QuoteGoldman Sachs reports 'effective tax rate' of 1%
Goldman Sachs expects to pay just $14 million in taxes this year, giving the bank an "effective income tax rate" of 1% on a global basis, Bloomberg News reports. The news agency says Goldman paid $6 billion in taxes in 2007.
Here's how the firm described its anticipated tax obligations on page four of yesterday's report:
(http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/images/2008/12/17/gs_taxes.jpg)
“I was definitely taken aback,†Robert Willens, a tax adviser, tells Bloomberg. “Clearly they have taken steps to ensure that a lot of their income is earned in lower-tax jurisdictions.â€
The company lost $2.29 billion in the fourth quarter, according to AP, which reminds us that the bank received $10 billion in taxpayer assistance two months ago
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/12/goldman-sachs-r.html?csp=34
I'm shocked that they have ANY taxes this year. That implies that some portion of their operations managed to generate a profit (I'm guessing they sold depreciated assets).
What's with the negative tone of the article? Are they trying to convince stupid people that the big bad corporation is cheating its way out of tax liability? America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. When they actually generate a profit, these companies are being raped by high taxes.
Joe: Please dont confuse him with facts. ;)
Facts are what's missing actually. They had a loss in the 4th quarter, but what about the other three?
The quote actually states that a change in 'geographic mix' was at least partially responsible for the fall in tax liability. What part of the drop was operating loss vs. tax haven?
How about let's getting THOSE facts.
If the revenue was earned here, then the taxes should be paid here, period. If the tax structure is so oppressive then they should do business elsewhere.
I can't claim my FL tax losses on my SC income tax return, and I can't declare myself a FL resident without actually establishing residence. I guess that's because I don't have my lobbyist working the right angles.
I guess the tax haven portion is just more tax burden for the rest of us suckers.
BTW, since Goldman Sachs got a $10 billion bailout but only paid 14 million in taxes, does that make them as dispicable as the taxpayers that stand to benefit from Obama's tax cut, even while they don't currently pay federal income tax? Just wondering.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 18, 2008, 12:06:06 PM
If the revenue was earned here, then the taxes should be paid here, period. If the tax structure is so oppressive then they should do business elsewhere.
Um, yeah, that's kind of what's happening. That's why McCain wanted to lower corporate taxes, while Obama wanted to raise tariffs. Both proposals were to do the same thing - prevent American companies from escaping our awful corporate taxes by doing more business overseas.
And yes, Goldman Sachs is being completely dispicable for accepting a bailout. But it borders on brain-dead when people turn around and express indignation that a company doing so poorly they need a subsidy somehow STILL needs to be taxed.
They can do all the business they want overseas, but they need to pay taxes to the nation where the profit was earned. Creating a tax shelter via a PO box in some banana republic is not 'moving elsewhere'.
If there had been no profit, there would have been no tax. Hiding profit in a tax shelter makes everyone else pick up the slack. If every corporation paid their share, the rate could be lower, WITHOUT lowering tax receipts.
A lower fair tax rate discourages tax avoidance and tax evasion and thereby increases tax receipts. Higher, unfair tax levels discourage income creation and encourage people and businesses to find creative ways to avoid (legally or not) paying taxes. This has been shown time and time again. It is really been proven so many times as to be economic fact at this point.
Thank you for steering off topic with your irrelevant "fair tax" nonsense.
If you want to talk about that, there is already a thread by that name. Please go to it.
Here we are talking about sham offshore "tax havens" and Bush government bailouts.
I don't believe he has was referring to the "Fair Tax", but stating that US corporations face unfair tax rates. If he was referring to the Fair Tax there would be no rate because income would not be taxed. Also, I don't see anywhere that this post is meant to talk about tax havens or Bush government bailouts, it is about Goldman Sachs effective tax rate and whatever may comprise that.
Quote from: Midway on December 18, 2008, 07:09:20 PM
Thank you for steering off topic with your irrelevant "fair tax" nonsense.
If you want to talk about that, there is already a thread by that name. Please go to it.
Here we are talking about sham offshore "tax havens" and Bush government bailouts.
Just because you do not understand the connection does not mean that there is not one. High corporate income taxes discourage business growth in this nation and force many corporations to offshore operations to save money on taxes. This harms our economy, stunts our growth and limits tax receipts.
Now what was your original point? That corporations are evil?
BTW, if you are referring to the Fair Tax plan in your diatribe above, you should know that I am not even a supporter of it.