Good read...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
QuoteBut Nobody Pays That
G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: March 24, 2011
General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.
The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies..........
but we spend our time making sure miss smith the fourth grade teacher gets a pay cut. I guess the democrats and republicans turn a blind eye trying to get their campaign contributions . while the tea party is too busy focused on ridgeview middle school.
Very good article. Note reference to president Reagan's statement of how GE exploited the tax loopholes.
Stand by the "irony" of how GE is doing America a favor by keeping (and increasing) investiture abroad.
“We believe that winning in markets outside the United States increases U.S. exports and jobs",Mr Samuels of GE stated.
Yeah, like GE hiring 975 employees specifically for their tax (diversion)department.
:'( :'( :'( :'( :-X
These corps are the government.
President Obama is proving the changes shall not come from within.
If not him, then who?
Quote from: buckethead on March 26, 2011, 12:58:50 PM
These corps are the government.
President Obama is proving the changes shall not come from within.
If not him, then who?
I think of one of the truest quotes of wisdom- "Only the little people pay taxes!" Leona Helmsley.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/25/geo-ceo-greed-taxes/
QuoteDespite Paying No Income Taxes, GE CEO Lauded His Company’s Patriotism In 2009 West Point Speech
On its front page this morning, the New York Times reported that General Electric â€" the world’s largest company â€" made $14.2 billion in profits ($5.1 billion in America) and managed to not pay a dime in federal taxes. In fact, the company actually received “a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.â€
The mega corporation’s tax dodging flies in the face of the rhetoric of its CEO Jeffery Immelt â€" also the head of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness â€" who sought to portray his company as one that values fairness in a speech at West Point in 2009.
In that speech, titled “Renewing American Leadership,†Immelt stood before hundreds of military cadets â€" who enlisted in the military and were willing to sacrifice everything for their country â€" and complimented the military audience for its heroism while blasting the greedy culture of big business:
Few of us will ever do what many of you will do for duty, honor and country. But America doesn’t expect heroism from all of us. [...] Wherever our talents lie, and whenever our conscience requires, we must all, to the best of our abilities, help keep America the great face for good it has long been. We are trying to do that at GE. [...]
I think we are at the end of a difficult generation of business leadership, and maybe leadership in general. Tough-mindedness, a good trait â€" was replaced by meanness and greed â€" both terrible traits. Rewards became perverted. The richest people made the most mistakes with the least accountability.
At the same time, ethically, leaders do share a common responsibility to narrow the gap between the weak and the strong. [...] What I can bring … what GE can bring … are investments, training and operating approaches to help everyone win.
Immelt won wide praise for his speech at the time. The Huffington Post wrote that he “has come clean about the financial crisis†in a “remarkably candid†speech. The Financial Times said that it was “one of the strongest criticisms†yet made by a major US CEO of business practices.
It appears that Immelt has fallen short of his lofty rhetoric during the West Point speech. Far from making the sort of sacrifices he was honoring at that speech, GE appears to be exploiting loopholes in the tax code to shirk its responsibilities â€" one of which would be paying its taxes to maintain the military the cadets in the audience were a part of. The behavior of his company matches that of Bank of America, Citigroup, ExxonMobil, and other companies that have gone quarters or entire years while not paying a penny in federal corporate income taxes.
Quote from: hillary supporter on March 26, 2011, 01:14:08 PM
Quote from: buckethead on March 26, 2011, 12:58:50 PM
These corps are the government.
President Obama is proving the changes shall not come from within.
If not him, then who?
I think of one of the truest quotes of wisdom- "Only the little people pay taxes!" Leona Helmsley.
Doesn't really seem fair.
Quote from: Timkin on March 26, 2011, 03:54:20 PM
Quote from: hillary supporter on March 26, 2011, 01:14:08 PM
Quote from: buckethead on March 26, 2011, 12:58:50 PM
These corps are the government.
President Obama is proving the changes shall not come from within.
If not him, then who?
I think of one of the truest quotes of wisdom- "Only the little people pay taxes!" Leona Helmsley.
Doesn't really seem fair.
She went to jail for tax evasion.
I remember... "The Queen of Mean " :)
This is simply another example of the corporate and political abuse of our country and the reason we have no middle class.
You would think they would not want to eliminate the middle class.. who gonna pay taxes then? The poor can only pay so much , and the Rich aint havin it ;)
makes sense. But then, how would the Government operate if they had no tax revenue?
Dont worry... Charlie Rangel to the rescue...
QuoteBy 2008, however, concern over the growing cost of overseas tax loopholes put G.E. and other corporations on the defensive. With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, momentum was building to let the active financing exception expire. Mr. Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee indicated that he favored letting it end and directing the new revenue â€" an estimated $4 billion a year â€" to other priorities.
G.E. pushed back. In addition to the $18 million allocated to its in-house lobbying department, the company spent more than $3 million in 2008 on lobbying firms assigned to the task.
Mr. Rangel dropped his opposition to the tax break. Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, said he had helped sway Mr. Rangel by arguing that the tax break would help Citigroup, a major employer in Mr. Crowley’s district.
While we are on the subject of taxes, here is an article from the other end of the political spectrum, the Wall Street Journal:
The Price of Taxing the Rich
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704604704576220491592684626.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704604704576220491592684626.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1)
Quote
Nearly half of California's income taxes before the recession came from the top 1% of earners: households that took in more than $490,000 a year. High earners, it turns out, have especially volatile incomesâ€"their earnings fell by more than twice as much as the rest of the population's during the recession. When they crashed, they took California's finances down with them.
Mr. Williams, a former economic forecaster for the state, spent more than a decade warning state leaders about California's over-dependence on the rich. "We created a revenue cliff," he said. "We built a large part of our government on the state's most unstable income group."
No doubt... but dont forget Obama, Rangel, Immelt, and virtually all of Congress since the 90's.
Quote from: stephendare on March 26, 2011, 05:07:34 PM
Callifornia doesnt have a choice because it is unable to raise real estate taxes to spread the costs more democratically. A big backwards thank you to the Reagan Era.
Does that mean you agree with Florida not having an income tax?
Quote from: stephendare on March 26, 2011, 05:30:51 PM
Quote from: dougskiles on March 26, 2011, 05:24:32 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 26, 2011, 05:07:34 PM
Callifornia doesnt have a choice because it is unable to raise real estate taxes to spread the costs more democratically. A big backwards thank you to the Reagan Era.
Does that mean you agree with Florida not having an income tax?
How do you make that connection?
The obvious answer to be drawn from the original article is that the best model is a diversified source of revenue, so that as one source is doing badly, another source will make up for the difference.
What I agree with is the idea of responsible stewardship of state finances.
Most of the time Florida spends about as much as it raises, which is responsible. If not having an income tax works for Florida, then bully for not having an income tax.
What California and Texas have done, clearly are not working for them.
Seemed like an obvious connection to me, but I am a little sunburned and just finished off a beer so perhaps my neural connections aren't 100% right now.
In regards to having one source pick up the slack when other sources aren't doing well, what source would that be? Income taxes and real estate taxes probably are on a similar cycle. Perhaps having a more robust corporate tax would fill that gap.
The best strategy in my opinion is to not spend all of your money during the good times and assume that you will need it down the road.
On the other hand, the US does have just about the highest corporate tax rate in the world which is a major incentive for corporations to shift profits to lower tax countries. We would probably collect more money from corporate taxes if we matched the lower rates of the Europeans.
Of course that would put 900+ corporate tax attorneys at GE out of work. :o
Quote from: stephendare on March 26, 2011, 05:07:34 PM
Quote from: dougskiles on March 26, 2011, 05:03:29 PM
While we are on the subject of taxes, here is an article from the other end of the political spectrum, the Wall Street Journal:
The Price of Taxing the Rich
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704604704576220491592684626.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704604704576220491592684626.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1)
Quote
Nearly half of California's income taxes before the recession came from the top 1% of earners: households that took in more than $490,000 a year. High earners, it turns out, have especially volatile incomes—their earnings fell by more than twice as much as the rest of the population's during the recession. When they crashed, they took California's finances down with them.
Mr. Williams, a former economic forecaster for the state, spent more than a decade warning state leaders about California's over-dependence on the rich. "We created a revenue cliff," he said. "We built a large part of our government on the state's most unstable income group."
Callifornia doesnt have a choice because it is unable to raise real estate taxes to spread the costs more democratically. A big backwards thank you to the Reagan Era.
Proposition 13 passed in 1978. Reagan was succeded by Jerry Brown in 1974.
An awesome display of bipartisanship! What about GE? :)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20047212-503544.html
Quote
March 25, 2011 3:00 PM
In January, President Obama named General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to head the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, an economic advisory board focused on job creation.
White House defends embrace of G.E. CEO despite report company didn't owe taxes in 2010
Posted by Brian Montopoli In his State of the Union address that same month, meanwhile, he called for the closure of corporate tax loopholes in conjunction with a lowering of the corporate tax rate, which stands at 35 percent.
"Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries," he said. "Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense. It has to change."
Mr. Obama's choice of Immelt came under scrutiny Friday in the wake of a front-page story in the New York Times reporting that despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits - including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations - GE did not owe taxes in 2010.
In fact, the story said, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
At his press briefing Friday afternoon, White House press secretary Jay Carney was asked to square Mr. Obama's call for corporate tax reform with his embrace of Immelt. Asked if the story bothered the president, Carney responded that "he is bothered by what I think you're getting at, which is that Americans, I'm sure, who read that story or heard about it are wondering, you know -- you know, how this could be."
Carney went on to make the case for corporate tax reform, noting that companies pay "armies of tax lawyers to understand how it works and to take advantage of the various loopholes that exist."
He stressed, however, that he was "not addressing this specific company because I don't know independently about that." (According to the Times, "G.E.'s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world's best tax law firm.")
Carney was asked why, if the president wants corporate tax reform, he appointed "to the head of the Competitiveness and Jobs Council a person who is now the poster child for abusing the system to get out of paying taxes."
"The jobs and competitiveness council is designed for just that," Carney responded. "And he has brought together a lot of voices on that. And he wants to hear the opinions of every member of that council. And we have said, with regard to questions about other members who have been appointed, that the president obviously doesn't want a council of people who agree with him on every issue; he wants to hear diversity of opinion."
"In the end, the decisions that are made about which policy to pursue on corporate tax reform will be the president's decision and his policy," he added.
Carney said later that Mr. Obama continues to have faith in Immelt to run the council.
Overall, the Times notes, the share of U.S. taxes paid by corporations has fallen from 30 percent of federal revenue in the 1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.
