Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Brain -> Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/2/2011 11:04:54 PM)

Republicans complain taxes are too high and claim tax cuts create jobs when the opposite is true. Republicans refuse to stop giving the largest corporations in the world these refunds while they also complain about the deficit – madness.


Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | Crooks and Liars

Today, and not a moment too soon, the non-profit Citizens For Tax Justice (CTJ) has put out their findings revealing that twelve of the nations largest Fortune 500 companies, while making $170 billion in profits during the period of The Great Recession, paid an effective tax rate of negative 1.5%.

Not only have these twelve companies paid zero in taxes for the years 2008-2010, they actually received tax subsidies that added $62.4 billion to their bottom lines.The companies were chosen by the CTJ to represent a range of industries, including manufacturing, energy, services, transportation and high tech and include – in alphabetical order – American Electric Power, Boeing, Dupont, Exxon Mobil, FedEx, General Electric, Honeywell International, IBM, United Technologies, Verizon Communications, Wells Fargo and Yahoo.

According to the study, not a single one of these companies paid an amount even close to the 35% statutory tax rate.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/not-only-are-us-corporations-not-over





willbeurdaddy -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 12:10:13 AM)

Gee, I wonder what party was in control of Ways and Means for the 2008-2010 tax years.



Termyn8or -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 5:14:08 AM)

I'm going to step back and let Willie handle this.

What are you saying, vote democrat ? Are you fucking kidding ? I'll die before voting for them. I'll die before voting for either of your two parties.

T^T



tazzygirl -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 6:43:13 AM)

Here is my favorite part – had just these twelve companies paid at the actual 35% tax rate the GOP is telling us they are chaffing under, the sum would have added a full 12% to the totals the United States of America’s treasury received through corporate taxes.

Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, seems to believe that they are.

These 12 companies are just the tip of an iceberg of widespread corporate tax avoidance. Our elected officials have a duty to the American public to make reducing or eliminating the vast array of corporate tax subsidies the centerpiece of any deficit-reduction strategy.

McIntyre is certainly right when he points out the duty of our elected officials. But they are not the only ones with such a responsibility.

We, as voters, also have a duty to react when the GOP majority in the House of Representatives tries to tell us we need to reduce this phantom corporate rate from 35% to 25% so that these corporations can pay even less in taxes while they pocket even greater amounts of taxpayer money via corporate subsidies.

Worse still, Boehner, Ryan and friends have the unmitigated gall to make their pitch while asking the rest of us to give up the social programs that are so essential to most Americans.

If you don’t believe we should raise our ability to take on more debt because we spend more than we should, I get it.

However, if you believe that the answer to lowering the debt is to cut or destroy services and benefit programs that you depend upon while allowing wealthy corporations and individuals to severely underpay their taxes – or simply pay none at all – then you must examine this self-destructive streak that will, unfortunately, take us all down with you.

The Democrats will agree to budget and deficit cuts when the GOP agrees to get rid of the corporate subsidies and tax shell games that allow the kind of results disclosed today by the CTJ. The Democrats will agree to budget cuts when the GOP agrees to raise taxes on those earning over a million dollars per year.

How does this hurt you?

It doesn’t.

But allowing those who want to sucker you into paying for our deficit while giving a complete pass to the corporate and wealthy interests will most assuredly cause you and your family enormous pain.



http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/06/01/how-our-largest-corporations-made-170-billion-during-great-recession-and-paid-no-taxes/

Amazing how you get a different picture when you actually read the original piece.

Both sides are/were wrong... both sides need to fix this mess and stop playing the "blame game".



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 7:54:16 AM)

"We, as voters, also have a duty to react when the GOP majority in the House of Representatives tries to tell us we need to reduce this phantom corporate rate from 35% to 25% so that these corporations can pay even less in taxes while they pocket even greater amounts of taxpayer money via corporate subsidies. "

Why is it that these articles never bother to mention that along with cutting the "phantom" tax rates the GOP wants to close loopholes for domestic companies and that it will provide less incentive for other companies to relocate? Why is it that when discussing reductions in tax rates in the past Dems dont remember that tax shelters and loopholes were closed and that tax collections from the wealthy increased? Why is it that in discussing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy they ignore that the percentage of the burden borne by the wealthy increased, not decreased?



mnottertail -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 7:58:20 AM)

They ignored it because there is no cause and effect in and of the tax cuts.  Even the W administration (as did the St. Wrinklemeat administration) admitted that it didnt work, was never going to work. 

The reason for the increased burden on the wealthy is a small matter of 10%+  unemployment, strength thru numbers and all that rot.  Cause and effect wilbur, you should read up on that.

Arguments of faith are a logical fallacy, and you should read up on that. 

