Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

• BoatShoes

  believer;741573 wrote:Let's see......
  
  UN
  Stanford
  MSNBC
  
  
  LMAO

  
  Apologies...I merely clicked on the first result in the search and it was MSNBC. As for Stanford, several serious conservatives have come from there including Sandra Day O'Connor and Thomas Sowell.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;741729 wrote:What would be the equivalent of me making billions in profit but paying no taxes?

  
  Link? And not from the 1980's please.
• sleeper

  

  BoatShoes;741731 wrote:There are any number of ways to avoid having any taxable income after deductions and credits applied to gross income available in the internal revenue code. Google for instance had a net profit of $8.5 Billion for FY 2010 but was able to dramatically reduce their tax liability but using a double irish arrangement of foreign subsidiaries to credit foreign taxes against their U.S. taxes...a strategy used by many large corporations. Hopefully I can find some time this weekend to respond more thoroughly to some of this thread.

  
  Why should a company who operates globally be forced to pay double taxes on the same net income?
  
  I guess I want to expand on this.
  
  When you file your taxes, do you look for every possible deduction in order to reduce your tax liability? This is exactly what companies do with their income, and there's nothing wrong with it. The tax code is large, inefficient, and complicated, but just because a company is smart enough to exploit "loopholes" doesn't mean they are breaking any laws or doing something unethical.
• I Wear Pants

  Carnival Cruise Lines showed an $11 billion dollar profit over the past 5 years but only paid a 1.1% tax rate.
  Conoco Phillips had $16 Billion in profits in the 3 years from 2007- 2009 but received $451 million in tax breaks from the IRS.
  Citigroup last year alone made over 4 billion in profits but paid no federal income tax in 2010.
  Boeing received a $30 billion contract from the US government to build planes and got a $124 million dollar refund from the IRS last year.
  Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS in spite of making over $10 billion in profits.
  Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009 but received a $156 million refund from the IRS. They paid $17.6 billion in income taxes. None of them in the US.
  Bank Of America had $4.4 billion in income and paid no taxes.
  
  http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_slide.html
  http://socyberty.com/politics/large-profitable-companies-that-paid-no-taxes-in-2010/
  https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html?_r=1
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml
  
  And I'm not saying they're necessarily evil or unethical for using these loopholes, we all would. What I'm saying is they should be closed.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  The corporate welfare needs to end. I don't like government payouts to corporations that are profitable.
  
  Other than that, I really am not offended by the amount of money made by these companies and the fact they paid little or no taxes.
  
  It's their money -- not the government's.
  
  Besides, we all know that businesses NEVER truly pay taxes. They simply pass them along to consumers in the form of fees, surcharges or build them into the cost of their products.
  
  Look at it this way: when those corporations aren't paying millions in taxes, it means the consumer is more likely to get a better deal. Could they gouge? Sure. But the bigger issue remains the fact that taxes get built into the cost of doing business and consumers always foot that bill.
• I Wear Pants

  So you think corporations should pay zero taxes then?
  
  I don't buy that businesses never "truly" pay taxes. If you believe in the free market you'll believe that if they passed too much of their tax burden onto the consumers then people wouldn't buy their product and competitors would come in that would be happy to price the product more reasonably and take those profits.
• sleeper

  

  Per your examples, looks like these companies aren't paying taxes in the US because our taxes are higher than other countries. This has been going on forever, maybe its time we lower taxes in this country for corporations instead of letting them pay reduced taxes overseas.
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;741769 wrote:Per your examples, looks like these companies aren't paying taxes in the US because our taxes are higher than other countries. This has been going on forever, maybe its time we lower taxes in this country for corporations instead of letting them pay reduced taxes overseas.

  Companies should be free to have operations outside of the US. However, if your operation is in the US and you make money you should pay taxes on the income generated here. Not that complicated.
• stlouiedipalma

  BoatShoes;741732 wrote:Apologies...I merely clicked on the first result in the search and it was MSNBC. As for Stanford, several serious conservatives have come from there including Sandra Day O'Connor and Thomas Sowell.

  
  When you need a link, just look for one from Fox News. It takes away the option of some to discredit your link. Of course, I've found that Fox tends to conveniently leave out certain parts of the story if it doesn't match their ideology. At least the righties on here see "Fox News" and assume it is the holy grail.
• stlouiedipalma

  Writerbuckeye;741760 wrote:The corporate welfare needs to end. I don't like government payouts to corporations that are profitable.
  
