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

Sanity -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 7:23:45 PM)
Heres a hint for you, he didnt write anything like he researched over 200 companies Try taking off your partisan blinders, and read what he actually wrote quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf 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.

farglebargle -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 7:24:12 PM)
"Provision for taxes' isn't quite the same ledger entry as "tax paid", and I doubt with a title like that, it represents 'Net Tax Paid'... Without auditing the books, there's no way to verify anything they say. And if they hire an auditing firm which has a board member who sits on a board with you? Well, that auditing firm will never find ANYTHING wrong....

tj444 -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 9:17:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Without auditing the books, there's no way to verify anything they say. funny... if what you say is true, then CTJ doesnt know either, yet they claim to know.. .. an organization whose sole adgenda is to claim certain corps dont pay what they feel is enough tax will publish only info they feel backs up their position.. which may not necessarily be the whole truth.. I view what comes out of CTJ as suspect.. I simply dont trust them any more than i trust the govt or anyone else with a severe bias.. jmo..

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 3:25:33 AM)
From the report, which I believe most did not actually read: "Our report is based on corporate annual reports to shareholders and the similar 10-K forms that corporations are required to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We relied on electronic versions of these reports from the companies’ web sites or from the SEC web site. As we pursued our analysis, we gradually eliminated companies from the study based on two criteria: either (1) a company lost money in any one of the three years; or (2) a company’s report did not provide sufficient information for us to accurately determine its domestic profits, current federal income taxes, or both. This left us with the 280 companies in our report. " So they excluded those companies that lost money or that they did not have enough information to determine US profits and/or current federal income taxes paid. It is tax subsidies that has caused these huge companies not not pay taxes. These are the same type of loopholes that Reagan corrected while he was in office.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 3:31:53 AM)
The signed off on an audit http://www22.verizon.com/investor/app_resources/interactiveannual/2010/downloads/10_vz_ar_iar.pdf This means the information given to share holders is supposed to be correct, and this is the information used in the report. It would be interesting if some poster here found evidence to the contrary because that would then constitute fraud on someone's part (either the company or auditing firm). quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "Provision for taxes' isn't quite the same ledger entry as "tax paid", and I doubt with a title like that, it represents 'Net Tax Paid'... Without auditing the books, there's no way to verify anything they say. And if they hire an auditing firm which has a board member who sits on a board with you? Well, that auditing firm will never find ANYTHING wrong....

farglebargle -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 5:06:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf The signed off on an audit http://www22.verizon.com/investor/app_resources/interactiveannual/2010/downloads/10_vz_ar_iar.pdf This means the information given to share holders is supposed to be correct, and this is the information used in the report. It would be interesting if some poster here found evidence to the contrary because that would then constitute fraud on someone's part (either the company or auditing firm). quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "Provision for taxes' isn't quite the same ledger entry as "tax paid", and I doubt with a title like that, it represents 'Net Tax Paid'... Without auditing the books, there's no way to verify anything they say. And if they hire an auditing firm which has a board member who sits on a board with you? Well, that auditing firm will never find ANYTHING wrong.... I will repeat myself: If they hire an auditing firm which has a board member who sits on a board with you? Well, that auditing firm will never find ANYTHING wrong....

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 7:37:54 AM)
No need to repeat yourself farglebargle. Did you read the document? I am sure you are familiar with the SEC regs concerning these independent audits. Look at the board for Verizon, and then find any connection with this auditing firm. I found none but may have missed something. Verizon received over 11 billion in tax subsidies, and I believe more if you include the state tax subsidies. Their effective state tax paid was 2.6%. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I will repeat myself: If they hire an auditing firm which has a board member who sits on a board with you? Well, that auditing firm will never find ANYTHING wrong....

tj444 -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 10:03:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf It is tax subsidies that has caused these huge companies not not pay taxes. These are the same type of loopholes that Reagan corrected while he was in office. I dont see these "loopholes" to be any different from the tax "loophole" that people get for their mortgage interest payments or the "loopholes" called IRAs and ROTHs.. Imo, when people decide that mortgage interest shouldnt be a tax deduction loophole then they can throw stones... (about the time hell freezes over..)