In fact, economics, politics, the list is endless what you should read up on.



tazzygirl -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 8:07:44 AM)

quote:

Why is it that in discussing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy they ignore that the percentage of the burden borne by the wealthy increased, not decreased?


The hardest hit was middle class.

From 1 million under AMT in 2001 to 12 million in 2005.

Bush and Congressional Republicans are ignoring a huge looming tax increase on the middle class: the Alternative Minimum Tax. Originally, the AMT made sure that wealthy families paid their fair share of taxes. But more and more middle class families are now being hit with the AMT. In fact, Bush's tax policies worsened the AMT problem, since Bush's tax cuts caused more middle class families to be subject to the AMT. By 2008, the regressive AMT will bring in more tax dollars than the regular federal income tax. But Bush refuses to fix the problem of his own making, because the AMT makes deficits appear smaller—and allowing him more room to pass more tax cuts for the wealthy.

AMT Will Hit Millions of Taxpayers

Bush and Congressional Republicans Are Ignoring AMT Problem. Congress introduced the Alternative Minimum Tax in 1969 in an attempt to stop rich taxpayers avoiding tax by overusing deductions. The AMT operates as a second income tax system with its own set of rules, with a lower rate but virtually no deductions. Traditionally, few taxpayers have been affected by it. However, because the AMT is not indexed to inflation and because Bush's tax cuts reduced tax rates—and increased AMT liability—without including an AMT fix, the number taxpayers required to pay the AMT will explode in the next few years. [Economist, 11/6/03; Concord Coalition, 2/9/04; CBO, 4/15/04; Brookings Institution, 2/4/04]

2004: AMT Nailed More Than 3 Million Taxpayers. In 2004, more than 3 million taxpayers will owe AMT—three times as many as before Bush took office. [Brookings, 2/24/04, 2/3/04; Tax Notes, 3/8/04; CBPP, 2/1/04; CBO, The Alternative Minimum Tax, 4/15/04]

2005: AMT Will Hit At Least 12 Million Taxpayers. Between 12 and 16 million filers will be subject to the AMT in 2005—and increase of at least 8 million over 2004. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/4/04]

2006: AMT Will Hit 18 Million Households. If current law remains unchanged, the alternative minimum tax is expected to wring an extra $33.9 billion from 18 million households in 2006. [New York Times, 4/10/05]

2010: AMT Will Hit 33 Million Taxpayers. The problem will get worse. Under Bush's budget plans, 30 million tax filers would face the AMT in 2009 and 44 million would in 2014. By 2014, the AMT will be affecting one of every three taxpayers in the nation, with many middle-class families becoming subject to it and its complexities. One-sixth of the Bush tax cuts will be erased by the AMT by 2006, one-quarter by 2009 and almost 40 percent by 2014, including more than half for households with income between $75,000 and $100,000. [Brookings, 2/24/04, 2/3/04; Tax Notes, 3/8/04; CBPP, 2/1/04; CBO, 4/15/04]




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 9:41:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Why is it that in discussing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy they ignore that the percentage of the burden borne by the wealthy increased, not decreased?


The hardest hit was middle class.

From 1 million under AMT in 2001 to 12 million in 2005.

Bush and Congressional Republicans are ignoring a huge looming tax increase on the middle class: the Alternative Minimum Tax. Originally, the AMT made sure that wealthy families paid their fair share of taxes. But more and more middle class families are now being hit with the AMT. In fact, Bush's tax policies worsened the AMT problem, since Bush's tax cuts caused more middle class families to be subject to the AMT. By 2008, the regressive AMT will bring in more tax dollars than the regular federal income tax. But Bush refuses to fix the problem of his own making, because the AMT makes deficits appear smaller—and allowing him more room to pass more tax cuts for the wealthy.

AMT Will Hit Millions of Taxpayers

Bush and Congressional Republicans Are Ignoring AMT Problem. Congress introduced the Alternative Minimum Tax in 1969 in an attempt to stop rich taxpayers avoiding tax by overusing deductions. The AMT operates as a second income tax system with its own set of rules, with a lower rate but virtually no deductions. Traditionally, few taxpayers have been affected by it. However, because the AMT is not indexed to inflation and because Bush's tax cuts reduced tax rates—and increased AMT liability—without including an AMT fix, the number taxpayers required to pay the AMT will explode in the next few years. [Economist, 11/6/03; Concord Coalition, 2/9/04; CBO, 4/15/04; Brookings Institution, 2/4/04]

2004: AMT Nailed More Than 3 Million Taxpayers. In 2004, more than 3 million taxpayers will owe AMT—three times as many as before Bush took office. [Brookings, 2/24/04, 2/3/04; Tax Notes, 3/8/04; CBPP, 2/1/04; CBO, The Alternative Minimum Tax, 4/15/04]