  Other than that, I really am not offended by the amount of money made by these companies and the fact they paid little or no taxes.
  
  It's their money -- not the government's.
  
  Besides, we all know that businesses NEVER truly pay taxes. They simply pass them along to consumers in the form of fees, surcharges or build them into the cost of their products.
  
  Look at it this way: when those corporations aren't paying millions in taxes, it means the consumer is more likely to get a better deal. Could they gouge? Sure. But the bigger issue remains the fact that taxes get built into the cost of doing business and consumers always foot that bill.

  
  Then why the fuck should they even have a tax rate? Why don't we just give them a free ride?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  stlouiedipalma;741776 wrote:Then why the fuck should they even have a tax rate? Why don't we just give them a free ride?

  
  If we want to keep it simple, no reason to have a corporate tax rate, a business can always incorporate as a pass through entity - there are reasons to incorporate as a c corp particularly if have heavy capital needs and a lot of operations that require assets that can be amortized, but I'd guess the majority of businesses pay no taxes at all because they are sole proprietorships, partnerships or LLCs. That doesn't mean any "free ride" is involved. Of course they pay taxes, the employees are taxed on their incomes and the equityholders are taxed on their P&L. To the extent someone is an employee of a c corp, they should want their company's accountant to find every tax-favorable method of accounting possible. Why people want their own businesses to be burdened is beyond me.
• I Wear Pants

  Manhattan Buckeye;741786 wrote:If we want to keep it simple, no reason to have a corporate tax rate, a business can always incorporate as a pass through entity - there are reasons to incorporate as a c corp particularly if have heavy capital needs and a lot of operations that require assets that can be amortized, but I'd guess the majority of businesses pay no taxes at all because they are sole proprietorships, partnerships or LLCs. That doesn't mean any "free ride" is involved. Of course they pay taxes, the employees are taxed on their incomes and the equityholders are taxed on their P&L. To the extent someone is an employee of a c corp, they should want their company's accountant to find every tax-favorable method of accounting possible. Why people want their own businesses to be burdened is beyond me.

  Just looking at corporations alone (Not S Corps, Sole Proprietorships, Partnerships, etc) you just got rid of $353,083,862,000 in tax revenue!
  
  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07coccr.pdf
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;741793 wrote:Just looking at corporations alone (Not S Corps, Sole Proprietorships, Partnerships, etc) you just got rid of $353,083,862,000 in tax revenue!
  
  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07coccr.pdf

  Although I don't have the numbers in front of me, assuming there was no corporate income tax, there is a good chance that we would generate more revenue in the long run without one. How? Corporations would likely either spend the extra money they have hiring new workers(who pay taxes), investing in new technology(creating new industries), or paying out more in dividends(which are taxed). Corporations already have to deal with the so called "Double taxation" because they have to pay a corporate income tax on gross profits as well as pay an additional tax on anything they pay out through dividends.
  
  Plus, we instantly become the place where other corporations want to come because we have a favorable business environment via low taxes, thus generating more revenue through jobs that way too.
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;741798 wrote:Although I don't have the numbers in front of me, assuming there was no corporate income tax, there is a good chance that we would generate more revenue in the long run without one. How? Corporations would likely either spend the extra money they have hiring new workers(who pay taxes), investing in new technology(creating new industries), or paying out more in dividends(which are taxed). Corporations already have to deal with the so called "Double taxation" because they have to pay a corporate income tax on gross profits as well as pay an additional tax on anything they pay out through dividends.
  
  Plus, we instantly become the place where other corporations want to come because we have a favorable business environment via low taxes, thus generating more revenue through jobs that way too.

  Sleeper, isn't the "double taxation" thing the reason a lot of companies choose to be taxed as S Corps?
  
  And if corporations spend the extra money hiring new workers explain why we have not seen job increases with the Bush tax cuts?
  
  And we already are the place where corporations want to come because of our market. If taxes were the only consideration then every corporation would move to someplace that has zero taxes. Plus if that were the main factor I don't think Denmark would constantly be at the top of "best countries for businesses" lists.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I Wear Pants;741793 wrote:Just looking at corporations alone (Not S Corps, Sole Proprietorships, Partnerships, etc) you just got rid of $353,083,862,000 in tax revenue!
  
