RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes.

RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (Full Version)

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

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 11:57:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Like Coca Cola, they have the name recognition, and they can borrow against that and so on, that's goodwill, you would pay more for a Coke than you would for say a Strangleberry Soda. Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying that for me

Moonhead -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 11:59:13 AM)
FR: Only thirty? There's more than that...

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 12:04:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I'm unclear as to whether the results for FedEx (as presented and discussed above) are being said to be typical of all the 30 corporations listed above or whether they should be interpreted on a stand alone basis. My initial instinct is that they are stand alone. If this is correct, it leaves another 29 corporations to be accounted for. Also, it appears from the list of 30 corporations' figures that FedEx is the only one to have actually made a positive tax contribution. All the others have minus signs before their figures in the 'taxes paid' column. Which further suggests to me that FedEx ought to be seen as a stand alone case No, it should be seen as an example of the sloppy journalism that makes the whole list suspect.

mnottertail -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 12:11:30 PM)
Yeah, they said 32 instead of 37. So the lobbying number was probably low as well. as it is they set aside (not paid out) a little over half as much in taxes as they did for lobbying (which of course was a business expense). So if the taxable number is an OMFG the lobbying number is fucking HORRIFIC.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 12:12:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Lower rate due primarily to permanent foreign investments, and provisions for income tax can be and probably are about half due to prior year deferments from the look of it. Provisions for throwing the tax on a piece of paper and actually paying the fucking tax are two wholly different animals. They are hauling around a shitload of recent deferred. I don't see why any company is still allowed in this day and age to haul goodwill around as an asset. They don't have any. That thought occurred to me to. If they can defer payment into the future, can't they find ways of repeating this process indefinitely? Find various excuses to continually roll over the nett deferred? Is that what you are getting at? And yes I queried what 'goodwill' and 'impairment to goodwill' mean - do their meanings here have any relationship to their meanings in everyday English? On what basis is the 'goodwill' of a multinational corporation estimated? Is there a relevant accounting standard? Isn't any goodwill value more properly represented in the share price? No, they cant be repeated endlessly, they are onetime provisions in the tax law as a result of Obamas stimuli. They dont recur unless another tax bill is passed. Goodwill is the difference between the amount a company is acquired for and the book value of their assets. Under prior law it could be depreciated over time and deducted from taxes as an expense. The tax law and accounting rules changed and the depreciation, including prior depreciation became "impaired" resulting in a catch up of tax payments. The only way goodwill (as a tax or accounting entity) would be reflected in the share price is if the company were sold. Then the new entity would have a new "goodwill" asset of the difference between that purchase price and the book value. So, while it can be thought of as being part of the current stock price (market capitalization minus book value), it will only become a taxable creature on a sale.

tweakabelle -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 12:40:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I'm unclear as to whether the results for FedEx (as presented and discussed above) are being said to be typical of all the 30 corporations listed above or whether they should be interpreted on a stand alone basis. My initial instinct is that they are stand alone. If this is correct, it leaves another 29 corporations to be accounted for. Also, it appears from the list of 30 corporations' figures that FedEx is the only one to have actually made a positive tax contribution. All the others have minus signs before their figures in the 'taxes paid' column. Which further suggests to me that FedEx ought to be seen as a stand alone case No, it should be seen as an example of the sloppy journalism that makes the whole list suspect. Thx for the clarification re goodwill etc. Willbur's "no", in this context, really means : Yes- FedEx is a stand alone case. Thank you for that too.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 12:55:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Thx for the clarification re goodwill etc. Willbur's "no", in this context, really means : Yes- FedEx is a stand alone case. Thank you for that too. No, it isnt a fucking stand alone case. Verizon's taxes are misreported as well. They didnt have net rebates, they had effective tax rates of about 20% in 2009 and 2010, and losses in 2008. The chart is BULLSHIT

tj444 -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 1:07:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Willbur's "no", in this context, really means : Yes- FedEx is a stand alone case. Thank you for that too. Fedex was brought up as a random pick from the entire list by a poster on a different board, i expect that the other corps did the same thing.. but then i suppose if someone had more time on their hands and were interested, they could go to the trouble to check the entire list... Perhaps another idea would be to look at financial statements of these companies prior to obama doing this and seeing what those corps paid back then.. Imo, any company that had the money to buy equipment etc and get it depreciated faster, would do so, large, small or any size in between.. I know i would..

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 1:13:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Thats profit, after all expenses, including bonuses. US profits, too.

mnottertail -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 1:17:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Thx for the clarification re goodwill etc. Willbur's "no", in this context, really means : Yes- FedEx is a stand alone case. Thank you for that too. No, it isnt a fucking stand alone case. Verizon's taxes are misreported as well. They didnt have net rebates, they had effective tax rates of about 20% in 2009 and 2010, and losses in 2008. The chart is BULLSHIT 14% in 2009 and 19 and well let you call it a fiver in 2010, and that was a one time charge off because of what amounts to a double dip on retiree drug subsidies. Yanno, we've had the discussion out here on that big time..... We do agree that they lost money in 2008, because of an accounting change (their bad). And then of course the period covered in the chart is 2008-2010....so the numbers arent out of whack on it. They paid more in lobbying than taxes. So, big fail for you there wilbur, not quite in the epic realm. http://www22.verizon.com/investor/app_resources/interactiveannual/2010/mda02_04.html

tweakabelle -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 1:42:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Willbur's "no", in this context, really means : Yes- FedEx is a stand alone case. Thank you for that too. Fedex was brought up as a random pick from the entire list by a poster on a different board, i expect that the other corps did the same thing.. but then i suppose if someone had more time on their hands and were interested, they could go to the trouble to check the entire list... Perhaps another idea would be to look at financial statements of these companies prior to obama doing this and seeing what those corps paid back then.. Imo, any company that had the money to buy equipment etc and get it depreciated faster, would do so, large, small or any size in between.. I know i would.. I don't know. I'm trying to struggle through all this stuff - it's quite foreign to me. I had the feeling that FedEx had been selected because of its unique position as the sole corp that seems to have make a positive tax payment on the OP. I am quite happy to accept your explanation. I note that there are objections to the reasons Verizon was advanced as another case of allegedly dodgy figures. I readily admit that I don't know enough about any of this stuff to offer a confident view on any of it.

