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

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

kalikshama -> Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/14/2011 12:34:53 PM)
Today [Dec 7], thousands of 99 Percenters will march on K Street in Washington, D.C. as a part of an action called “Take Back The Capitol,” taking aim at the lobbying firms that corporate interests use to influence the federal government. A report released this month by Public Campaign demonstrates just how important it is for Americans to battle corporate special interests and reclaim our democracy. The group’s research finds that thirty big corporations actually spent more money lobbying the federal government between 2008 and 2010 than they spent in taxes. For example, General Electric — one of the top 10 most profitable companies in the world — got a net tax rebate of $4.7 billion during this period. Meanwhile, it spent $84 million lobbying the federal government. Here’s the full list of the 30 corporations identified and what they paid in federal taxes as opposed to lobbying: [image]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/table1.jpg[/image]

Termyn8or -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/14/2011 2:18:53 PM)
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

tazzygirl -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/14/2011 2:21:15 PM)
Thats profit, after all expenses, including bonuses.

mnottertail -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/14/2011 2:28:53 PM)
So, I am trying to figure out this 35% taxation and these horrific regulations that leave these corporations so destitute and what an unfriendly clime, hah? where are the ratpoison republicans to filter this thru their reality-opaque glasses for us?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/14/2011 4:54:58 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 For 2 of those years they had tax incentives, primarily accelerated depreciation, pushed by Obama as part of the stimulus package.

mnottertail -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/14/2011 5:05:12 PM)
How much capital equipment fell under that accelerated depreciation, I don't recall the big wave of capital equipment being installed on and since 2009. I sliced of $5k...but that was startup. All new all in service in one year. Believe if it was anything beyond normal we would have read about that. Big fuckin tax deferral that it was. If it was in those tables, there were alotta people at work to get that there. That they eschew in either case

Termyn8or -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/14/2011 7:33:04 PM)
And your point is the government doesn't steal enough money ? I can deal with that. T^T

tj444 -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/14/2011 7:52:39 PM)
i find this reader comment rather interesting, from the actual article (where i found it posted at any rate). ""FedEX shelled out just 1 percent of its profits for the period, well below the minimum corporate tax rate of 35 percent." Anyone can look at FedEx's financial statements and SEC filings and see that this claim is pure fiction that is so far from reality it is pathetic.. It appears the propagandists may be playing a trick by looking at only the "Parent" column on the financial statements, which is basically the equity holding unit, not the operating units where the income earned and taxes incurred are listed. Whatever they cooked this up from, it is clearly an outright lie. Propaganda for the gullible." Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073743/Revealed-The-30-corporations-spent-lobbyists-taxes-debt-rose-economy-faltered.html#ixzz1gZVawZRl ahhhh... such is life..

kalikshama -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 6:07:54 AM)
quote: It appears the propagandists may be playing a trick by looking at only the "Parent" column on the financial statements, which is basically the equity holding unit, not the operating units where the income earned and taxes incurred are listed. Any accountants here care to comment?

tazzygirl -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 6:12:49 AM)
Unless I am mistaken, they are saying that the parent is made up of smaller units. Which, if we go by that, then the smaller units had a mix of taxes paid out. Even so, if half the units paid 35%, the other half would have to have paid a negative amount, in other words a huge amount of tax credits for the whole to equal 1%.

tj444 -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 10:07:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: It appears the propagandists may be playing a trick by looking at only the "Parent" column on the financial statements, which is basically the equity holding unit, not the operating units where the income earned and taxes incurred are listed. Any accountants here care to comment? I am not an accountant but I would like more proof, either way,.. which to me would be show me where exactly on the financial statements this occurs, I want to see the numbers and it all broken down.. And too, how much tax they pay in other countries depends on what the tax rate in those countries are and the tax system.. Some countries there are tax holidays, if a company is just opening in a new country then there would be the cost of set up etc but no income.. One thing i have read is if the US companies want to bring offshore earned income into the US, then it gets hit with a tax.. which is why they leave the $ offshore instead of investing it in the US.. That is too bad.. Its funny, i read headlines that google was being audited in India cuz the govt there claimed they werent paying all the tax they should be.. I dont know what the outcome was as i have not read further yet (been distracted with other things)...

kalikshama -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 11:06:32 AM)
Sorry, I forgot to provide the link: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/07/383779/30-big-corporations-taxes-lobbying/ Which included a link: http://publicampaign.org/reports/forhire Which has a full report link: http://publicampaign.org/sites/default/files/ReportTaxDodgerLobbyingDec6.pdf

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 11:14:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 I am not an accountant but I would like more proof, either way,.. Here are two pages from the consolidated 2011 annual report. On the income page the highlighted line shows the total provision for income taxes during the year. That consists of two pieces...current and deferred. Current is the cash payments, deferred is what will be required to be paid in the future, with the deferal coming primarily from Obama's stimuli (as Ive pointed out several times before and is discussed on the income tax footnote page). The total of current and deferred taxes, the vast majority of which are US Federal taxes, are in excess of 35%. In 2009 there is an 85.6% of income provision for taxes related to "impairment of goodwill". The excess over 35 or 36% can basically be ignored. Its the result of the loss of some prior deductions related to goodwill amortizations under old tax and accounting rules. Bottom line: Fedex paid or accrued very close to the maximum 35% rate, with the cash payments being about 14% and the stimulus deferrals 21%. Those will be paid in cash over the next 7 to 10 years depending on the useful life of the assets that were purchased. That extra 2-3% of income per year payback of deferrals will in essence be in addition to the 35% rate. Pics didnt attach...in next 2 posts. BTW you can get the effective tax rate on the first page just by dividing the income after taxes (highlighted) by the net income before taxes, the line above.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 11:15:34 AM)
... [image]local://upfiles/265074/7DA2401D7D9248758B3EE471CA71D719.jpg[/image]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 11:16:53 AM)
... [image]local://upfiles/265074/3440F2E01EDB4708B1C37A74BFC3A87E.jpg[/image]

tweakabelle -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 11:36:46 AM)
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

mnottertail -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 11:38:01 AM)
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.

tj444 -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 11:41:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 I am not an accountant but I would like more proof, either way,.. Here are two pages from the consolidated 2011 annual report. I appreciate that, thank you! [:)]

tweakabelle -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 11:50:06 AM)
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?

mnottertail -> RE: Thirty Companies That Spent More In Lobbying Than They Paid In Taxes. (12/15/2011 11:53:07 AM)
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.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875