• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study finds Corporate America avoided $60B in taxes (2010)

Enough to fight Iraq with.. with hell, they paid that much money to avoid paying taxes ALTOGETHER

that's not a "they". that's an "us". the middle class guy who goes to H&R Block to make sure he get's all the credits and deductions that his family rates, the low-income family who gets the 20 dollar upgrade on Turbo tax to make sure they get the same, they are doing the same thing.

know who else does this? :) The President.
 
Avoiding taxes is legal and ethical. Evading taxes is neither legal nor ethical, unless, of course, you're a politician. Different rules for them.

I am retired now and have few deductions but if I gift money to my kids, and I usually do, I make sure to stay under the limit to avoid taxes on the "gift". Legal and ethical.

Of course, if I bought a yacht and registered it in another state to avoid sales tax in my home state, that's apparently legal but I don't consider that ethical. That's just my opinion, though.
 
Last edited:
that depends on the direction in which we get rid of them. if we get rid of them in a manner so as to raise effective tax rates; we are simply increasing the amount of money they will spend moving their "headquarters" and operations off-shore. and we will never see that money again - because (again, almost alone of the industrialized nations) we are stupid enough to try to tax people with they repatriate money.

We aren't seeing any money from over 50 percent of them already... :roll:
 
that's not a "they". that's an "us". the middle class guy who goes to H&R Block to make sure he get's all the credits and deductions that his family rates, the low-income family who gets the 20 dollar upgrade on Turbo tax to make sure they get the same, they are doing the same thing.

know who else does this? :) The President.

This is a horrible, pointless argument. We are talking about the debt and the war debt, paying it off, and how the government is giving people hand outs in the form of tax credits and corporate welfare. Instead of complaining about handouts and the tax code, or arguing to change the tax code, you're defending it as human nature. Well, no **** Sherlock. If you can get money back rather than pay, you will want money. Thanks Captain Obvious. What do you propose doing about the deficit, just cut spending, spending, spending, but not cut the government spending money by paying GE over 2 million or individuals billions of dollars?
 
Japan has a higher tax rate than America

and (before the Tsunami hit and sucked up every political moment) they were looking to significantly reduce it for precisely this reason.

Japan does, however, still have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.

hey, how has their economy been the last couple of decades, anywho? just roaring along, right?

no? gosh...... well, have they tried massive stimulus spending to improve that?

they have? gee.....

it's almost enough to make you wonder if a high-tax-high-spending government puts downward pressure on private sector growth or something....

and US companies pay less taxes than other industrialized countries because of all the deductions, tax shelters, and loopholes

yes and no - it depends on the company and the industry. our retailers, for example, pay pretty close to the nominal tax rate, while companies that are friendlier with the Administration and able to take greater advantage (like GE) pay less.

I have been reading about this for the past 20 minutes, and I might start a post on it in a few minutes. The fact is, US corporations actually pay less taxes than most other countries but the tax rate is high. Lowering the tax rate isn't going to do anything, because more than 50 percent of corporations pay NO taxes at all.

actually it will - because they pay alot to get to those lower tax rates. If I am Acme Inc., and I can hire 150 of the highest-voltage tax attorneys in the world at a cost of 3,000,000 so that they can tell me how to divert 15,000,000 into particular shelters and less productive venues in order to avoid 50,000,000 in taxes; then I save a cool $32 million. But it still cost me $18 Million to save that $50 million.

when you lower the nominal rate, you reduce the incentives to spend that $18 million, and in particular lose the gains that the $15 million portion would have gotten you in increased production. Not only do you see production increases from the fact that people are now seeking to put less of their money into tax avoidance (and thus pumping that money into production), you see increases from the fact that they now need to spend less of the $3 million to figure out how to do so. You are reducing the compliance costs of the system, and reducing the incentive to engage in tax avoidance. the result is more actual revenue and more growth.
 
This is a horrible, pointless argument. We are talking about the debt and the war debt, paying it off, and how the government is giving people hand outs in the form of tax credits and corporate welfare. Instead of complaining about handouts and the tax code, or arguing to change the tax code, you're defending it as human nature

actually I support the House Republicans' attempt to strip out all of these tax credits and corporate welfare, and I supported it when the Simpson-Bowles Commission called for the same. The only party in Washington today who has thus far refused to come out in favor of this process in legislation is the Democrats. Though to be fair, the President has said he's in favor of such a switch theoretically; he just tends to balk when it comes to actually doing it. In the meantime, I'm just pointing out that the businesses involved are no more immoral than the President or your average middle class family in that they seek to minimize their tax exposure. They are merely working within the incentive structure that our idiotic tax code has created.