Is it possible that there is a little more to the California story than the editorial piece quoted by StephenDare!? See the facts below (sans a cute little story):
http://www.sen.ca.gov/budget/budgethistory.pdf
Year Billions
1990-91 51.4
1991-92 55.7
1992-93 57.0
1993-94 52.1
1994-95 57.5
1995-96 56.8
1996-97 61.5
1997-98 67.2
1998-99 71.9
1999-00 81.3
2000-01 99.4
2001-02 103.3
2002-03 98.9
2003-04 98.9
2004-05 105.3
2005-06 117.3
2006-07 131.4
Full history with bill numbers and the like at above link.
"California's state spending has ballooned in the last decade at a rate much higher than the rate of inflation and rate of population growth in the state. According to Tom Campbell, California's finance director in 2004-2005, if the 1999-2000 budget of former California governor Gray Davis had been increased over the next decade by a factor representing the inflation rate and California's population growth in that time, California would now be experiencing a budget surplus, rather than a deficit even with the recent revenue decline due to the state's economic recession.<6> Instead, California has had a 50% spending increase over the past five years.<7> "
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/California_state_bu...
It means that California's fiscal problems are not 100% attributable to "not enough taxes". A pretty good explanation of California's taxation system can be found here:
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/CATaxesOct2007.pdf
Of course, I am always interested in hearing the theories of others. :)
Quote from: Timkin on March 26, 2011, 04:42:45 PM
You would think they would not want to eliminate the middle class.. who gonna pay taxes then? The poor can only pay so much , and the Rich aint havin it ;)
Hence our much touted budget deficit. It's not an issue of government over-spending ( although I admit there might still be waste in particular in the DOD), it's primarily an issue of lack of government revenue.
QuoteThe unemployed can't pay taxes and corporation won't pay taxes, and there are so many loopholes for the ultra-rich that they only pay an average of 16% in taxes per household.
As a DEMAND side economist, I know that destroying the middle-calss is like shooting yourself in the foot. The ultra-rich can only consume so much ( they are already at their limit), but without consumer demand from a strong middle class, we will have completely destroyed the basis of our economy since 70% of our GDP originates from consumer spending.
How much ahead of population growth and inflation did California's spending run? I think that is the critical number to look at not just the % increase.
As most of us know, taxation or income is only one half of the equation. Spending is the other half. Even if a state is the highest taxing state in the union, if it spends more money than it takes in then there is a deficit. StephenDare! and I agree on at least one thing...states should be fiscally responsible with the funds that they confiscate from their citizens. Personally, I like the fact that there are fifty different state governments all doing things their own way. That is what the founding fathers designed. Each state tailors it's government to its own citizens and their needs. There will be "high tax" states and "low tax" states. And those rolls will change over time. The important thing is that states match their spending to their income. The current multiple state fiscal problems are largely due to the economic downturn and will recover as does the economy, but illustrate the risks that many states are taking in selected forms of revenue and budgeting.
Of course, all of this is just the speculation of a guy in Jacksonville. :)
Rates of taxation by the states can be found here:
http://retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html
Faye,
I would argue your first point. The federal budget in the mid 90's was about $1.4 Trillion dollars. In 2010 it was about $3.5 Trillion dollars. That is growth WELL beyond the rate of inflation. It is my belief that we do indeed have a spending problem.
I do agree with your second point.
A pretty cool little pdf produced by the Clinton administration:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy96/pdf/bud96g.pdf
"we" meaning the Government? or "we" the people ?
Quote from: NotNow on March 27, 2011, 01:40:52 PM
Is it possible that there is a little more to the California story than the editorial piece quoted by StephenDare!? See the facts below (sans a cute little story):
http://www.sen.ca.gov/budget/budgethistory.pdf
Year Billions
1990-91 51.4
1991-92 55.7
1992-93 57.0
1993-94 52.1
1994-95 57.5
1995-96 56.8
1996-97 61.5
1997-98 67.2
1998-99 71.9
1999-00 81.3
2000-01 99.4
2001-02 103.3
2002-03 98.9
2003-04 98.9
2004-05 105.3
2005-06 117.3
2006-07 131.4
Full history with bill numbers and the like at above link.
"California's state spending has ballooned in the last decade at a rate much higher than the rate of inflation and rate of population growth in the state. According to Tom Campbell, California's finance director in 2004-2005, if the 1999-2000 budget of former California governor Gray Davis had been increased over the next decade by a factor representing the inflation rate and California's population growth in that time, California would now be experiencing a budget surplus, rather than a deficit even with the recent revenue decline due to the state's economic recession.<6> Instead, California has had a 50% spending increase over the past five years.<7> "
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/California_state_bu...
Hmmm, why again was Gray Davis recalled if the CA budget was decent back then? I guess the conservatives crazies took over CA.
Quote
Looking back at 2003: The Gray Davis recall
By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
Posted: 12/27/2009 01:04:18 AM PST
This story originally ran on Dec. 31, 2003
Almost from the moment former Gov. Gray Davis was elected to his second term in November 2002 by a surprisingly close margin, the talk began.
Recall talk.
It was no different than discussions that had involved 30 of his predecessors over the years - with opponents talking about organizing a drive to seek to recall him for his policies.
And, there was no reason to believe it would go any further than being the dream of, this time, a small group of Republicans unhappy with the prospect of another four years of Davis.
"I'd been involved in a couple of these things and I didn't think it would go anywhere," political consultant Sal Russo said.
"In the '70s, with Jerry Brown, who a lot more people were upset with, there was talk of a recall, but it went nowhere because even Republicans believed a recall had to be for an extraordinary reason and no one felt they had that with Gray."
Then, in mid-December, Russo heard anti-tax advocate Ted Costa talking about recall on talk radio - and he heard the public response.
"Even then, I have to say I was skeptical," Russo said. "Then, some Democrats called me and invited me to lunch. They said they thought Davis could be recalled. I told them if it wasn't ideological it stood a chance. They encouraged me to go ahead, even though they couldn't be publicly identified."
From that meeting, events snowballed.
Costa took out papers for the recall and Russo coordinated his efforts, with one part of the campaign being run out of San Diego by former Republican Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian.
"We were able to bring together the Internet and talk radio and tap into a sentiment unlike anything we had seen before," Russo said. "There was a lot of anger toward Davis and people were looking for something."
Signature collection was running even better than Russo had hoped - with requests coming in daily from throughout the state and people downloading the petition from the group's Internet page.
At that time, the recall was being given a lukewarm reception by Republican Party officials and office-holders. There was a mixed message from the White House, which believed President George W. Bush stood a better chance in California in 2004 with a weakened Democratic governor than a Republican grappling with state budget problems.
But, the drive had grabbed public attention.
With debate over the Iraqi invasion ebbing, talk radio seized on the recall with a vengeance - with daily debates fueling public sentiment.
Then, Rep Darrell Issa, R-Vista, entered the picture.
"We really didn't need him to qualify for the ballot, but he did help us get it done by July 4," Russo said.
What Issa did give the campaign was a legitimate, credible political voice that forced other GOP officials to come out in favor of the recall. And he bankrolled a substantial portion of the petition campaign.
After the signatures were submitted on July 4 and subsequently certified, the election took a whole new direction.
There were 135 candidates who filed to run to replace Davis, but as it turned out, only one would matter - actor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"Arnold gave this worldwide attention, no question about it," Russo said. "But, the best thing that helped the recall was when (Lt. Gov. Cruz) Bustamante got in the race.
"When Bustamante got in, he destroyed the arguments Davis had (about the recall being a partisan effort) and he came up with a flawed strategy of asking people to oppose the recall, yet vote for him. What Arnold did do was elevate interest and bring out the casual voter we probably wouldn't have got otherwise," Russo said.
By the time the campaign was in the final weeks, Russo said he became convinced it was a juggernaut that could not be stopped.
"I'm not sure why it came together the way it did," Russo said. "Part of it was Gray Davis. Part of it was Arnold Schwarzenegger. Part of it was the timing.
"There is this 12-year-itch theory of California politics where the people rise up against the establishment. You had that in 1966 with Ronald Reagan, in 1978 with Proposition 13 and 1990 with term limits. And now, this."
http://www.dailynews.com/decade/ci_14044030
Remember: Taxes are the price you pay to live and do business in a civilized society!
Corporate tax rates in Europe promote business:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe
Quote from: Dog Walker on March 27, 2011, 02:02:35 PM
How much ahead of population growth and inflation did California's spending run? I think that is the critical number to look at not just the % increase.
California's population in 2000 was about 34,000,000. In 2010 it was about 37,000,000. As near as I can tell, inflation ran about 15% between 2000 and 2005. It has been much less since then.
Quote from: NotNow on March 27, 2011, 02:20:15 PM
Faye,
I would argue your first point. The federal budget in the mid 90's was about $1.4 Trillion dollars. In 2010 it was about $3.5 Trillion dollars. That is growth WELL beyond the rate of inflation. It is my belief that we do indeed have a spending problem.
I do agree with your second point.
A pretty cool little pdf produced by the Clinton administration:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy96/pdf/bud96g.pdf
Wow, how convenient for you not to mention our $3 trillion wars. It's killing us. Do you know how much one scud missile costs?
$1.2 million
We just used 60 of those in Lybia and have spent $800 million in one week protecting the people in Lybia (btw that is one effort I happen to agree with.........unless we become on occupying nation again, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan)
On Lybia, some more stats:
Quoteit generally costs $10,000 per hour, including maintenance and fuel, to operate F-15s and F-16s. Those costs do not include the payloads dropped from the aircraft.
http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/costs-of-libya-operation-already-piling-up-20110321?page=2
1.2 million apiece... GOOD LORD
Quote from: Timkin on March 27, 2011, 02:24:02 PM
"we" meaning the Government? or "we" the people ?
I think in this case it is the same thing. We the people elect the government, and we are responsible for its debt.
Faye,
I am not trying to get into a partisian argument. I am simply pointing out that government both in the State of California and the USG has grown well beyond the rate of inflation or population growth. That would seem to me to equate to either needing more funding (higher taxes, or a growth in the economy) or a reduction back down to a size more in keeping with inflation and population.
There is no doubt that our wars overseas are costing us a lot of money, and more importantly, lives. What the real cost of those wars are, and whether they are justifiable or not, I will leave for another thread.
I would point out though, that SCUD missles are Russian designs which are fixed site or mobile (truck or train) surface to surface missles. The United States has never fielded these. I believe you are refering to our Tomahawk cruise missles, which have been used in contested airspace to save pilots lives. These have been used in Libya by both the British and the United States. They actually cost $1.5 million apiece. F-18's cost about $55 million apiece along with crew. Both are worth twice that when you are on the ground waiting for them, trust me.
Quote from: NotNow on March 27, 2011, 02:49:04 PM
Quote from: Timkin on March 27, 2011, 02:24:02 PM
"we" meaning the Government? or "we" the people ?
I think in this case it is the same thing. We the people elect the government, and we are responsible for its debt.