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 10:06:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf It is tax subsidies that has caused these huge companies not not pay taxes. These are the same type of loopholes that Reagan corrected while he was in office. I dont see these "loopholes" to be any different from the tax "loophole" that people get for their mortgage interest payments or the "loopholes" called IRAs and ROTHs.. Imo, when people decide that mortgage interest shouldnt be a tax deduction loophole then they can throw stones... (about the time hell freezes over..) Because they are no different. Calling them "loopholes" is a misnomer to begin with, just rhetoric to blaspheme corporations. Like the "independent" website that (besides using bogus numbers) calls these companies "tax dodgers". Even if their numbers were right, the label isnt.

tj444 -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 11:20:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Because they are no different. Calling them "loopholes" is a misnomer to begin with, just rhetoric to blaspheme corporations. Like the "independent" website that (besides using bogus numbers) calls these companies "tax dodgers". Even if their numbers were right, the label isnt. yes, exactly... No surprise to me,.. the CTJ is partly funded by unions.. [:'(]

MrRodgers -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 11:40:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Because they are no different. Calling them "loopholes" is a misnomer to begin with, just rhetoric to blaspheme corporations. Like the "independent" website that (besides using bogus numbers) calls these companies "tax dodgers". Even if their numbers were right, the label isnt. yes, exactly... No surprise to me,.. the CTJ is partly funded by unions.. [:'(] Yea, that's why Cain was so popular until the right found out their tax crusader was a slut and a whore I am sure he would be...if he could be. He was a corporate whore and loser as he was. He was going to take capital gains tax down to zero. Too bad he's gone because then 'they' could sell or fold the co., whichever taxes least of course, lay-off everybody necessary, hit the golf course, buy and sell things over a year, ya'know...those long term capital gains [sic] and pay no federal tax at all. Now those employees who are left can do double the work, get up real early, not spend time with family, hit the road for work, bust their productive asses make a huge salary and pay...35%. What a wonderful world it is...give me tax free profits and I give you greed. That tax code is defacto evidence of our plutocracy...purchased by the capitalist and 'corporatists' using all of that 'free speech' [sic] they have in the bank, throwing it around, silent as a tomb, down on K St.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 2:38:41 PM)
I call anything that reduces your taxes to zero, when profit is this high a loophole. The intent of FIT is that you pay taxes within certain tax brackets, or as certain entities. 1. A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/loophole I do believe many of these companies have been able to escape paying taxes. quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf It is tax subsidies that has caused these huge companies not not pay taxes. These are the same type of loopholes that Reagan corrected while he was in office. I dont see these "loopholes" to be any different from the tax "loophole" that people get for their mortgage interest payments or the "loopholes" called IRAs and ROTHs.. Imo, when people decide that mortgage interest shouldnt be a tax deduction loophole then they can throw stones... (about the time hell freezes over..)

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 2:42:45 PM)
So are the numbers right or not? I asked for you to substantiate a claim you made the numbers are incorrect. The numbers may be incorrect, but if they are you are obligated to report it to the SEC, since the information used was from financials reported to share holders. Regardless of the words used, these companies paid no where close to the 35% that many complain is the reason companies are not spending money or what have you. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Because they are no different. Calling them "loopholes" is a misnomer to begin with, just rhetoric to blaspheme corporations. Like the "independent" website that (besides using bogus numbers) calls these companies "tax dodgers". Even if their numbers were right, the label isnt.