Well, no **** Sherlock. If you can get money back rather than pay, you will want money. Thanks Captain Obvious

then what is the point of this thread? "hey look ya'll! something completely obvious is occuring that surprises no one!"

What do you propose doing about the deficit, just cut spending, spending, spending, but not cut the government spending money by paying GE over 2 million or individuals billions of dollars?

actually on top of reducing spending and making Medicare sustainable, the House 2012 Budget strips out the provisions that do that; but in a an effective rate neutral manner.
 
and (before the Tsunami hit and sucked up every political moment) they were looking to significantly reduce it for precisely this reason.

Japan does, however, still have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.

hey, how has their economy been the last couple of decades, anywho? just roaring along, right?

no? gosh...... well, have they tried massive stimulus spending to improve that?

they have? gee.....

it's almost enough to make you wonder if a high-tax-high-spending government puts downward pressure on private sector growth or something....



yes and no - it depends on the company and the industry. our retailers, for example, pay pretty close to the nominal tax rate, while companies that are friendlier with the Administration and able to take greater advantage (like GE) pay less.



actually it will - because they pay alot to get to those lower tax rates. If I am Acme Inc., and I can hire 150 of the highest-voltage tax attorneys in the world at a cost of 3,000,000 so that they can tell me how to divert 15,000,000 into particular shelters and less productive venues in order to avoid 50,000,000 in taxes; then I save a cool $32 million. But it still cost me $18 Million to save that $50 million.

when you lower the nominal rate, you reduce the incentives to spend that $18 million, and in particular lose the gains that the $15 million portion would have gotten you in increased production. Not only do you see production increases from the fact that people are now seeking to put less of their money into tax avoidance (and thus pumping that money into production), you see increases from the fact that they now need to spend less of the $3 million to figure out how to do so. You are reducing the compliance costs of the system, and reducing the incentive to engage in tax avoidance. the result is more actual revenue and more growth.

Lowering the tax rate in itself is not going to do anything if the tax code doesn't end most deductions, and I think it's funny how you assume a higher net income is going to all go towards the retained earnings account. You are a trickle down theory guy. The fact is, they avoided 60B in taxes, so we should all be benefiting from that right now. Where is the evidence we are benefiting? Most of the people in this country want a job, or even a full time job with benefits. That's 60B that should have gone back into production, right? That's 60B that Canada, Germany, and Japan's economy didn't pay their corporations.

The government isn't in the business of saving anybody money. You want the government to lower GE's taxes, so they can save money in paying doilette and touche (or whoever) to file their taxes. You think that doilette and touche and the rest of the Big Four are going to lower tax and audit costs, because the government lowered taxes? That's kind of funny.
 
The tax code is not about raising revenue. It's about controlling people and how they live. The government wants you to buy a house so they give tax incentives. They want you do have children, so they give tax incentives. They don't want you to drive so there are tax penalties.
 
and (before the Tsunami hit and sucked up every political moment) they were looking to significantly reduce it for precisely this reason.

Japan does, however, still have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.

hey, how has their economy been the last couple of decades, anywho? just roaring along, right?

no? gosh...... well, have they tried massive stimulus spending to improve that?

they have? gee.....

it's almost enough to make you wonder if a high-tax-high-spending government puts downward pressure on private sector growth or something....

Japan had for awhile dealt with near out of control deflation. You can't spend your way out of that, during deflationary times it's very hard to spur spending by the people and that's what was needed. It's a little simplistic I believe to point to their tax code and their business structure and try to claim a direct cause and effect. Economics is a high order, non-linear system and there are many factors which go into it. But their deflationary tailspin is a very different sort of system from our bloated spending.
 
Japan had for awhile dealt with near out of control deflation. You can't spend your way out of that, during deflationary times it's very hard to spur spending by the people and that's what was needed. It's a little simplistic I believe to point to their tax code and their business structure and try to claim a direct cause and effect. Economics is a high order, non-linear system and there are many factors which go into it. But their deflationary tailspin is a very different sort of system from our bloated spending.

It doesn't appear like Japan has the same problem with losing all their manufacturing or infrastructure either. It seems like their economy is highly innovative.
 
Lowering the tax rate in itself is not going to do anything if the tax code doesn't end most deductions, and I think it's funny how you assume a higher net income is going to all go towards the retained earnings account. You are a trickle down theory guy. The fact is, they avoided 60B in taxes, so we should all be benefiting from that right now. Where is the evidence we are benefiting? Most of the people in this country want a job, or even a full time job with benefits. That's 60B that should have gone back into production, right? That's 60B that Canada, Germany, and Japan's economy didn't pay their corporations.

you are talking about 60bn in tax avoidance, not 60bn in production increase - you continue to ignore the compliance costs. We Americans have $431 Bn in compliance costs :).