Faye,
I am not trying to get into a partisian argument. I am simply pointing out that government both in the State of California and the USG has grown well beyond the rate of inflation or population growth. That would seem to me to equate to either needing more funding (higher taxes, or a growth in the economy) or a reduction back down to a size more in keeping with inflation and population.
There is no doubt that our wars overseas are costing us a lot of money, and more importantly, lives. What the real cost of those wars are, and whether they are justifiable or not, I will leave for another thread.
I would point out though, that SCUD missles are Russian designs which are fixed site or mobile (truck or train) surface to surface missles. The United States has never fielded these. I believe you are refering to our Tomahawk cruise missles, which have been used in contested airspace to save pilots lives. These have been used in Libya by both the British and the United States. They actually cost $1.5 million apiece. F-18's cost about $55 million apiece along with crew. Both are worth twice that when you are on the ground waiting for them, trust me.
ooopsi, you are right. I meant to say Cruise missiles ;)
Where were you when Bush grew our government beyond recognition?
"Remember: Taxes are the price you pay to live and do business in a civilized society"
I understand that the government requires funding. I am simply stating that we the people deserve a reasonable tax rate and fiscal responsibility from those that spend our money.
And I don't care how they do it in Europe! :)
:)
Quote from: NotNow on March 27, 2011, 02:53:12 PM
"Remember: Taxes are the price you pay to live and do business in a civilized society"
I understand that the government requires funding. I am simply stating that we the people deserve a reasonable tax rate and fiscal responsibility from those that spend our money.
And I don't care how they do it in Europe! :)
Well, someone in this thread said corporate taxes were lower in Europe., and tha might be true.............something I'm sure you'd find counter-intuitive in what rightists would call "socialist societies."
But none of this matters to the corporations and ultra-rich, as they'd rather pay 0 taxes, and they have the money to employ lawyers needed to help them do it.
The increase in federal spending didn't just start with W. As has been pointed out, the really large increases started during the Reagan administration. I agreed with many of Reagans decisions (and still do) and I believe that he turned around the nation and won the cold war. What he failed to do was to reverse the spending and return to a more normal spending policy once those goals were accomplished. Clinton did an excellent job of matching spending with income during some pretty good years. While W. Bush has some excuse because of 9/11, there is no doubt that federal spending was not controlled in the years following. Obama has been a fiscal disaster so far, and has outspent his successors by a wide margin. He still has some years before a final grade can be given though.
It almost sounds like you are suggesting some sort of tax reform, Faye.
Are you advocating a tax on consumption? Wealth? Financial transactions? VAT? Tariffs?
Taxing the mega rich and corporations at 100% using the current tax code will not likely raise revenue.
To suggest that spending is too low is silly.
Faye,
I believe that you will find that "total taxation" in Europe is well beyond what we have in the US. France confiscates about 70% of peoples money. That sounds like a lot until you realize that the US averages about 50%. Both are too high for my taste.
I agree that the tax loophole system is out of control. We must demand that our politicians stop the practice. There are several methods of doing so and those should be debated and employed ASAP.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 27, 2011, 02:37:13 PM
Quote from: NotNow on March 27, 2011, 02:20:15 PM
Faye,
I would argue your first point. The federal budget in the mid 90's was about $1.4 Trillion dollars. In 2010 it was about $3.5 Trillion dollars. That is growth WELL beyond the rate of inflation. It is my belief that we do indeed have a spending problem.
I do agree with your second point.
A pretty cool little pdf produced by the Clinton administration:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy96/pdf/bud96g.pdf
Wow, how convenient for you not to mention our $3 trillion wars. It's killing us. Do you know how much one scud missile costs?
$1.2 million
We just used 60 of those in Labia and have spent $800 million in one week protecting the people in Labia (btw that is one effort I happen to agree with.........unless we become on occupying nation again, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan)
On Lybia, some more stats:
Quoteit generally costs $10,000 per hour, including maintenance and fuel, to operate F-15s and F-16s. Those costs do not include the payloads dropped from the aircraft.
http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/costs-of-libya-operation-already-piling-up-20110321?page=2
In agreement. One thing (just about?) all agree on is, from the beginning of civilization, war has been the most expensive proponent of government spending, by far. It alone, and in only considering its financial implications, has destroyed so many great nations over time.
As a pragmatist, on would also agree that war is the most (potentially) profitable in terms of keeping the spoils.
Not so much what the US does.
Quote from: buckethead on March 27, 2011, 05:34:34 PM
As a pragmatist, on would also agree that war is the most (potentially) profitable in terms of keeping the spoils.
Not so much what the US does.
Yes,that's a good point in historical terms, albeit long terms. Mexican war defined US in geographical terms. But not so within the 20Th century, and i doubt it in terms of the argument here, in terms of the federal deficit.
I dont see any realistic spoils for the US in our current wars.
So Bridge Troll, I assume you will give this YOUR bi-partisan support:
Quote
Sen. Bernie Sanders.Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont
Posted: March 27, 2011 04:40 PM
End Tax Breaks for Profitable Corporations
Read More: , Budget Cuts , Corporate Greed , Federal Deficit , General Electric , Head Start , Healthcare , House Republicans , National Debt , Pell Grants , Social Security , Taxes , Politics News
Republicans in the House want to balance the budget by denying more than 200,000 little children the opportunity to receive an early education through Head Start; reducing or eliminating Pell Grants for 9.4 million college students; eliminating primary health care services to 11 million Americans; and delaying Social Security benefits to half a million eligible Americans, among other things.
Before Congress cuts funding for Head Start, Social Security, and financial aid for college, we have got to make sure that large, profitable corporations are paying their fair share of taxes.
At a time when we have a $14.2 trillion national debt and a $1.6 trillion federal deficit, it is unacceptable that Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Bank of America, Chevron, Boeing, and other large, profitable corporations are not only avoiding paying any federal income taxes at all but have actually received huge refund checks from the IRS.
Loopholes in the tax code, offshore tax havens, tax breaks to companies that export American jobs to China, and other tax breaks have allowed giant corporations in America to receive billions in refunds from the IRS.
Meanwhile corporations are sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash on hand, and big banks have nearly a trillion dollars in excess reserves parked at the Federal Reserve.
In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits. Not only did Exxon not pay any federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to SEC filings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/end-tax-breaks-for-profit_b_841173.html
Here is the kind of reverse shared sacrifice corporate America is making at the expense of maintaining the basics of a civilized society..........Head Start, Pell grants and Social Security:
QuoteBank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, even though it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year, received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
In 2008, Goldman Sachs only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
Last year, Citigroup made over $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes, even though it received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS. According to a New York Times article, "G.E. is so good at avoiding taxes that some people consider its tax department to be the best in the world, even better than any law firm's."
Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year, even though it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, which made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
Ford's federal income tax rate was just 2.3 percent in 2009 even though it made $3 billion in profits.
Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made over $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
Over the last five years, Southwest Airlines paid a federal income tax rate of 6.3 percent, Yahoo paid 7 percent, and Prudential Financial paid 7.6 percent.
Shared sacrifice means that corporate America must play its part in reducing the deficit.
The time has come for corporate America to start paying its fair share. We simply cannot balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the middle class, little kids and the most vulnerable people in our society.
How do we force corporate America to pay up..............or at least their fair share?:
Quote1. End abusive and illegal offshore tax shelters.
Each and every year, the United States loses an estimated $100 billion a year in tax revenues due to offshore tax abuses by the wealthy and large corporations.
The situation has become so absurd that one five story office building in the Cayman Islands is now the home to more than 18,000 corporations. That is wrong.
The wealthy and large corporations should not be allowed to avoid paying $100 billion a year in taxes by setting up tax shelters in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Bahamas or other tax haven countries.
2. End tax breaks for big oil and gas companies. Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in the history of the world, not only paid nothing in federal income taxes in 2009, but received a $156 million tax refund from the IRS, according to their own shareholder report. Repealing tax breaks for big oil and gas companies as President Obama has recommended would raise more than $35 billion in revenue over the next decade.
3. Stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Today, the U.S. government is actually rewarding companies that move U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas through loopholes in the tax code known as deferral and foreign source income.
This is unacceptable. During the Bush years, the U.S. lost nearly 30 percent of its manufacturing jobs and since 2001, 50,000 manufacturing plants have been shut down. Today, corporations in this country are outsourcing jobs to China and other low wage countries where workers are paid pennies an hour. The last thing we should be doing is providing a tax break to companies that move jobs overseas.
Ending these tax loopholes could raise more than $400 billion over a 10-year period.
If you can convince Charlie Rangel... you have my complete backing Faye!
BTW... Please read...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
It sounds great to say that the corporations need to pay their fair share, and take it off the backs of the middle class, but the bottom line is the middle class will still have to pay as the Corporations will pass on the cost.
Look at the fuel surcharges that get put on by Fedex, Waste Management, UPS, airlines etc. etc. when the cost of oil starts to increase. They institute them a lot faster than when they remove them and everyone ends up paying.
Quote from: Gators312 on March 28, 2011, 01:44:41 PM
...the middle class will still have to pay as the Corporations will pass on the cost.
Corporations pass on the costs of everything they do, including fat CEO pay packages, so that is hardly a reason for them not to pay their fair share in taxes.
Are you saying that consumers pay corporate taxes and CEO slaries/benefits/golden parachutes and all?
Wowzerz. It almost seems like a tax on consumption could eliminate the possibility of clandestine tax benefits for preferred entities. The onus of taxation would remain on the consumer.
The big difference is that it would reward those who live frugally (green, if you will), and invest/save their money.
Wow, amazing how a thread about corportations paying taxes in America can lead to California. :D
I find it amazing that this little gem of information was left out of the first post....
QuoteAlthough the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.
60 Minutes ran a story on this last night, Sorry NY Times...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/25/60minutes/main20046867.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/25/60minutes/main20046867.shtml)
If you think what GE did is horrible, perhaps the left wing JOBS STAY IN AMERICA will pleased to know that American companies have 1.2 TRILLION in wealth staged overseas in plants, jobs, wealth that will never come back as long as the corporate tax rate remains at 35 percent. There are 600 US companies, employing 100,000 people in Ireland alone, thanks to a friendly corp tax rate of 12.5%. Jobs that moved because tax rates are too high here, and yet you want even higher taxes?
::) Wow... you are so right... ::) Is Charlie Rangel irish?
QuoteYou guys never get enough of this stuff do you?
Actually, since we are the minority, we get alot of this stuff from ignorant people. ;D
35% tax rate versus 12.5% tax rate, I know its simple math, but that is exactly what the kids in our school system have a problem with. Perhaps 1.2 Trillion is too high of a number for them???
QuoteWell, maybe you should have thought about those high numbes before you cut taxes and then borrowed money to pay for the shortfalls? I dunno.
Seems like deliberately cutting income knowing that you were going to have to borrow was a bad idea.