2005: AMT Will Hit At Least 12 Million Taxpayers. Between 12 and 16 million filers will be subject to the AMT in 2005—and increase of at least 8 million over 2004. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/4/04]

2006: AMT Will Hit 18 Million Households. If current law remains unchanged, the alternative minimum tax is expected to wring an extra $33.9 billion from 18 million households in 2006. [New York Times, 4/10/05]

2010: AMT Will Hit 33 Million Taxpayers. The problem will get worse. Under Bush's budget plans, 30 million tax filers would face the AMT in 2009 and 44 million would in 2014. By 2014, the AMT will be affecting one of every three taxpayers in the nation, with many middle-class families becoming subject to it and its complexities. One-sixth of the Bush tax cuts will be erased by the AMT by 2006, one-quarter by 2009 and almost 40 percent by 2014, including more than half for households with income between $75,000 and $100,000. [Brookings, 2/24/04, 2/3/04; Tax Notes, 3/8/04; CBPP, 2/1/04; CBO, 4/15/04]




This addresses the AMT problem only, not the total tax bill. irs.gov has detailed taxes by income range and the overall burden has increased for the wealthy by more than the middle class since the Bush tax cuts. The number of $0 taxpayers has also increased.



RakeAndCo -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 9:46:35 AM)

quote:


According to the study, not a single one of these companies paid an amount even close to the 35% statutory tax rate.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/not-only-are-us-corporations-not-over


*yawn*

Coke, Inc. is separate company from Coke, Russia. Coke, Inc. is a separate company from Coke, Ltd.

Cisco, Inc, is different company from Cisco, Ltd.

Just because stupid American population believes that Coke and Cisco are US companies and every cent of their earnings needs to be repatriated to the US does not make it so.



tazzygirl -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 10:27:05 AM)

quote:

This addresses the AMT problem only, not the total tax bill. irs.gov has detailed taxes by income range and the overall burden has increased for the wealthy by more than the middle class since the Bush tax cuts. The number of $0 taxpayers has also increased.


So has the number of unemployed and underemployed. Prices damn near doubling due to gas increases, and no doubling, or even close, for minimum wage earners... you know.. that lower class you like to point out that isnt paying anything in.

In March 2006 Forbes reported 793 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $2.6 trillion. In March 2007 Forbes reported 946 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $3.5 trillion. That is a 1-year increase of 19% in the number of billionaires and an increase of 35% in their net worth during a time of increasing poverty. Severe poverty is at its highest point in three decades.

When the bottom 80% holds less wealth than the top 10%... Im sure you will forgive me if I dont cry about their taxes.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Interesting break down.



MrRodgers -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 10:37:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Gee, I wonder what party was in control of Ways and Means for the 2008-2010 tax years.

The laws under which these free-loading corps enjoyed such a tax regime were written 2001-03. The dems didn't rush right in and cut these taxes 08-10.



Fellow -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 10:40:52 AM)

quote:

*yawn*

Coke, Inc. is separate company from Coke, Russia. Coke, Inc. is a separate company from Coke, Ltd.

Cisco, Inc, is different company from Cisco, Ltd.

Just because stupid American population believes that Coke and Cisco are US companies and every cent of their earnings needs to be repatriated to the US does not make it so.



This is where the problem comes from. If you outsource the productive economy, you also outsource the tax revenue. The government needs to introduce some kind of tax to compensate it. It could be through the tariffs [preferred], VAT, increased corporate tax or some other. Borrowing to cover the difference [so far practiced] is the worst solution. "Fairness" is a secondary consideration here.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 12:05:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

This addresses the AMT problem only, not the total tax bill. irs.gov has detailed taxes by income range and the overall burden has increased for the wealthy by more than the middle class since the Bush tax cuts. The number of $0 taxpayers has also increased.


So has the number of unemployed and underemployed. Prices damn near doubling due to gas increases, and no doubling, or even close, for minimum wage earners... you know.. that lower class you like to point out that isnt paying anything in.

In March 2006 Forbes reported 793 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $2.6 trillion. In March 2007 Forbes reported 946 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $3.5 trillion. That is a 1-year increase of 19% in the number of billionaires and an increase of 35% in their net worth during a time of increasing poverty. Severe poverty is at its highest point in three decades.

When the bottom 80% holds less wealth than the top 10%... Im sure you will forgive me if I dont cry about their taxes.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Interesting break down.


We already know your position on redistribution of wealth. I am merely pointing out the lies about the Bush tax cuts favoring the wealthy that dominate this board and liberal media in general, and how little your link actually said. After yesterday I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasnt intentional misdirection. But you won't fool me twice.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 12:08:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

*yawn*

Coke, Inc. is separate company from Coke, Russia. Coke, Inc. is a separate company from Coke, Ltd.

