• 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!

Some of America's biggest companies paid little to no federal income tax in 2018

Lutherf said:
I love stuff like this -


They cite "generally accepted accounting principles" as if it was a bad thing. GAAP is MANDATORY! It's financial reporting standards put in place to keep the playing field even for everyone.

Half the people that write these articles don't have a ****ing clue about how the whole process works. Their articles are garbage, agenda driven propaganda that their readers interpret as "fact".
Click to expand...

Using GAAP, I managed to keep my tax bracket to the "X<6%" level for years, and also to get it to the "X=0%" level for three years. This was on a "take home" of around $100,000.
 
Waddy said:
It's not about the tax cuts; it's companies taking advantage of the loopholes. especially "green" programs. But why be so all fired insistent on corporations paying more taxes; they don't pay taxes anyways. You and I do when we buy their product. Costs are passed down the line. Every tax, every regulation, every fee, every license, everything. ALL taxes are eventually paid by the end user. That's generally the consuming public.
Click to expand...
That line of reasoning is completely refuted in this post: https://www.debatepolitics.com/gove...eo-criticizes-tax-code-13.html#post1065384269
 
apdst said:
The next time people crying about big corporations not paying taxes (which probably isn't entirely accurate) remember that Democrats had much to do with creating those breaks and credits as much as Republicans.
Click to expand...

SIR!!!

I'm shocked - SHOCKED I say.

The Republicans have had absolutely NO PART in creating any tax breaks and/or credits because it is bedrock to the Republicans that everyone should pay their fair share.

True, they also admit that no system is perfect and that a small percentage (around 5% or less) might slip through the cracks, but the Republicans don't claim to be perfect either and that small, even tiny, percentage is just something that one has to accept in order to preserve freedom and democracy around the world and keep the US from becoming a **S*O*C*I*A*L*I*S*T** police state.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Sure, Amazon made 11.2 Billion in profits last year, yet paid zero Federal tax. They're hurting really bad..
Click to expand...

Yes but that was offset by losses in previous years that are carried forward. That would mean Amazon lost over 11.2 billion which offset the current profit.

Are you suggesting that a corporation pay taxes on gross income and any expense the company has is not accounted for? Christ Amazon may have 100 billion in revenue, and have in that year expenses of 110 billion. Thus Amazon just lost 10 billion but has to pay taxes on 110 billion. How does that work.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
It's somewhat difficult to equate "wouldn't it be nice to be rich enough so that we didn't have to pay taxes" with "socialism".

However, I do recognize


SOCIALIST

"so – cial - ist"

ADJECTIVE

Denoting anything that is not ravingly in favor of the rich getting richer

[From the AKME Dictionary of Current American Political Usage - still in pre-press preparation]
​
Click to expand...

A brief, 90-year history of Republicans calling Democrats ‘socialists’
The socialism smear targeted the New Deal. It was Ronald Reagan’s weapon against Medicare, Newt Gingrich’s weapon against “Hillarycare,” and the entire GOP’s weapon against Obamacare.

And no matter what policies the next Democratic presidential nominee supports in 2020, that nominee will be labeled a “socialist.”
Click to expand...
 
MTAtech said:
A brief, 90-year history of Republicans calling Democrats ‘socialists’
Click to expand...

McConnell suggests voting-rights proposal is ‘socialist’..

But as the House debate on the For the People Act gets underway today, McConnell spoke from the Senate floor yesterday with a new criticism of the Democratic bill.

“Like many Americans, I’ve spent the last several weeks watching with interest as prominent leaders in the Democratic Party have engaged in a political footrace. They’re sprinting as far left as possible, as quickly as possible, trying to outdo one another. The result is that one of our two major political parties has begun embracing one radical, half-baked socialist proposal after another. It’s really a sight to see.

“First came the Democrat Politician Protection Act, a sweeping Washington D.C. takeover of what Americans can say about politics and how they elect their representatives. Speaker Pelosi and her House colleagues were ready with that from day one of this new Congress. They chose it as their ceremonial first bill of the year – H.R. 1. And let me say, this is quite a piece of legislation to hold up as the defining product of the new Democrat House majority.”
Click to expand...

The socialist BS will be spewed daily by the GOP and their lying Con media allies on Fox, etc... About anything and everything any Dem says. They KNOW the Republican base is gullible and for the most part really don't know what socialismi s anyway.

McConnell suggests voting-rights proposal is 'socialist' | MSNBC
 
MTAtech said:
That line of reasoning is completely refuted in this post: https://www.debatepolitics.com/gove...eo-criticizes-tax-code-13.html#post1065384269
Click to expand...

That companies charge as much as the market will bear in NO WAY refutes what I said. To stay in business a business HAS to pass along costs; ALL costs, including taxes they pay. The fact that many consumers are apparently willing to pay way more than the companies costs DOES NOT mean those costs aren't passed along. Their profit, which SHOULD be taxed, is what they have left over AFTER passing along all those costs. And if their accounts and tax lawyers take advantage of the tax laws, and avoid taxes, that's a legislative problem, not their fault. We ALL take advantage of whatever tax breaks we get.
 
apdst said:
A more credible source says 5-9 trillion a year.