Well, Duval County Students fail at reading as well. I guess we'll never have DCPS products reading your posts either. Can't add and can't read.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 07:03:51 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on March 28, 2011, 07:02:10 PM
QuoteWell, maybe you should have thought about those high numbes before you cut taxes and then borrowed money to pay for the shortfalls? I dunno.
Seems like deliberately cutting income knowing that you were going to have to borrow was a bad idea.
Well, Duval County Students fail at reading as well. I guess we'll never have DCPS products reading your posts either. Can't add and can't read.
Did you go to Duval County Schools Mtrain?
I love the blanket generalizations of Duval County students like the next guy, but such rhetoric serves to obscure the successes of those who have gone on to make successes of themselves - including a certain tax collector who graduated from Paxon High School... ; )
Quoteincluding a certain tax collector who graduated from Paxon High School... ; )
Back when they did things right and we actually turned out a few good people! When Teachers had a noble profession. :D
Back to the topic...
Is the 35% tax rate the issue? Is it the loopholes? How do we plug the holes? Which ones to plug?
QuoteIs the 35% tax rate the issue? Is it the loopholes? How do we plug the holes? Which ones to plug?
Don't plug them, as long as the tax rate is 35%, companies will find a way around the law. The Texas congressman said it perfectly. Instead, lower the rate, do as Chambers suggested and drop it to 5% for a one time reduction and get that money, at the very least, back into the U.S., back into the local communities. Would you rather see Irish kids enjoy new playgrounds and community centers on the backs of US Corportations or our local kids?
Even Reagan simply wanted the loopholes closed...
QuoteIn the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. â€" a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman â€" was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.
“I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,†Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.
QuoteRaising the taxes to pay for the debts is the only responsible thing to do, and all of this attempt to avoid actually paying the debts has resulted in a lot of nonsense.
Where do you find the money to balance the debt of 14 trillion dollars? Explain please.
QuoteEven Reagan simply wanted the loopholes closed...
Reagan could not win, what makes anyone think that Obama can win? You cannot win this, corportations will find a way out of it, that is why we have lawyers, and joke books on lawyers. do the one-time deal, get the money in and then claim its a WIN-WIN for the taxpayers of America and the American way of life, or whatever the changy people in Washington claim....
Quotebiggest deficits in the history of the world to that date.
Um, yeah, about that..... ::)
QuoteAnd then gave the banks another trillion in the bailout?
Seems I remember Paulson and Geithner telling Obama he had to bailout the banks or the corportations as you call them, or our economy would have crashed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html# (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html#)
Under Bush, The deficit in the U.S. rose 4.9 trillion over his 8 years in office, so far Obama is over 3 trillion in a little more than 2 years and in fact his budget estimates call for over 5.9 trillion by the time he leaves office in 2012. Finally, we cannot afford you any longer Mr. Obama.
QuoteNew numbers posted today on the Treasury Department website show the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office.
The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion.
The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama's fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That's more than 100 percent of the value of the nation's economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job.
Mr. Obama frequently lays blame for soaring federal deficits on his predecessor.
So much for his accountability!
QuoteI don't ever want to hear another Bush Republican ever use the word "deficit" again.
For this, you will need to turn off CNN.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 07:29:16 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 28, 2011, 07:26:34 PM
Even Reagan simply wanted the loopholes closed...
QuoteIn the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. — a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman — was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.
“I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.
so?
Reagan's foreign policy was brilliant, but he helped to destroy the US economy and drove up the biggest deficits in the history of the world to that date.
Reagan's thoughts on the economy helped us get where we are today (by the way he believed in a 78% top tax bracket as well......I assume you share this belief?)
78%... I dont think so... pretty sure it was around 35.
The president's bi-partisan commission was formed to attack the deficit came up with a plan that faced the hard truths. Democrats and Republicans both rejected it because neither is all that interested in solving the problem. That being said I believe what the Democrats spend on reap more rewards for our citizens.
I don't. Neither party has been responsible for years. The huge central government experiment forced on us by the Supreme Court has been an abysmal failure. Cut it all back to the enumerated responsibilities only. Let the states handle everything else. Nothing is being done to fix the problem, in fact, the problem is accelerating. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that the current central government is incapable of solving its own budget issues. Either we do it or face the calamity of economic collapse that will come with the current course.
Our grandchildren will curse us.
If we can stop the calamity that is one thing. If we can't let's come out of the bankruptcy with lots of infrastructure not with 700 military bases throughout the world we will have to abandon.
Quote from: finehoe on March 28, 2011, 02:38:52 PM
Quote from: Gators312 on March 28, 2011, 01:44:41 PM
...the middle class will still have to pay as the Corporations will pass on the cost.
Corporations pass on the costs of everything they do, including fat CEO pay packages, so that is hardly a reason for them not to pay their fair share in taxes.
I never said not to tax them, I just said the notion that the middle class will be magically be relieved of carrying the burden is false.
I think GE deserves all the tax cuts they can get. They provide a benefit to the local community that very few companies out there can (such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc). As I move into the conspiracy theory world, this is how I think it works. I wished I had a chalkboard to write this on.
A community with a mild unemployment rate wants jobs. They want any job they can get. They elect a politician on the platform "I'll bring jobs!". That politician get's elected on that platform. He then panics because he promised jobs and now he has to figure out a way to bring it. This is where companies like GE, Boeing, etc comes in. They go up to the politician and say, if you give us so and so dollars in "tax cuts", we'll open up a factory here and bring "jobs", the thing you promised to your angry electorate.
The politician then says, "Great! I'll get the jobs if I give this company some money from the treasury." So after the politician gives the company the treasury's money, the company goes over and builds a factory. At this point, everyone is happy! The people get's jobs. The local construction company get's work. The politician provided those jobs and can gets great advertisement to be elected to a higher office. The company is happy because they "sold" jobs for a fee and made a tidy profit at the very beginning before even opening a single factory or office.
What can go wrong with this picture?
In short, politicians "buy jobs" using taxpayers money from companies that are willing to sell them for a "fee". The taxpayer get's what they wanted, "jobs!" Of course, most of them don't realize they are paying somebody to give them a job using their own money to provide that job that they are getting money from to pay for that job. It get's complicated past this point. Either way, a job is a job, right?
Even I can write these crazy conspiracy theories :)
I'm all in favor of reducing corporate income taxes...but that's going to take an understanding by the American people that personal income taxes will need to go up significantly....after all, we do have some of the lowest personal income tax rates in the developed world.
Actually...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
QuoteThe U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, enacted October 22, 1986) to simplify the income tax code, broaden the tax base and eliminate many tax shelters and other preferences. Referred to as the second of the two "Reagan tax cuts" (the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981 being the first), the bill was also officially sponsored by Democrats, Richard Gephardt of Missouri in the House of Representatives and Bill Bradley of New Jersey in the Senate.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was designed to be tax revenue neutral, because individual taxes were decreased while corporate taxes were increased. As of 2011, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was the most recent major simplification of the tax code, drastically reducing the number of deductions and the number of tax brackets.
The rate structure also maintained a novel "bubble rate." The rates were not 15%/28%, as widely reported. Rather, the rates were 15%/28%/33%/28%. The "bubble rate" of 33% simply elevated the 15% rate to 28% for higher-income taxpayers.
You mentioned...
Quotehe believed in a 78% top tax bracket as well......
He didn't... and I showed the results of the 1986 Tax Act... which is always credited with Reagan but was quite a model of bipartisan politicking... as the bill was actually sponsored by Democrats.
I am also arguing that Reagan wanted corporations to pay their fair share.
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 11:26:04 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 11:19:07 AM
You mentioned... Quotehe believed in a 78% top tax bracket as well......
He didn't... and I showed the results of the 1986 Tax Act... which is always credited with Reagan but was quite a model of bipartisan politicking... as the bill was actually sponsored by Democrats.
I am also arguing that Reagan wanted corporations to pay their fair share.
Well no, Bridge Troll, aside from a couple of democrats like Gephart, lets see you back up this claim of it being quite the model of bipartisan politicking.
So lets say that the ideal model of 'bipartisan politicking' would result in broad support on both sides of the aisle.
Broad support would mean 60% of the votes from both parties.
So please show us where this claim you made is true.
How about 97-3 in the Senate... 292-136 in the House :)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3356/is_n3_49/ai_n28674284/
Quote
On June 24, 1986, the U.S. Senate passed its version of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 by a vote of 97 to 3. If for only a brief period, this high degree of consensus on what the tax system should look like was astounding.
Quote from: stephendare on March 28, 2011, 07:32:48 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on March 28, 2011, 07:29:56 PM
QuoteEven Reagan simply wanted the loopholes closed...
Reagan could not win, what makes anyone think that Obama can win? You cannot win this, corportations will find a way out of it, that is why we have lawyers, and joke books on lawyers. do the one-time deal, get the money in and then claim its a WIN-WIN for the taxpayers of America and the American way of life, or whatever the changy people in Washington claim....
But hey! I thought that wealthy people could be trusted to administer charity and the economy more effectively than the government!
Surely you don't believe that these corporations were only ever looking for a way to just avoid paying any taxes at all when they promised to do good works if they didnt have to pay taxes!>?
+1
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 12:39:58 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 11:26:04 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 11:19:07 AM
You mentioned... Quotehe believed in a 78% top tax bracket as well......
He didn't... and I showed the results of the 1986 Tax Act... which is always credited with Reagan but was quite a model of bipartisan politicking... as the bill was actually sponsored by Democrats.
I am also arguing that Reagan wanted corporations to pay their fair share.
Well no, Bridge Troll, aside from a couple of democrats like Gephart, lets see you back up this claim of it being quite the model of bipartisan politicking.
So lets say that the ideal model of 'bipartisan politicking' would result in broad support on both sides of the aisle.
Broad support would mean 60% of the votes from both parties.
So please show us where this claim you made is true.
How about 97-3 in the Senate... 292-136 in the House :)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3356/is_n3_49/ai_n28674284/
Quote
On June 24, 1986, the U.S. Senate passed its version of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 by a vote of 97 to 3. If for only a brief period, this high degree of consensus on what the tax system should look like was astounding.
The 1950's are fondly remembered as a time of the burgeoning middle class. Returning GI's bought homes and cars, and established families. Unemployment was low. The 50's are considered some of "the best of times." During that time, the top marginal tax rate was 91% for incomes over $400,000. (Well, after all, there was a huge World War to pay for.)
Now, we are fighting on two battlefronts. We can't spend our way out of debt. If only that were true, I would have WAY more shoes and purses!! :-)
Everyone should pay their fair share, no more, no less. I heard a story on the radio this morning on the way to work. It was either NPR or WOKV..I switch back and forth. Probably WOKV, because this sounds like Neil Bortz. They polled foreign companies - not American companies doing business overseas - foreign companies. They asked them tax rates were the same in the US as overseas, what would their next move be. They responded they would open shipping centers, etc. here. then they asked them if the "fair tax" was implemented in the US, what would their next move be? They said they would move here.