mnottertail -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 1:50:13 PM)
We can all beat off over what they did or didnt pay in taxes, and I havent seen that chart as real off yet. Either Fedex or Verizon... The fact remains, nobody, not even inummerate willie has shown one credible citation here that would cast doubt upon the lobbying numbers, and in every case so far if you want to quibble a few thousand or million and just give into it, they paid more for lobbyists than they did for taxes. So on the scale of what we should be looking at is not a reduction of taxes, it is clear they are not paying 35%, the congress should be looking at doing away with lobbyists to make the US climate more business freindly as the teabaggers have it.......... Clearly, lacking any other REAL CREDIBLE evidence in the list of business decisions, taxes is running a distant last to other business costs, such as shmoozing and profit by destroying free market systems and competition. Thats where our legislature needs to fix the fuckin thing, thats the elephant in the room.

tj444 -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 1:58:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail We can all beat off over what they did or didnt pay in taxes, and I havent seen that chart as real off yet. Either Fedex or Verizon... The fact remains, nobody, not even inummerate willie has shown one credible citation here that would cast doubt upon the lobbying numbers, and in every case so far if you want to quibble a few thousand or million and just give into it, they paid more for lobbyists than they did for taxes. So on the scale of what we should be looking at is not a reduction of taxes, it is clear they are not paying 35%, the congress should be looking at doing away with lobbyists to make the US climate more business freindly as the teabaggers have it.......... Clearly, lacking any other REAL CREDIBLE evidence in the list of business decisions, taxes is running a distant last to other business costs, such as shmoozing and profit by destroying free market systems and competition. Thats where our legislature needs to fix the fuckin thing, thats the elephant in the room. I musta missed something.. i dont recall anyone saying the lobby numbers werent credible.. I know that wasnt my focus since other posters focused on the tax thing so i did as well.. but then my recent activity has been focusing on google and how they handle their world operations and are taxed.. Anyway,.. i friggin hate how big corps can lobby, i friggin hate how they can buy the politicians (from both sides).. so no opposition from me on that issue..

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 2:20:11 PM)
~FR~ If anyone is interested in the entire report it is here http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf Research it, and you will find the numbers are correct. Due to many tax subsidies and loopholes, many companies paid no where close to the percentage they should have. Even Ronald Reagan, an icon for the Republican party knew that the country needed loopholes and many subsidies eliminated. I am not sure why so many discount the facts right in front of them.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 2:26:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf ~FR~ If anyone is interested in the entire report it is here http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf Research it, and you will find the numbers are correct. Due to many tax subsidies and loopholes, many companies paid no where close to the percentage they should have. Even Ronald Reagan, an icon for the Republican party knew that the country needed loopholes and many subsidies eliminated. I am not sure why so many discount the facts right in front of them. I already researched two of them and they are totally wrong. Im not wasting my time on the rest.

mnottertail -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 2:31:46 PM)
Thanks for the heads up, we have the innumerate's opinion with no surprises.

kalikshama -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 3:41:08 PM)
quote: Also, it appears from the list of 30 corporations' figures that FedEx is the only one to have actually made a positive tax contribution. All the others have minus signs before their figures in the 'taxes paid' column. Which further suggests to me that FedEx ought to be seen as a stand alone case Agreed. Perhaps Willbe will be kind enough to do GE.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 6:24:28 PM)
You researched over 200 companies, using the annual reports to the shareholders, and the sources for them? That report is over 67 pages, and is just the report, and not the thousands of pages of supporting documentation. Sorry but your statement seems absurd unless you have something to substantiate it. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf ~FR~ If anyone is interested in the entire report it is here http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf Research it, and you will find the numbers are correct. Due to many tax subsidies and loopholes, many companies paid no where close to the percentage they should have. Even Ronald Reagan, an icon for the Republican party knew that the country needed loopholes and many subsidies eliminated. I am not sure why so many discount the facts right in front of them. I already researched two of them and they are totally wrong. Im not wasting my time on the rest.

rulemylife -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 6:58:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Something must be wrong here. There is no way all those companies altogether only made $163 billion. No fucking way. What's mare, I can understand paying NO taxes at all, but what, did they get an earned income credit or something ? Does this mean GE COLLECTED $4.737 billion in tax refunds ? Or is this an assesment of a bunch of things including direct payoffs (incentives) or something like that ? T^T I don't think GE sells mares. I could be wrong though.

rulemylife -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 7:23:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Thx for the clarification re goodwill etc. Willbur's "no", in this context, really means : Yes- FedEx is a stand alone case. Thank you for that too. No, it isnt a fucking stand alone case. Verizon's taxes are misreported as well. They didnt have net rebates, they had effective tax rates of about 20% in 2009 and 2010, and losses in 2008. The chart is BULLSHIT Then present some evidence to support that.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875