  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07coccr.pdf

  
  
  If they were LLC's we wouldn't lose all of it, instead of the corp paying the tax the equityholders would pay their share of the P&L at their personal income tax rates.
• I Wear Pants

  They do that currently so you're still losing an enormous chunk of tax income. Just makes it so that more things need cut. So I'd like to see a proposal that balances the budget (haven't even seen a good one of these yet) including the loss of corporate tax revenue. Just makes it more difficult.
  
  We cannot tax our way out of our current situation but we also cannot cut taxes out of the situation.
• sleeper

  

  I mean S corps aren't going to work for publicly traded companies as they are limited in how many shareholders you can have. Small to mid-sized companies would probably use this structure for the tax benefit, but the companies that generate the most revenue are probably public and therefore aren't not structured as S corps.
  
  I really believe corporations are not hiring because there is a lot of uncertainty in the market. You have a lot of budget cuts coming up, Obama's healthcare, unsettling in the Africa/Middle East, high unemployment, etc.. The companies are sitting on cash waiting for good news before they start expanding and hiring more people. Now it may seem weird that one of the biggest blocks to economic recovery is no one is hiring, but you won't have people hiring unless there is economic recovery. It's definitely the dilemma right now.
  
  Taxes aren't the only consideration sure, but regulation is. I believe Denmark is highly taxed, but they also are deregulated in a variety of industries, making them more attractive than a soon to be heavily regulated US.
• I Wear Pants

  Sleeper,I've been hearing the "uncertainty" in the market claim since around 2003. I don't buy it. There just isn't the demand for them to justify hiring when they're already making record profits. Why bother outlaying that kind of investment and putting yourself at risk when you could just keep the current workforce and enjoy your massive gains? Note, I don't blame them for this as it makes sense but it's just how I see things.
  
  We need to find new industries that are burgeoning or find ways to increase demand so companies have incentives to hire.
  
  Edit: And I think S Corps are limited to 75 shareholders or something like that. Might be 150? Don't care enough to look it up.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  There's nothing to buy, uncertainty is of course the reason. Companies don't exist to hire people, and if businesses are weary of growth or expansion (either with new technologies or into new markets) it isn't going to happen regardless of how much money the Fed prints. It takes balls to start a business, and risk to make it successful. If we foster a business climate with uncertain returns we'll see less risk (and less balls). Having the most anti-business administration in decades has not helped the situation. Obama's biggest fault (and he has many) is his inexperience with business - to the point that his elite educational experience is a negative.
  
  For every "win" he's got to satisfy his base, for example expanding the class of individuals protected by the ADA in their minds to protect the "little guy", you have business owners collectively throwing up their hands thinking "great, some other potential lawsuit to worry about" and "so how much more will that cost me to hire people?" Even with provisions that have been rescinded, such as the 1099 requirement in the healthcare bill, the fact that cooler heads prevailed doesn't excuse how something so idiotic was even proposed, let alone passed in the first place. Its like the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer starts showing up at a business office and works without pay, until he's dismissed because its evident he's had no business training at all....which appears to be the case for many of our elected officials.
  
  Back to hiring, if I had a c-note for every time I've heard friends, many of whom well-educated, bitch and gripe that the unemployment rate is hurting the U.S. and that "all these banks, GM, Chrysler, etc. that got bailed out need to step it up and start hiring" I'd be very wealthy. Alas, I didn't, and the only thing I got is wonderment where this infantile line of thinking comes from. If the purpose of the bail-outs was to increase hiring, we'd have been better off just cutting out the middle-man and giving the money to people directly to hire themselves.
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;741813 wrote:There's nothing to buy, uncertainty is of course the reason. Companies don't exist to hire people, and if businesses are weary of growth or expansion (either with new technologies or into new markets) it isn't going to happen regardless of how much money the Fed prints. It takes balls to start a business, and risk to make it successful. If we foster a business climate with uncertain returns we'll see less risk (and less balls). Having the most anti-business administration in decades has not helped the situation. Obama's biggest fault (and he has many) is his inexperience with business - to the point that his elite educational experience is a negative.
  