Just food for thought. If everyone thought they were being treated fairly by the tax man, instead of now, where everyone figures they are getting the...well, you know...would they not be more likely to pay up cheerfully and without looking for outs?
Point taken, but I was under the impression from the story those foreign companies would be paying the "fair tax" to the US as US income tax.
Like I said, it was a sound byte and simply food for thought. It's not like the current system is working very well. :-)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 01:11:50 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 12:39:58 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 11:26:04 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 11:19:07 AM
You mentioned... Quotehe believed in a 78% top tax bracket as well......
He didn't... and I showed the results of the 1986 Tax Act... which is always credited with Reagan but was quite a model of bipartisan politicking... as the bill was actually sponsored by Democrats.
I am also arguing that Reagan wanted corporations to pay their fair share.
Well no, Bridge Troll, aside from a couple of democrats like Gephart, lets see you back up this claim of it being quite the model of bipartisan politicking.
So lets say that the ideal model of 'bipartisan politicking' would result in broad support on both sides of the aisle.
Broad support would mean 60% of the votes from both parties.
So please show us where this claim you made is true.
How about 97-3 in the Senate... 292-136 in the House :)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3356/is_n3_49/ai_n28674284/
Quote
On June 24, 1986, the U.S. Senate passed its version of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 by a vote of 97 to 3. If for only a brief period, this high degree of consensus on what the tax system should look like was astounding.
The fact that Congress went against the wishes of powerful lobbyists in overwhelmingly passing this legislation was clearly a victory for the American people.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 29, 2011, 01:49:30 PM
Point taken, but I was under the impression from the story those foreign companies would be paying the "fair tax" to the US as US income tax.
If it was Bortz, keep in mind that he most likely wasn't talking about "fair taxation" in a general sense, but probably was talking about the "Fair Tax," a specific right-wing proposal to abolish the income tax and implement a national sales tax: http://www.fairtax.org
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 02:32:28 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 01:11:50 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 12:39:58 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 11:26:04 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 11:19:07 AM
You mentioned... Quotehe believed in a 78% top tax bracket as well......
He didn't... and I showed the results of the 1986 Tax Act... which is always credited with Reagan but was quite a model of bipartisan politicking... as the bill was actually sponsored by Democrats.
I am also arguing that Reagan wanted corporations to pay their fair share.
Well no, Bridge Troll, aside from a couple of democrats like Gephart, lets see you back up this claim of it being quite the model of bipartisan politicking.
So lets say that the ideal model of 'bipartisan politicking' would result in broad support on both sides of the aisle.
Broad support would mean 60% of the votes from both parties.
So please show us where this claim you made is true.
How about 97-3 in the Senate... 292-136 in the House :)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3356/is_n3_49/ai_n28674284/
Quote
On June 24, 1986, the U.S. Senate passed its version of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 by a vote of 97 to 3. If for only a brief period, this high degree of consensus on what the tax system should look like was astounding.
The fact that Congress went against the wishes of powerful lobbyists in overwhelmingly passing this legislation was clearly a victory for the American people.
Didnt you support and vote for Reagan once upon a time?
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 05:12:34 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 05:11:28 PM
Didn't you support and vote for Reagan once upon a time?
Yes I did.
Was one of the reasons his tax policies? Or foreign policies?
Quote from: finehoe on March 29, 2011, 02:50:23 PM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 29, 2011, 01:49:30 PM
Point taken, but I was under the impression from the story those foreign companies would be paying the "fair tax" to the US as US income tax.
If it was Bortz, keep in mind that he most likely wasn't talking about "fair taxation" in a general sense, but probably was talking about the "Fair Tax," a specific right-wing proposal to abolish the income tax and implement a national sales tax: http://www.fairtax.org
Go finehoe, GO!
http://www.fairtax.org
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 02:32:28 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 01:11:50 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 12:39:58 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 11:26:04 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 11:19:07 AM
You mentioned... Quotehe believed in a 78% top tax bracket as well......
He didn't... and I showed the results of the 1986 Tax Act... which is always credited with Reagan but was quite a model of bipartisan politicking... as the bill was actually sponsored by Democrats.
I am also arguing that Reagan wanted corporations to pay their fair share.
Well no, Bridge Troll, aside from a couple of democrats like Gephart, lets see you back up this claim of it being quite the model of bipartisan politicking.
So lets say that the ideal model of 'bipartisan politicking' would result in broad support on both sides of the aisle.
Broad support would mean 60% of the votes from both parties.
So please show us where this claim you made is true.
How about 97-3 in the Senate... 292-136 in the House :)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3356/is_n3_49/ai_n28674284/
Quote
On June 24, 1986, the U.S. Senate passed its version of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 by a vote of 97 to 3. If for only a brief period, this high degree of consensus on what the tax system should look like was astounding.
The fact that Congress went against the wishes of powerful lobbyists in overwhelmingly passing this legislation was clearly a victory for the American people.
I thought Fair Tax/Flat Tax was the dream child of libertarians? I am interested in why Fair Tax would not work? everyone buys stuff, so wouldn't it be a way to tax everyone fairly, no matter how their money was actually made?
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 07:02:29 AM
I thought Fair Tax/Flat Tax was the dream child of libertarians? I am interested in why Fair Tax would not work? everyone buys stuff, so wouldn't it be a way to tax everyone fairly, no matter how their money was actually made?
The website explains it much better than I can, but what the hey.
The Fair Tax is a uniform consumption tax which by all accounts is revenue neutral. (It doesn't add tax reciepts nor reduce them.) It taxes all goods and services. Ya... milk and diapers too. NO FAVORED INDUSTRIES. NO UNFAIR MONOPOLISTIC FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
There is a universal prebate to the poverty level. All US citizens receive a prebate on taxation for spending up to the poverty level, determined by congress. This tax ELIMINATES the poor (working or otherwise) from the tax rolls.
The sixteenth amendment would be repealed. (no more income tax)
All forms of income tax would be replaced. SS tax, FICA, (payroll taxes. The largest tax burden for the working poor) Corporate income tax, capital gains, death tax, I'm sure I missed many.
The USA becomes the tax haven of choice globally. Tens of TRILLIONS of dollars return to our shores, becoming productive for our beloved nation.
Imported goods are now subjected to the SAME taxation as US produced goods. (I would also support a tariff on goods produced in nations that subsidize goods and services through tax policy or slave wages)
Wealth is taxed. Huh???
26million dollar house? Yup. 2oo million dollar yacht? Uh huh. Hookers? Indeed. Mistresses? Still working on that. No system is perfect. :)
FOr everything I missed: fairtax.org
Now I realize that many people here see it as regressive and unfair because, as they say, it puts an undue tax burden on the poor and middle class. I acknowledge that most of these people are far more intelligent than me. Yet, I remain unconvinced that the Fair Tax isn't the proper way to provide for our federal government's funding.
In Europe they have both a consumption tax, the VAT (value added tax) AND an income tax. Things are expensive because of the VAT. I could buy my Italian ties less expensively in San Francisco than in Milan, where they were made (no VAT on exported goods).
The interesting side effect of a high VAT or sales tax is that it pushes the goods to be of higher quality. Because they are made more expensive by the VAT, people want goods that are more durable and longer lasting. As a result, the cars, clothes, shoes, pots & pans, toys made in Europe are of better quality than the shoddy, throw-away stuff we import from China and buy here.
Fair Tax, sales tax, VAT are all consumption taxes, but I am not sure that a pure consumption tax system with no other taxes would work. Europe seems to work OK with low or no corporate taxes.
Would a nationwide consumption tax like the Fair Tax create an instant black market system to avoid it?
Avoiding the Fair Tax would require a conspiracy, whereas avoiding income tax can be done by a single person.
Yes, however. Taxation will always generate a desire of avoidance.
QuoteTaxation will always generate a desire of avoidance.
But only by republicans... ::)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 30, 2011, 06:50:01 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 02:32:28 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 01:11:50 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 12:39:58 PM
Quote from: stephendare on March 29, 2011, 11:26:04 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 29, 2011, 11:19:07 AM
You mentioned... Quotehe believed in a 78% top tax bracket as well......
He didn't... and I showed the results of the 1986 Tax Act... which is always credited with Reagan but was quite a model of bipartisan politicking... as the bill was actually sponsored by Democrats.
I am also arguing that Reagan wanted corporations to pay their fair share.
Well no, Bridge Troll, aside from a couple of democrats like Gephart, lets see you back up this claim of it being quite the model of bipartisan politicking.
So lets say that the ideal model of 'bipartisan politicking' would result in broad support on both sides of the aisle.
Broad support would mean 60% of the votes from both parties.
So please show us where this claim you made is true.
How about 97-3 in the Senate... 292-136 in the House :)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3356/is_n3_49/ai_n28674284/
Quote
On June 24, 1986, the U.S. Senate passed its version of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 by a vote of 97 to 3. If for only a brief period, this high degree of consensus on what the tax system should look like was astounding.
The fact that Congress went against the wishes of powerful lobbyists in overwhelmingly passing this legislation was clearly a victory for the American people.
Quote from: buckethead on March 30, 2011, 08:00:12 AM
Now I realize that many people here see it as regressive and unfair because, as they say, it puts an undue tax burden on the poor and middle class. I acknowledge that most of these people are far more intelligent than me. Yet, I remain unconvinced that the Fair Tax isn't the proper way to provide for our federal government's funding.
The Fair Tax is not a straight consumption tax because it "prebates" the money people would spend in the tax up to the poverty level. In theory this means anyone living at or below the poverty level would pay no taxes. This is meant to be more progressive than a strait consumption tax. You would also have to pay the tax on anything you brought into the country even if you paid some other tax on it elsewhere.
I like the plan it is simple, easily adjusted and it allows people to know what they are spending and adjust when their budget is tight.
The black market would never approach the level of tax evasion companies like GE do.
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 30, 2011, 02:54:09 PM
Quote from: buckethead on March 30, 2011, 08:00:12 AM
Now I realize that many people here see it as regressive and unfair because, as they say, it puts an undue tax burden on the poor and middle class. I acknowledge that most of these people are far more intelligent than me. Yet, I remain unconvinced that the Fair Tax isn't the proper way to provide for our federal government's funding.
The Fair Tax is not a straight consumption tax because it "prebates" the money people would spend in the tax up to the poverty level. In theory this means anyone living at or below the poverty level would pay no taxes. This is meant to be more progressive than a strait consumption tax. You would also have to pay the tax on anything you brought into the country even if you paid some other tax on it elsewhere.
I like the plan it is simple, easily adjusted and it allows people to know what they are spending and adjust when their budget is tight.
