing it through to the government. Likewise, the amount of social security you 'matched' gets lumped into the compensation you budget for your employees, at least that's what I've done in my companies (now working on my third). The reality is the employee pays the whole nut, the government structures it the way they do to make the employee feel like they are getting something 'more' from you (and hide how much they are actually paying in SS taxes). Just as we keep the rigamarole of 'corporate taxes' so that the pols can tell the ignorant that they are sticking it to business and avoid the outrage that would occur if each taxpayer actually had their true tax liability laid out transparently (even though doing so would be far more efficient).

But I've hijacked this enough Yeah AAC, boo AMC.
If you're gonna be stupid, you gotta be tough.