  For every "win" he's got to satisfy his base, for example expanding the class of individuals protected by the ADA in their minds to protect the "little guy", you have business owners collectively throwing up their hands thinking "great, some other potential lawsuit to worry about" and "so how much more will that cost me to hire people?" Even with provisions that have been rescinded, such as the 1099 requirement in the healthcare bill, the fact that cooler heads prevailed doesn't excuse how something so idiotic was even proposed, let alone passed in the first place. Its like the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer starts showing up at a business office and works without pay, until he's dismissed because its evident he's had no business training at all....which appears to be the case for many of our elected officials.
  
  Back to hiring, if I had a c-note for every time I've heard friends, many of whom well-educated, bitch and gripe that the unemployment rate is hurting the U.S. and that "all these banks, GM, Chrysler, etc. that got bailed out need to step it up and start hiring" I'd be very wealthy. Alas, I didn't, and the only thing I got is wonderment where this infantile line of thinking comes from. If the purpose of the bail-outs was to increase hiring, we'd have been better off just cutting out the middle-man and giving the money to people directly to hire themselves.

  Perfect! Good post.
• Con_Alma

  Manhattan Buckeye;741813 wrote:... Companies don't exist to hire people...

  I wish people would embrace this fact.
  
  If you don't bring value to a potential employer....more value than your co-worker, there's no reason to employ you.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;741813 wrote:There's nothing to buy, uncertainty is of course the reason. Companies don't exist to hire people, and if businesses are weary of growth or expansion (either with new technologies or into new markets) it isn't going to happen regardless of how much money the Fed prints. It takes balls to start a business, and risk to make it successful. If we foster a business climate with uncertain returns we'll see less risk (and less balls). Having the most anti-business administration in decades has not helped the situation. Obama's biggest fault (and he has many) is his inexperience with business - to the point that his elite educational experience is a negative.
  
  For every "win" he's got to satisfy his base, for example expanding the class of individuals protected by the ADA in their minds to protect the "little guy", you have business owners collectively throwing up their hands thinking "great, some other potential lawsuit to worry about" and "so how much more will that cost me to hire people?" Even with provisions that have been rescinded, such as the 1099 requirement in the healthcare bill, the fact that cooler heads prevailed doesn't excuse how something so idiotic was even proposed, let alone passed in the first place. Its like the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer starts showing up at a business office and works without pay, until he's dismissed because its evident he's had no business training at all....which appears to be the case for many of our elected officials.
  
  Back to hiring, if I had a c-note for every time I've heard friends, many of whom well-educated, bitch and gripe that the unemployment rate is hurting the U.S. and that "all these banks, GM, Chrysler, etc. that got bailed out need to step it up and start hiring" I'd be very wealthy. Alas, I didn't, and the only thing I got is wonderment where this infantile line of thinking comes from. If the purpose of the bail-outs was to increase hiring, we'd have been better off just cutting out the middle-man and giving the money to people directly to hire themselves.

  
  Obama is not Anti-Business...at least not anymore than his predecessor.
  
  http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/business
  
  Your rant about uncertainty is nonsense. Why don't you just say that you don't like Obama and be done with it. We get it.
  
  This is from a report from the National Federation of independent Business. Widely believed to be very conservative out of the major business groups.
  
  "On the job side, it is going to take a rebound in consumer spending, particularly in the service sector to make a significant dent in the number of unemployed." It's Demand, not uncertainty and your unrepentant hate of Barry ain't gonna change it.
  http://www.nfib.com/research-foundation/surveys/small-business-economic-trends
• Con_Alma

  I don't like President Obama's policy. I will never been done with that.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;741823 wrote:I wish people would embrace this fact.
  
  If you don't bring value to a potential employer....more value than your co-worker, there's no reason to employ you.

  That is true, but we need jobs so we either need to create reasons for companies to hire (raise demand or lower our wages so it's cost effective to hire more of us) or we need to create and find new industries.
  
  The latter is ideal but difficult.
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes;741548 wrote:A quick google search of "U.S. Worker Productivity" revealed this report on a U.N. report
  
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/ns/business-world_business/
  
  I'm not saying it's definitive or anything but you certainly didn't look very hard I'd say.
  
  You might also peruse;
  
  Hall, Robert E., Charles Jones, Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker Than Others, Stanford University Working Paper No. 98-007
  
  Available at :[URL=" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/results.cfm?RequestTimeout=50000000/[/URL]

  I never said I'd looked for one, as it's not relevant to the discussion of income tax rates. I merely said I hadn't seen one.