The black market would never approach the level of tax evasion companies like GE do.
The simplicity and transparency of this is attractive... the lawyers and accountants(special interests) will hate it... especially considering the monstrosity of our current tax law.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 30, 2011, 02:58:35 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 30, 2011, 02:54:09 PM
Quote from: buckethead on March 30, 2011, 08:00:12 AM
Now I realize that many people here see it as regressive and unfair because, as they say, it puts an undue tax burden on the poor and middle class. I acknowledge that most of these people are far more intelligent than me. Yet, I remain unconvinced that the Fair Tax isn't the proper way to provide for our federal government's funding.
The Fair Tax is not a straight consumption tax because it "prebates" the money people would spend in the tax up to the poverty level. In theory this means anyone living at or below the poverty level would pay no taxes. This is meant to be more progressive than a strait consumption tax. You would also have to pay the tax on anything you brought into the country even if you paid some other tax on it elsewhere.
I like the plan it is simple, easily adjusted and it allows people to know what they are spending and adjust when their budget is tight.
The black market would never approach the level of tax evasion companies like GE do.
The simplicity and transparency of this is attractive... the lawyers and accountants(special interests) will hate it... especially considering the monstrosity of our current tax law.
I experienced the fair tax last summer in a european country and was quite enthralled with it. Some philosophical points are
1) you truly will buy what you need, what one can afford.
2) EVERYBODY pays taxes!!!
3) The simplicity involved makes this measure attractive.
to consider
Will our consumer based economy/society be changed from what it is? Most definitely.
And i believe all business as a whole are against it as it will deter our consumerism.
When you buy a house you must pay fair tax ( reasonably at 24%)
you would eliminate interest deduction from income tax since income tax would be eliminated.
Realistically, i dont see this happening.
Also, should one start pinning down "changes, loopholes, deductions, ect" the simplicity is defeated.
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2011, 02:59:24 PM
It is possible that the FairTax would make most people better off, but much of that gain would be a direct result of making the tax code less fair.
I love Fact Check Stephen excellent place to check. I think the last last does a good job summing it up. Perhaps the name ought o be changed to the People better off Tax.
I will tell you if you wait for life to be perfectly fair you may be in for quite a wait. "Most people better off" can be rare as well we should take advantage of that when we get the chance.
I have proposed to the Fair Tax people that they "prebate" 100% up to the poverty level and 50% to double that amount and adjust the tax rate to compensate. This would move the burden up the ladder a bit and make the Tax code a little more progressive.
I've already paid taxes on my savings and don't want to pay an additional 30%.
I know, right?
Again your waiting on perfect. I know we have all worked hard to jump through the current rules. I have a 401k same as anyone.
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2011, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on March 30, 2011, 05:03:49 PM
Again your waiting on perfect. I know we have all worked hard to jump through the current rules. I have a 401k same as anyone.
So whats the reason you want to change the taxation system again?
Again? No... toss it out and start over.
My reason for wanting an honest debate in our congress is simplicity, transparency, and fairness.
I think it is a mess. I think no one really knows what is in the laws nor how they work. I think we pay too much. The current system breeds mistrust. Spin the wheel... you will land on a winner.
Stephen your article says it. Because most people could be better off.
Because I want April to be a wonderful joyous celebration of spring and not the hated tax month. Everyone should be able to fill out an EZ form and not have to figure out a way to pay in 36% and not 45%. Heck I claim zero across the board and get a refund every single year, but I would glady give that up if I did not have to go through the dreaded month of April and the fear of making one tiny mistake.
I don't mind paying reasonable taxes, but hate having to file.
Quote from: uptowngirl on March 30, 2011, 06:06:16 PM
Because I want April to be a wonderful joyous celebration of spring and not the hated tax month. Everyone should be able to fill out an EZ form and not have to figure out a way to pay in 36% and not 45%. Heck I claim zero across the board and get a refund every single year, but I would glady give that up if I did not have to go through the dreaded month of April and the fear of making one tiny mistake.
I don't mind paying reasonable taxes, but hate having to file.
The lawyers, accountants, and politicians certainly love it tho.
Quote from: stephendare on March 30, 2011, 05:15:03 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 30, 2011, 05:13:21 PM
My reason for wanting an honest debate in our congress is simplicity, transparency, and fairness.
That would be the answer to the question: "Why do you want an honest debate in our Congress".
However, I actually asked a different question.
Why do you think our taxation system needs to be changed radically?
I'm your huckleberry.
Because politicians use it (our current tax code/system) to garner favor and lend competitive advantage to donors, friends, cronies, and themselves. The tax code is a behemoth that takes someone as smart as but a few members here to be navigated. An instrument of public funding for private plunder.
Stephen can probably manage it, but buckethead is lost.
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/mar/15/marcia-fudge/rep-marcia-fudge-says-some-largest-corporations-pa/
Quote... Between 1998 to 2005, GAO found that about 72 percent of large foreign controlled companies and 55 percent of large U.S. controlled companies reported zero tax liability for at least one year. About 57 percent of foreign controlled large companies and 42 percent of U.S. large companies paid no taxes in two or more years, and a third of the foreign companies and one quarter of their U.S. counterparts paid no taxes for at least four of those years. Just 45 percent of large U.S. companies and 28 percent of foreign companies reported a tax liability for each of the eight years. The report defined large companies as those with at least $250 million in assets, or at least $50 million in receipts
When GAO factored smaller companies into the mix, it found a higher overall proportion who didn’t pay taxes. Throughout the eight years the study examined, the overall percentage of non-tax-paying foreign and U.S. controlled companies never fell beneath 60 percent annually.
The report said that corporations may not pay U.S. income taxes for a variety of reasons, including current-year operating losses, tax credits, and multinational corporations shifting income to lower tax jurisdictions.
"Some corporations could have zero income before deducting expenses and others could have zero net income after deducting expenses, both of which could result in no tax liability," the report said.
After the GAO report was released, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Chief Economist Martin Regalia released a statement that stressed the difference between companies not having a tax liability and shirking taxes that are owed.
"The GAO report doesn’t say that businesses aren’t paying taxes they owe," Regalia’s statement said. "Rather, it says that some corporations did not have tax liabilities â€" in other words, they did not owe taxes. So how do corporations avoid having tax liabilities? They don’t make any profits. You can have many billions of dollars in revenue and still have R&D, labor-related and other expenses that are larger than your revenues â€" and therefore no ‘income’ to tax.
"In sum, the idea that there is a large pool of corporations not paying taxes that they legally owe is just incorrect," Regalia concluded.
The nation’s big business representatives don’t dispute the report’s findings, even as they stress it should not be misconstrued to mean businesses are evading taxes they owe. During her television appearance, Fudge stressed that the businesses who don’t pay taxes aren’t cheating or doing anything wrong.
Quote from: Lunican on March 30, 2011, 04:47:01 PM
I've already paid taxes on my savings and don't want to pay an additional 30%.
And under the current system you will still be stuck with the embedded taxes in all products you buy. The Fair Tax replaces all government revenue, not just Income Tax.
What about state income taxes? Local sales taxes?
Quote from: JagFan07 on March 31, 2011, 08:18:26 AM
Quote from: Lunican on March 30, 2011, 04:47:01 PM
I've already paid taxes on my savings and don't want to pay an additional 30%.
And under the current system you will still be stuck with the embedded taxes in all products you buy. The Fair Tax replaces all government revenue, not just Income Tax.
You won't pay tax on any savings. Just "spendings" (to coin a phrase). We'd all be in the same boat, with the rich hit hardest, in terms of double taxation due to a systematic change of taxation (once we decided to spend it on goods and services).
The good news: You would be free to invest your savings in a more productive manner without paying any tax on the new proceeds (until you decide to spend them, of course). Gas guzzling yacht for Lunican? TAX HIS ASS!
Buckethead want's a monster truck? TAX HIM!
The fair tax punishes poor stewardship to our planet.
Bling me??? TAX ME!
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 31, 2011, 08:31:39 AM
What about state income taxes? Local sales taxes?
Sorry should have stated it "replaces all FEDERAL government revenue."
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
Ok, catching up. So basically the fair tax isn't fair, and we are shafted either way. Big surprise. Uptown, I guess 1099EZ really only needs two lines. 1) How much did you make last year? 2) Send it in.
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2011, 11:10:23 AM
What is it doing in return for those tax breaks?
Thats the complex question for each of these corporations.
All of this talk about closing loopholes. Isnt it just a way to avoid raising the upper income tax bracket on Corporations?
Back to the levels that were in place when Ronald Reagan was elected president and the long slow destruction of the American Economy began?
If we close the loopholes, isnt that just a way of defunding the charities and economic stimulus provided by the corporations without finding an alternative method of funding them?
Is that responsible?
In addition... all of those "loopholes" are legal. No one is accusing these companies of doing something illegal to avoid these taxes. The loopholes were created by and voted on and approved by your congress. So if you feel the need to "blame" someone... that would be your federal government.
Is it responsible to leave the loopholes might be the more relevant question. Oh I guess they both are relevant . I say doing nothing is not the responsible thing to do. Cap the amount or percentage break any one company can achieve. Large corporations operating inside the U.S. should never have large profits and next to nothing in taxes due.
I just do not believe any of the mega corporations truly give or stimulate enough to our economy to justify the type of taxes not paid and credits given we have seen here lately.
But I will listen to arguments on behalf of those corporations but I suggest you make them good.
I guess I should , but do not understand how corporations who make such huge profits, not only do not pay taxes, but get tax credits as well. There is something wrong with that process, to those of us who do pay, I think pretty steep taxes for the level of income we have .
I am a believer in the fair tax. As has been stated before, it is not perfect, but it is at least reasonable in its pure form.
Do you think it is "fair" for these corporations to not pay ANY taxes?
Well, you have to remember that corporations don't pay taxes. People do. When you tax a corporation 15%, they raise prices at least 15% to cover the cost. So either way, you are paying them if you buy their product, not the corporation. That said, if you DON'T buy their product, you aren't paying the tax, so I guess there is that. But someone is. Maybe not you, but some consumer is covering the cost.
Interesting.. but why do corporations not pay taxes?
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 31, 2011, 01:00:16 PM
Well, you have to remember that corporations don't pay taxes. People do.
Yet the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the “right†to spend unlimited money influencing elections and that corporations have the same rights as individuals to free speech.
Yet they don't have the same duty to pay taxes.
What a wonderful system we have.
Quote from: Timkin on March 31, 2011, 01:04:14 PM
Interesting.. but why do corporations not pay taxes?
Read this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Within that article is an example of a congressman manipulating tax code for the betterment of his precinct and his constituents. This could be virtually any congressman of either party. This has gone on for decades.
This needs to STOP.
I'm sure if I could afford to make "donations" to my congressman, aided and abetted by lobbyists and high-powered attorneys, I could get some oh-so-legal "loopholes" as well.