Cisco, Inc, is different company from Cisco, Ltd.

Just because stupid American population believes that Coke and Cisco are US companies and every cent of their earnings needs to be repatriated to the US does not make it so.



This is where the problem comes from. If you outsource the productive economy, you also outsource the tax revenue. The government needs to introduce some kind of tax to compensate it. It could be through the tariffs [preferred], VAT, increased corporate tax or some other. Borrowing to cover the difference [so far practiced] is the worst solution. "Fairness" is a secondary consideration here.



This wouldnt add a single penny to tax revenues. Coke (as an example) bottled and sold in other countries would never be subject to a US Vat. Coke Germany would be in no different position than TheoreticalGerman AG, that does no business in the US.



SilverMark -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 12:38:46 PM)

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/ referenced in the original article...interesting stuff! article



Fellow -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 12:42:22 PM)

quote:

This wouldnt add a single penny to tax revenues. Coke (as an example) bottled and sold in other countries would never be subject to a US Vat. Coke Germany would be in no different position than TheoreticalGerman AG, that does no business in the US.


This would be fair then. Still, tariffs [effectively business tax] would add to the revenue as there are many billions worth goods imported back to the US produced by the subsidiaries of the US companies. The tariffs could also bring back some production.

Personally, I am not for high taxation. My comment was just to point out the treason by your own government (destroying the economy and making Americans debt slaves). The capitalism basic model requires investment into the economy and especially into the production of tradable goods followed by capital accumulation. Today all investment advice is directed to where the growth is: emerging markets like Brazil, China and others. How to reverse the trend is a question? The current US leadership obviously is not going to change anything. The rate of the debt increase is frightening. They could at least use taxation to bring it down, if nothing else. They are not going to reduce government. It seems to be out of question.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 1:02:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/ referenced in the original article...interesting stuff! article


Without analyzing his numbers Im willing to bet that there are two glaring facts overlooked in his comparisons. And if Im correct, the US would actually vault up to somewhere in the top dozen.

Care to think about it and what those might be? I'll even give you hint: If you don't come up with the two reasons, you don't know much about the composition of US GDP.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 1:08:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

This wouldnt add a single penny to tax revenues. Coke (as an example) bottled and sold in other countries would never be subject to a US Vat. Coke Germany would be in no different position than TheoreticalGerman AG, that does no business in the US.


This would be fair then. Still, tariffs [effectively business tax] would add to the revenue as there are many billions worth goods imported back to the US produced by the subsidiaries of the US companies. The tariffs could also bring back some production.

Personally, I am not for high taxation. My comment was just to point out the treason by your own government (destroying the economy and making Americans debt slaves). The capitalism basic model requires investment into the economy and especially into the production of tradable goods followed by capital accumulation. Today all investment advice is directed to where the growth is: emerging markets like Brazil, China and others. How to reverse the trend is a question? The current US leadership obviously is not going to change anything. The rate of the debt increase is frightening. They could at least use taxation to bring it down, if nothing else. They are not going to reduce government. It seems to be out of question.



Tariffs generally just increase costs for consumers, you arent necessarily taxing the companies we import from. It varies product by product depending on how sensitive it is to price changes. Tariffs on Walmart's imports, for example, would almost entirely be paid for by the consumer, unless they were so ridiculously high that it wouldnt be economical to import them at all. The consumer then winds up paying more for the domestic version that not only cost more to start with, but can now raise prices because of lack of competition.

Tariffs are just one step toward economic isolationism, and it doesnt work.



tazzygirl -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 1:09:43 PM)

No intentional misdirection on anything, willbe.

quote:

But the details on those who earn millions of dollars each year are very hard to come by, because they can stash a large part of their wealth in off-shore tax havens in the Caribbean and little countries in Europe, starting with Switzerland.


Is this wrong or misleading?



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Not Only Are U.S. Corporations Not Overtaxed, Some Of The Biggest Are Paying A Negative Tax Rate | C (6/3/2011 1:17:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

No intentional misdirection on anything, willbe.

quote:

But the details on those who earn millions of dollars each year are very hard to come by, because they can stash a large part of their wealth in off-shore tax havens in the Caribbean and little countries in Europe, starting with Switzerland.


Is this wrong or misleading?


It wasn't in your AMT post so whether it is or isnt misleading isnt responsive to my comment.

However, the extent of of offshoring of wealth is, as the quote says, hard to come by. It is also money that has already been taxed when it was first earned, so the impact on taxes is only on the earnings that money would have generated had it been re-invested in the US.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875