RakeAndCo -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 3:01:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf So are the numbers right or not? I asked for you to substantiate a claim you made the numbers are incorrect. The numbers may be incorrect, but if they are you are obligated to report it to the SEC, since the information used was from financials reported to share holders. Regardless of the words used, these companies paid no where close to the 35% that many complain is the reason companies are not spending money or what have you. Lobbying expenses are not tax deductible. It really helps to know at least fundamentals of the US tax code and GAAP before making grad statements such as that. The sections you want to pay special attention to deal with how companies are allowed to book contracts that start and end in different tax years, ability to deduct the losses from previous years and quarterly tax payments. The corporate tax rate is the reason why no multinational company operating in tax multiple tax jurisdictions brings the profits of their operations back into the US if the US tax rate is higher than the tax rate in other jurisdictions.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 3:32:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf So are the numbers right or not? I asked for you to substantiate a claim you made the numbers are incorrect. The numbers may be incorrect, but if they are you are obligated to report it to the SEC, since the information used was from financials reported to share holders. Regardless of the words used, these companies paid no where close to the 35% that many complain is the reason companies are not spending money or what have you. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Because they are no different. Calling them "loopholes" is a misnomer to begin with, just rhetoric to blaspheme corporations. Like the "independent" website that (besides using bogus numbers) calls these companies "tax dodgers". Even if their numbers were right, the label isnt. They are incorrect. They invent their own accounting rules to spin it the way they want to report it. There is nobody in the business world who thinks that a deferred tax obligation isnt "paying taxes". Accounting 101...recognize expenses wat the same time you recognzie revenues those expenses were incurred to produce. They have an appendix of double talk that actually argues against their own position. And even if you take their position, they then say that dont recognize the cash payments that were recognized for accounting purposes in a prior year. It is total bullshit.

tj444 -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 3:36:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I call anything that reduces your taxes to zero, when profit is this high a loophole. The intent of FIT is that you pay taxes within certain tax brackets, or as certain entities. 1. A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/loophole I do believe many of these companies have been able to escape paying taxes. I dont really care what you call it.. But lets take a look at your definition.. if its in the friggin tax code/law that a person can deduct their mortgage payment or get a deduction for an IRA or a company can deprecitate equipment faster or deduct losses.. then its not a friggin ommission or ambiguity in the wording of a law and it does not provide a means of evading compliance cuz it is specific in the law as being legal, above board and accepted tax practice. It is not evasion at all.. "Tax evasion- The process whereby a person, through commission of Fraud, unlawfully pays less tax than the law mandates." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/tax+evasion

farglebargle -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 4:02:33 PM)
Tax Avoidance should be a capital crime.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 4:08:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Tax Avoidance should be a capital crime. In which case every American taxpayer would be dead.

farglebargle -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 4:09:01 PM)
I pay my fair share, why are you afraid?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/16/2011 4:34:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 I dont really care what you call it.. But lets take a look at your definition.. if its in the friggin tax code/law that a person can deduct their mortgage payment or get a deduction for an IRA or a company can deprecitate equipment faster or deduct losses.. then its not a friggin ommission or ambiguity in the wording of a law and it does not provide a means of evading compliance cuz it is specific in the law as being legal, above board and accepted tax practice. It is not evasion at all.. "Tax evasion- The process whereby a person, through commission of Fraud, unlawfully pays less tax than the law mandates." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/tax+evasion With your word choice you seem very emotionally charged about this. If you don't care what I call it, then why mention it to begin with? My whole concern is that ALL of us that earn something off our society, pay back something to help us all. These tax subsidies were purposefully created by politicians on the advice of lobbyist. Go back and do the research as to which politicians supported it, which lobbyist groups had direct access to those politicians, and what companies hired those lobbying groups. I believe that people on both side of the partisan line would be surprised. These companies are not evading taxes, they are using existing things as loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. Now I will agree that 35% is pretty high, and if a similar approach is taken now, that was taken in the 80's it would be to remove these subsidies, and lower the tax rate. With a lower tax rate it then becomes financially inequitable to pay to avoid the taxes, as compared to just paying them.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875