So basically , large corporations and politicians scratch each others backs :)
In my experience of the fair tax, there would be no income tax, so your income would be purely yours. The fair tax was implimented in a uniform sales tax EVERYONE pays when they purchase sales . Therefore implimentation of tax credits would (theorhetically) be non existent. I cant understand how you would receive such, as was my experience this past summer.
My OPINION is:
Corporations should pay only a fair tax just like the rest of us.
States are free to tax corporations.
Corporations should NOT be allowed to contribute to political campaigns BUT should be able to advertise as they see fit. In other words, free speech is universal, political money is not.
Our Federal government (congress, the President, and the USSP), should institute a fair tax system and not corrupt it. finehoe is right to be offended that anyone or any corporation can literally bribe the government and get away with it. We have watched it for years and it must stop now.
The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to be in the "charity" business. I know that many of you will start telling me of the "general welfare" clause. I am aware of it and the USSP rulings concerning it. The general welfare clause does not (and can not) authorize the Federal government to do anything as many would have it. Otherwise, we are fighting a losing battle against encroaching, expensive central government. The Federal government MUST be limited to the enumerated powers. The record of the founding fathers and the history of our country supports my position on this. An "all powerful" Federal government will continue to abuse us and tax us to death.
+1
Again, I am aware of the USSP decisions concerning the GW clause. I just think that it is misguided. The USSP has corrected themselves before, and I am confident that they can do it again.
Stephen do you think it is fair that large corporations do not pay tax?
For the record , I am ok with paying my share. but I would not expect to pay nothing.
I am still a fan of the Fair Tax but another suggestion could be to put a minimum of 10% tax rate on corporate profits no matter what tax credits or incentives they have received. Allow for some tax breaks but never down to zero or worse paying companies to earn money.
Exactly, Jeffrey.... The people don't get away w no tax. Why should corporations ? Especially ones making adequate profits, like GE.. They are hardly hurting .
QuoteExactly, Jeffrey.... The people don't get away w no tax. Why should corporations ? Especially ones making adequate profits, like GE.. They are hardly hurting .
Corporate profits are currently double-taxed. The corporation pays income tax, then shareholders pay taxes on dividends and capital gains.
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2011, 09:29:50 PM
Quote from: JMac on March 31, 2011, 09:22:02 PM
QuoteExactly, Jeffrey.... The people don't get away w no tax. Why should corporations ? Especially ones making adequate profits, like GE.. They are hardly hurting .
Corporate profits are currently double-taxed. The corporation pays income tax, then shareholders pay taxes on dividends and capital gains.
Um. no. Corporations are taxed one time.
Thats like claiming your household income is taxed five times because you pay income tax, and then the retailers who you buy clothes from are taxed. That in turn becomes income for the shop employees, who pay income tax, and spend the rest of clothes, and so on, and so on, and so on..........
No, it's not. The shareholders own the company. Their profits are taxed twice. I wouldn't expect you to understand.
QuoteThe Shareholders make profits from letting their money be used for the corporations business.
that would be accurate if you were talking about bonds. Stocks represent ownership.
Okay Jmac...you said they pay income tax.. that is on their employees? But what about profits? If we as taxpayers are taxed because our savings make money.. why should the same not hold true for corporations? I am simply trying to understand
you just answered my question, Stephen. thanks
Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2011, 09:47:21 PM
Jmac. You don't understand the basic structure.
Subchapter s corporations do not pay any taxes on profit. All profit passes through and counts as income for the owners of the corporation.
C Corporations are taxed on profits after all tax deductible expenses have been tallied up.
For example, if a shareholder of a C Corp is also an employee of the C Corp, then his salary is simply paid out as income to him/her. The C Corp is not taxed on this salary as a profit, since it is tax deductible for the C Corp.
However, if the C Corp pays dividends (Which are paid out after all legitimate taxes have been paid out), then the dividend payments are taxable income to the shareholder.
Surely you are not suggesting that every single corporate shareholder is taxed equally to all other shareholders.
You just illustrated my point. Profits for your S Corp in the first example are taxed once. Profits in the C Corp example are taxed twice. The Corporation pays income tax on profits after expenses, then they pay out dividends with what is left, and the owners of the company, shareholders, pay taxes again. Capital gains are usually based on retained profits, so the same concept applies.
Quote from: JMac on March 31, 2011, 10:00:00 PM
The Corporation pays income tax on profits after expenses
This is only in theory. Some 60% of corporations pay no taxes. As several posts above have illustrated, billions in corporate profits aren't taxed at all.
How do they get away with that, Finehoe?
Quote from: Timkin on March 31, 2011, 10:19:32 PM
How do they get away with that, Finehoe?
"He who pays the piper calls the tune."
Quote from: finehoe on March 31, 2011, 10:22:09 PM
Quote from: Timkin on March 31, 2011, 10:19:32 PM
How do they get away with that, Finehoe?
"He who pays the piper calls the tune."
which means ......... :)
Our government's view is that a corporation is a separate legal entity that benefits from it's presence and actions in the country and should be taxed. The individual draws income in the form of dividends based on profits not the actual profits. Many governments do view this as double taxation.
Quote from: finehoe on March 31, 2011, 10:22:09 PM
Quote from: Timkin on March 31, 2011, 10:19:32 PM
How do they get away with that, Finehoe?
"He who pays the piper calls the tune."
I think your "blame" is misplaced. Over the past decades your representatives in congress made the rules with which the corporations now play.
http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011/03/immelt-backs-tax-free-ge-calls-for-reform.html
QuoteImmelt backs tax-free GE, calls for reform
The chief of General Electric on Thursday defended the conglomerate’s zero tax rate in 2010 and called for reform of the U.S. tax code.
In his first public speaking engagement since a barrage of criticism about not having to pay taxes in 2010, GE Chief Executive Jeff Immelt told the Economic Club in Washington that his company did nothing wrong.
“At GE, we do like to keep our tax rate low, but we do it in a compliant way, and there are no exceptions,†Immelt said. “Our tax rate will be much higher in 2011 as GE Capital recovers.â€
But Immelt added that he, along with many other corporate leaders, wants the federal government to reform the U.S. tax code, which he called “old, complex and uncompetitive.â€
The company is particularly in the spotlight because Immelt is the chief of President Barack Obama’s innovation and jobs council.
Immelt added later that he understands why his company is taking heat in the media.
“I don’t fault this type of reporting,†Immelt said. “It is what it is. You can’t do any job like this unless you have a thick skin.â€
FYI... Jeffrey Immelt is head of GE and of President Barack Obama's business innovation task force.
Here ya go Timkin...
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/companies-ge-lower-taxes/story?id=13258952
QuoteBig Corporate Profits, Small Tax Bill
How GE, Boeing and Others Make Billions But Pay Relatively Little or No Tax: It's All Legal
24 comments By ALAN FARNHAM
March 31, 2011
"Immelt Must Go! Sign the Petition."
So goes the rallying cry of former Sen. Russ Feingold, whose group, Progressives United, backed by MoveOn.org, is demanding that General Electric Co. head Jeffrey Immelt step down as chairman of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.....
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2011, 06:35:43 AM
I think your "blame" is misplaced. Over the past decades your representatives in congress made the rules with which the corporations now play.
And you think they did this with no prodding from said corporations?
Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2011, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2011, 06:35:43 AM
I think your "blame" is misplaced. Over the past decades your representatives in congress made the rules with which the corporations now play.
And you think they did this with no prodding from said corporations?
"Prodding" happens all through life finehoe. From the child sneaking into the cookie jar all the way through adulthood. It is understood that individuals might cave to temptation... but this has happened to the entire institution of congress. These are laws passed by majorities of those bodies. They should not be enticed by "prods".
::) I have no idea what you are talking about... Please explain your blood of jesus obsession. :)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2011, 09:44:21 AM
These are laws passed by majorities of those bodies. They should not be enticed by "prods".
This is misleading. Yes the laws themselves are passed by the majority, but these loopholes are more often than not one-line entries in otherwise large bills that frequently have nothing to do with the main thrust of the bill. I seriously doubt if you did a search of all the legislation from the last fifty years or so that you would find any bills entitled "The General Electric Will Pay No Corporate Tax Act" or what have you. These things are slipped into bills at the last minute exactly because the sponsors know they would never pass on their own.
Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2011, 11:00:25 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2011, 09:44:21 AM
These are laws passed by majorities of those bodies. They should not be enticed by "prods".
This is misleading. Yes the laws themselves are passed by the majority, but these loopholes are more often than not one-line entries in otherwise large bills that frequently have nothing to do with the main thrust of the bill. I seriously doubt if you did a search of all the legislation from the last fifty years or so that you would find any bills entitled "The General Electric Will Pay No Corporate Tax Act" or what have you. These things are slipped into bills at the last minute exactly because the sponsors know they would never pass on their own.
Understood. Who is doing the "slipping"? And why? Ge is not "slipping it in". It is your friendly neighborhood congress. Go back and re read how Mr Rangel got his legislation through... or more accurately... failed to let a loophole expire.
Just as aggravating as the company paying no taxes, the CEO accepts a huge pay increase, while expecting his workers to accept a pay cut. Nothing new there,,, just typical greed. The $%^-@f-@-%$#@^ should step down.
Break it down for people like myself who do not understand, Please . ;)
Quote from: stephendare on April 04, 2011, 01:28:45 PM
http://www.propublica.org/article/setting-the-record-straight-on-ges-taxes
Quote
This story was co-published [1] with Fortune.
There's a heated debate over General Electric's taxes in places ranging from the front page of the New York Times [2] to the blogosphere [3] to, of all places, "The Daily Show." [4] In the 10 days since the Times touched off this debate, what started out as something resembling a conversation has degenerated into posturing, name-calling, and shrieking. So, did GE really not pay any income taxes on a $5.1 billion U.S. profit last year? Is it really getting a tax refund?
Sidebar
5 Ways GE Plays the Tax Game
by Jeff Gerth, ProPublica, and Allan Sloan, Fortune
Our Partner
Fortune
We're going to try to answer these questions. We'll also show you some things that we've learned about GE that few people outside the company and the insular world of tax techies know. The Times, of course, made GE and its tax gamesmanship a national issue with its agenda-setting piece on March 25. (By the way, they beat us on the story; we'd been working on it for months.) Unfortunately, for all its good work, the Times story has created at least one major misperception -- that GE paid no U.S. income taxes last year and is actually getting a $3.2 billion refund from the Treasury.
The Times' own headline writers got that impression too. "GE Turns the Tax Man Away Empty-Handed," read the headline on early editions, including the Times' Washington edition, the version that politicians and the DC-based news media and commentariat see. "GE's Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether [2]," was the original head on nytimes.com, the version the blogosphere reads.