The government isn't in the business of saving anybody money. You want the government to lower GE's taxes, so they can save money in paying doilette and touche (or whoever) to file their taxes. You think that doilette and touche and the rest of the Big Four are going to lower tax and audit costs, because the government lowered taxes? That's kind of funny.

no, i want effective tax rate neutrality, but with stripped out deductions credits and shelters. that means that GE will pay more and Target will pay less, but both business models will be treated equally.
 
you are talking about 60bn in tax avoidance, not 60bn in production increase - you continue to ignore the compliance costs. We Americans have $431 Bn in compliance costs :).

So we need to use the government as a vehicle to see that more than 60B actually trickles down to us because we can't feel the affects of 60B trickling down, because those damn tax specialists are expensive... ok. But wait, it's not like tax consulting fees for businesses are a tax deduction in of itself, so the government lowering the cost of tax preparation (lol) won't make a difference in terms of taxable income. It will be a smaller credit to the expense account, but it will be written off for tax purposes... it's has a zero sum affect.

Why do you keep arguing that the government is going to lower the costs of tax consulting for firms anyway? That argument is horrible. Ad if your argument was even founded, there will be less income and production in the accounting and legal industry, and that will basically be attacking the top 1% of tax payers... attorneys and CPAs. Ask Turtle Dude, that's what he argues all the time. :lol:
 
All I have to say is...:shock:

FoxNews.com:



Now, before anyone starts critisizing the above and start labelling me anti-rich, read what Ken Langone, Dir., NYSE, had to say about taxing the rich.

From MSNBC.com:

So, not really, "corporate America", just the top 100 American corporations?
 
No, the solution is to remove the loopholes so that they cannot avoid paying their taxes. It's the same idea behind getting rid of the Capital Gains definition. Income is income, just because some people got Congress to call some income not income does not make that income not income. It should all be taxed the same. Get rid of these rules that allow companies to hide their taxes, they already get enough in hand outs and subsidies (free market my ass).

Such as?

I keep asking and everyone keeps not answering.
 
I think the majority of opinion on both sides is that they need to close tax loop-holes.

I can't wait for someone to tell us exactly which, "loopholes", should be closed. Does that mean that corporations are going to have to pay taxes on money spent doing business?
 
I can't wait for someone to tell us exactly which, "loopholes", should be closed. Does that mean that corporations are going to have to pay taxes on money spent doing business?

How about any and all deductions that allow you to pay less than you owe?
 
How about any and all deductions that allow you to pay less than you owe?

Define, "owe", in this case. Are you suggesting that corporations be taxed on their gross profit?
 
Can you support that steaming pile of do dung summation?

its obvious, our national debt has been growing and growing during the time we have progressive income taxes. as the rich have assumed a greater share of the income tax burden, the deficit has increased.
 
I can't wait for someone to tell us exactly which, "loopholes", should be closed. Does that mean that corporations are going to have to pay taxes on money spent doing business?

the socialists want corporations that make money in say Germany and pay taxes there to also pay taxes on that same income in the USA.
 
Define, "owe", in this case. Are you suggesting that corporations be taxed on their gross profit?

Federal taxable income is defined in a comprehensive manner in the Internal Revenue Code and regulations issued by the Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service. Right? And gross income includes all income earned or received from whatever source. Again, right?

What are you actually questioning?
 
How about any and all deductions that allow you to pay less than you owe?

if deductions are part of the tax code than not taking them means you pay more than you legally owe.

the biggest loophole? those who are on the dole having the same votes as those who fund most of the government
 
the socialists want corporations that make money in say Germany and pay taxes there to also pay taxes on that same income in the USA.

I don't have a huge problem with that. But, that isn't what've argued to date. So, don't ventrue too far from what I actually said.
 
the socialists want corporations that make money in say Germany and pay taxes there to also pay taxes on that same income in the USA.

The Lefties don't have the first clue how things work in the real world.

This is proof:

How about any and all deductions that allow you to pay less than you owe?
 
if deductions are part of the tax code than not taking them means you pay more than you legally owe.

the biggest loophole? those who are on the dole having the same votes as those who fund most of the government

We know that. Go back and read the thread. What is being argued, and what I was careful to say, was to do away with those adjustments or reductions. That is what is really being argued.
 
Back
Top Bottom