The new green disaster is designed to collapse the system so the government can take total control.
Click to expand...

Only according to the liars on the right that have nothing better to do then trash the left. You do know it was first proposed about 20 years ago, or do you.

And what do you mean by a "more credible source"? Faux? :lamo
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From CBS News

Some of America's biggest companies paid little to no federal income tax in 2018
​

Big companies have long capitalized on business-friendly laws to minimize their tax liability. Now, President Trump's tax law is making it even easier for profitable corporations to reduce what they owe the government.

Case in point: Companies ranging from internet giants Amazon and Netflix to industrial bellwethers General Motors and U.S. Steel could end up paying as little as $0.00 in federal income tax this year despite recording hefty profits. Some companies will also collect large tax rebates.

Defenders of the corporate cuts under the tax law that took effect this year, which lowered the rate companies pay to 21 percent from from 35 percent, contend they will plump profits, drive investment and boost economic growth. Opponents say the drop in corporate income tax revenue will grow the deficit and make it harder to fund public programs.

There is no suggestion that companies seeing a dramatic dip in their tax obligations are doing anything against the law -- indeed, it is the prospect of already thriving Fortune 500 companies legally reaping large tax windfalls that is giving ammunition to progressive critics and lawmakers. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, recently claimed on Twitter that the $119 Amazon Prime members pay annually for perks, including free two-day shipping, is more than the online retail giant paid in taxes last year.

Paying their fair share?


COMMENT:-

Wouldn't we all like to be in the "x<1%" tax bracket?
​
Click to expand...

good i am glad.
companies paying huge taxes is a bad thing not a good thing.
 
Old Trapper said:
Only according to the liars on the right that have nothing better to do then trash the left. You do know it was first proposed about 20 years ago, or do you.

And what do you mean by a "more credible source"? Faux? :lamo
Click to expand...

The liars on the Left will say anything to further their communist agenda. There's no such as a government program that costs what they say it will. It always costs more.

Rebuild every building in The United States for $30 trillion a year? Dream on!
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From CBS News

Some of America's biggest companies paid little to no federal income tax in 2018
​

Big companies have long capitalized on business-friendly laws to minimize their tax liability. Now, President Trump's tax law is making it even easier for profitable corporations to reduce what they owe the government.

Case in point: Companies ranging from internet giants Amazon and Netflix to industrial bellwethers General Motors and U.S. Steel could end up paying as little as $0.00 in federal income tax this year despite recording hefty profits. Some companies will also collect large tax rebates.

Defenders of the corporate cuts under the tax law that took effect this year, which lowered the rate companies pay to 21 percent from from 35 percent, contend they will plump profits, drive investment and boost economic growth. Opponents say the drop in corporate income tax revenue will grow the deficit and make it harder to fund public programs.

There is no suggestion that companies seeing a dramatic dip in their tax obligations are doing anything against the law -- indeed, it is the prospect of already thriving Fortune 500 companies legally reaping large tax windfalls that is giving ammunition to progressive critics and lawmakers. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, recently claimed on Twitter that the $119 Amazon Prime members pay annually for perks, including free two-day shipping, is more than the online retail giant paid in taxes last year.

Paying their fair share?


COMMENT:-

Wouldn't we all like to be in the "x<1%" tax bracket?
​
Click to expand...

They paid millions and billions in federal taxes, not to mention the fact that the salaries they paid their employees also generated millions and billions in tax revenues that governments would not have gotten if the business was not there. Funny when you bring up the fact that about half of all Americans don't pay federal taxes the left jump right up and say, they sure do pay taxes of all different kinds, including federal. But the left don't give corporations credit for the very same thing.
 
apdst said:
The liars on the Left will say anything to further their communist agenda. There's no such as a government program that costs what they say it will. It always costs more.

Rebuild every building in The United States for $30 trillion a year? Dream on!
Click to expand...

The right says that we can rebuild every bridge, road, etc., for 1 trillion. Is that a lie too? In fact, look at all of the lies being told by the right on the wall. Or you can just look at the F-35.

But we know the right will say anything to promote its Nationalist/Fascist agenda.

BTW, where is your source for the 30 trillion dollar figure, and who said it?
 
Old Trapper said:
The right says that we can rebuild every bridge, road, etc., for 1 trillion. Is that a lie too? In fact, look at all of the lies being told by the right on the wall. Or you can just look at the F-35.

But we know the right will say anything to promote its Nationalist/Fascist agenda.

BTW, where is your source for the 30 trillion dollar figure, and who said it?
Click to expand...

Who said that?
 