Those headlines are based on the story's third paragraph, which discusses GE's 2010 financial results. "Its American tax bill? None. In fact, GE claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion." That seems to say that GE is getting a tax refund for 2010 -- but the words "tax benefit" are so ambiguous that it's not clear what they mean, and the article never explains them, or mentions them again.
By the time a revised (and accurate) headline got slapped on the later-edition print issues -- "At GE on Tax Day, Billions of Reasons to Smile" -- the idea that the Times was saying that GE paid no U.S. income taxes and was getting a big refund was firmly implanted.
GE made a muddled situation worse by putting complicated, technical and lawyerly rebuttals on its website, tweeting them, tripping over itself, and then proving unable to explain itself in public exchanges [5] with the likes of Henry Blodget, proprietor of the widely followed BusinessInsider blog. Or in conversations with reporters.
Now, we'll give you brief answers to the main questions, but you'll have to bear with us afterward for the full explanation.
For the first time in a long while, corporate taxes are actually a hot topic -- one that non-business types care about. Corporate tax reform was already in the air; now it's supercharged.
It's been 25 years since the last big tax reform legislation, which cut the corporate rate to 34 percent from 46 percent and eliminated a lot of deductions and tax breaks. But a quarter-century of pushing by businesses -- of which GE has been among the most aggressive -- has left us with both the lower tax rate (now 35 percent) and lots more deductions and shelters and other tax-reducing tactics than the 1986 legislation envisioned. GE's current idea of "reform" as expounded by John Samuels, the head of its tax department, is to cut the rate, but to allow some of GE's major tax-minimizing maneuvers to remain in place. It's hard to imagine anything like that happening now.
Samuels said at a tax forum in February that GE needs a tax system that will let it compete effectively with giant, foreign-based multinationals like Mitsubishi, Siemens, and Phillips. However, their effective tax rates for earnings purposes last year were 40 percent, 31 percent and 26 percent respectively, compared with 7 percent for GE. (GE says its tax rate's been artificially low the past few years, and will soon rise.)
We've already had more than enough heat about corporate taxes. What we need now is some light. And an appreciation that this problem, like GE's tax situation, is more complicated than the shriller voices among us would have you believe.
Wow, those other western capitalist nations (commonly referred to as socialist by the under-informed Republican), are doing something right!!! Despite Siemens and Philips being taxed 31 and 26 prcent respctively, they haven't moved their headquarters from Germany or the Nertherlands respectively.
So much for the shrill........."we've got to eliminate corporate taxes to lure businesses to our state, like Rick Scott wants us to believe!!!!!"
Why do we continuously want to eliminate government revenue? Oh, yeah it was to drown government in a bathtub!
QuoteThe Republican party is killing Americans. And I don't just mean our soldiers in their useless war in Iraq. I mean regular American civilians, and the killing of Americans, though unintended, is a direct result of Republican policy. Let me say that again. A direct, if unintended, result of Republican domestic policy is the needless death of American citizens.
Grover Norquist, one of the darlings of the extreme rightwing, Gingrich/Bush/McCain branch of the Republican party, once said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." This statement has been the basis of Republican policy.
http://www.culturekitchen.com/mole333/blog/drowning_america_in_a_bathtub_the_gingrich_doct
Dear Congress,
Please remember: you are fighting over how to spend our money. We the People pay 33.7% of the Federal Fund while corporations pay 7.2%. Many corporations pay no taxes at all. Yet your entire focus during this budget battle has been on how much to hurt the people.
We did not cause the recession, the deficit, or the national debt. We know this, and we need you to know that we are aware of a corrupt system in which corporations spend their vast wealth to lobby and manipulate you.
We know that's why the tax code so unjustly burdens us while favoring them. We know this is why Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are under attack from the US Chamber of Commerce and other powerful lobbyists. We know that is why your policies reward multinational corporations, including those that DID cause the recession, with bailouts, bonuses, and tax benefits.
As you wrangle over how much to hurt our quality of life and jeopardize our future, consider ways to create jobs and invest in our future.
Congress should work together on how to help us, not fight over how to hurt us.
Sincerely,
http://my.coffeepartyusa.com/page/speakout/I_Pay_Taxes
Wow Faye... what a nice, calm, bipartisan, non finger pointing letter... and addressed to the proper culprit also.
I like Faye ! :) She calls a spade a shovel !!!! ;)
I really think the 10% floor idea no matter what credits or incentives you have earned is a good one. We still have 25% to work with on those loopholes we need. ::) While getting a monster increase in corporate contributions to the society they reap so much benefit off of.
Sooo... at the end of the day, the headline, thread topic title, and anything else related to this is wrong? Since GE did indeed pay income taxes for 2010?
Quote from: Doctor_K on April 13, 2011, 11:13:31 AM
Sooo... at the end of the day, the headline, thread topic title, and anything else related to this is wrong? Since GE did indeed pay income taxes for 2010?
If you think them paying a smaller percentage than you do is right, then sure.
Quote from: finehoe on April 13, 2011, 11:51:27 AM
Quote from: Doctor_K on April 13, 2011, 11:13:31 AM
Sooo... at the end of the day, the headline, thread topic title, and anything else related to this is wrong? Since GE did indeed pay income taxes for 2010?
If you think them paying a smaller percentage than you do is right, then sure.
Not at all. i think it's ludicrous.
But the title of the thread and initial article is "GE Pays
No Tax..." which is not true. They did. It's misleading.
It is confusing isnt it? Perhaps that is as it is meant to be...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
QuoteBut Nobody Pays That
G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: March 24, 2011
General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.
The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies..........
In todays news... :)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42570045
QuoteGE Rebuffs Tax Refund Report as 'Hoax'
Published: Wednesday, 13 Apr 2011
General Electric called an earlier media report Wednesday that it would repay a $3.2 billion tax refund to the Treasury Department a "hoax."
Members of an activist group calling themselves the "Yes Men" claimed responsibility for the hoax, according to a report from Reuters.
Earlier Wednesday morning, the Associated Press reported that the U.S. conglomerate â€" using "a series of foreign tax havens" â€" would repay the "enormous" refund it received for the 2010 tax year.
Shares of GE [GE 19.958 -0.052 (-0.26%) ], which is a minority shareholder in NBC Universal, the parent company of CNBC.com, slipped on the AP report. The company has faced intense scrutiny in recent weeks following a New York Times report that it would pay no taxes for the 2010 tax year.
"It's a hoax and GE did not receive a refund," said Deirdre Latour, a GE spokeswoman.
Chief Executive Jeff Immelt in a March speech in Washington acknowledged that the company tries to keep its tax bill as low as it can but said it does so legally.
"Our tax rate will be higher in 2011," Immelt told the Washington Economic Club. "We do it in a compliant way. There are no exceptions."
The "Yes Men" sent the release to draw attention to GE's approach to taxes, according to Andrew Boyd who described himself in a phone interview with Reuters as a member of the group.
"This is unpatriotic, it's undemocratic, it's unfair," Boyd said. "It might be legal but it's immoral."
This whole thing is outrageous. They make almost $15bn in profit, pay $0 tax. Meanwhile, everybody is bitching about wanting to raise taxes on the rest of us. Unfuckingbelievable.
"One man, one vote" is now "one dollar, one vote". No thanks to you, Robert's Court.
"Government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations" - with apologies to Abraham Lincoln.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 13, 2011, 02:49:43 PM
This whole thing is outrageous. They make almost $15bn in profit, pay $0 tax. Meanwhile, everybody is bitching about wanting to raise taxes on the rest of us. Unfuckingbelievable.
Only about $5 billion of that was in the US, with the rest being made in other countries.
The question that raises is: did they pay taxes on their profits made in those other countries?
If they did - shame on the US Tax Code and all its loopholes.
Quote from: Doctor_K on April 13, 2011, 12:10:38 PM
Quote from: finehoe on April 13, 2011, 11:51:27 AM
Quote from: Doctor_K on April 13, 2011, 11:13:31 AM
Sooo... at the end of the day, the headline, thread topic title, and anything else related to this is wrong? Since GE did indeed pay income taxes for 2010?
If you think them paying a smaller percentage than you do is right, then sure.
Not at all. i think it's ludicrous.
But the title of the thread and initial article is "GE Pays No Tax..." which is not true. They did. It's misleading.
The thread, as I am reading it, says " Re: In a Remarkable Show of Bi Partisanship...GE Pays No Tax on 14 Billion Profit". Not that it did not pay Income tax. That means (to me at least) it paid no taxes on its profits.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 13, 2011, 02:49:43 PM
This whole thing is outrageous. They make almost $15bn in profit, pay $0 tax. Meanwhile, everybody is bitching about wanting to raise taxes on the rest of us. Unfuckingbelievable.
Amen. Id have no problem paying more taxes , believe it or not , If I could see an appreciable change in our City, Urban Core, Transit, Historic Preservation , WHATEVER... But I do not get why a corporation can make profits of this amount ,regardless of which country the profits were made in , and pay NO taxes on those profits.
QuoteIf I could see an appreciable change in our City, Urban Core, Transit, Historic Preservation
The problem my old friend, is that you cannot see a measurable difference. When the Peyton geniuses raised our storm water taxes and called them fees, did we see an immediate improvement in the quality of life? Have we seen the green algae die away? When the school raised our property taxes last year, because they could, did we see an improvement in the school system from those tax dollars?
I am sure that this will stir the pot with the liberals, but there are some smart people out here. Perhaps they could elaborate on a recent tax, of the last 10-15 years, passed that made life better here in Jacksonville, beside the BJP or anything related to the Jaguars. Sure the toll roads going away were nice, but did the half cent sales tax improve JTA? I'd be interested to see a local tax that has made a measurable difference in the lives of the citizens of Jacksonville. It would restore some of my humility.
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 14, 2011, 08:50:54 AM
QuoteIf I could see an appreciable change in our City, Urban Core, Transit, Historic Preservation
The problem my old friend, is that you cannot see a measurable difference. When the Peyton geniuses raised our storm water taxes and called them fees, did we see an immediate improvement in the quality of life? Have we seen the green algae die away? When the school raised our property taxes last year, because they could, did we see an improvement in the school system from those tax dollars?
I am sure that this will stir the pot with the liberals, but there are some smart people out here. Perhaps they could elaborate on a recent tax, of the last 10-15 years, passed that made life better here in Jacksonville, beside the BJP or anything related to the Jaguars. Sure the toll roads going away were nice, but did the half cent sales tax improve JTA? I'd be interested to see a local tax that has made a measurable difference in the lives of the citizens of Jacksonville. It would restore some of my humility.
And we are in agreement on this M. thus , the last posting of mine. I have no problem with taxes, but Id like to see something APPRECIABLE that those dollars ( and everyone else that paid) were used for.
(https://motherjones.com/files/images/tax-racket_0.preview.jpg)