Waddy said:
That companies charge as much as the market will bear in NO WAY refutes what I said. To stay in business a business HAS to pass along costs; ALL costs, including taxes they pay. The fact that many consumers are apparently willing to pay way more than the companies costs DOES NOT mean those costs aren't passed along. Their profit, which SHOULD be taxed, is what they have left over AFTER passing along all those costs. And if their accounts and tax lawyers take advantage of the tax laws, and avoid taxes, that's a legislative problem, not their fault. We ALL take advantage of whatever tax breaks we get.
Click to expand...
Yes, it completely refutes your argument.

As I said in that post:

Taxes are not passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. As proof, General Electric hasn't paid federal income taxes in at least a decade. Are GE's prices to their customer's any less expensive compared to their competition that pays taxes? No.

David Cay Johnston explains:

Taxes are on profits, and profits are calculated at the end of a tax year by adding up all the revenue and subtracting all the costs. When a product or service is sold the company doesn't really know yet how much profit, if any, it will have at the end of the year, so it doesn't know what the tax will be, so how can it adjust prices? But if a company was able to just raise prices based on anticipation of profits, then the result would be that profits would be higher because of the higher price charged, which means taxes would be even higher, so the company should have raised prices even more, but that means the profit would be even higher, so they have to go back and charge more, but then ... I think you are starting to see how silly this idea of raising prices to cover taxes can get.
The reality is that a business always charges the most it can charge to maximize revenue and profits. Economist call this the peak of the price demand curve. If they raise prices, demand falls enough to reduce revenues and profits. If they lower prices, demand increases but total revenue falls because of lower pricing.
Click to expand...

Th Apple CEO is being disingenuous. Apple charges hundreds of dollars for an iPhone, even though it costs less than $50 to manufacture an iPhone. Demand dictates the price. Does anyone really think Apple would drop the price of iPhones if Apple's tax costs were lower? Of course not. If Apple's tax bill was lower, the savings would go to Apple and its shareholders, not consumers.
 
apdst said:
Who said that?
Click to expand...

The same person who said we could rebuild every house in America for 30 trillion, or was it ten trillion. No, it was your gawd Trump, ad it is now up to 1.5 trillion.. Look it up.

BTW, did you ever find the one that said we could "Rebuild every building in The United States for $30 trillion a year?"
 
MTAtech said:
Yes, it completely refutes your argument.

As I said in that post:

Taxes are not passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. As proof, General Electric hasn't paid federal income taxes in at least a decade. Are GE's prices to their customer's any less expensive compared to their competition that pays taxes? No.

David Cay Johnston explains:



Th Apple CEO is being disingenuous. Apple charges hundreds of dollars for an iPhone, even though it costs less than $50 to manufacture an iPhone. Demand dictates the price. Does anyone really think Apple would drop the price of iPhones if Apple's tax costs were lower? Of course not. If Apple's tax bill was lower, the savings would go to Apple and its shareholders, not consumers.
Click to expand...

Since Apple pays little to no tax I doubt that the Trump tax plan had much effect on their pricing. Neither does demand. When the manufacturer controls the market, and the falsifies demand, there is little that the consumer can do. That is why they can charge $900.00 for a 50 dollar item.

BTW, I do believe in this latest tax scheme Apple took their extra proifts and bought back stocks.

Apple Says It Will Buy Back $100 Billion in Stock - The New York Times
 
Last edited:
Old Trapper said:
The same person who said we could rebuild every house in America for 30 trillion, or was it ten trillion. No, it was your gawd Trump, ad it is now up to 1.5 trillion.. Look it up.

BTW, did you ever find the one that said we could "Rebuild every building in The United States for $30 trillion a year?"
Click to expand...

You're the one that said the green steal is going to cost $30 trillion. Thanks for admitting you lied. Have a great day! :lamo
 
Mycroft said:
He did pass it.

Like I said, it's better than nothing...much better.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't, that's nonsense. I know some folks who are too poor to benefit that now owe the federal government.

You people disgust me. You claim corporations are leaving the country and outsourcing because of taxes, when they already didn't ****ing pay taxes.

So no, the entire fraudulent lie and scam sold by your ****ing stupid political party has been exposed for the seething pile of utter bull**** that it is.
 
apdst said:
You're the one that said the green steal is going to cost $30 trillion. Thanks for admitting you lied. Have a great day! :lamo
Click to expand...

How much has the red steal cost americans? How much wealth shifted from earners in the 15-20% tax bracket has been siphoned to pay for the $0 payments made by our richest corporations?

How many more miles do you lot think your tax arguments have in the tank? You insist cutting taxes for corporations would create jobs, but that's total BS, since THEY ARE ALREADY NOT PAYING ANY ****ING TAXES.
 
Obscurity said:
How much has the red steal cost americans? How much wealth shifted from earners in the 15-20% tax bracket has been siphoned to pay for the $0 payments made by our richest corporations?
Click to expand...

What's the red steal?

How many more miles do you lot think your tax arguments have in the tank? You insist cutting taxes for corporations would create jobs, but that's total BS, since THEY ARE ALREADY NOT PAYING ANY ****ING TAXES.
Click to expand...

The tax cuts helped small businesses.
 
apdst said:
What's the red steal?
Click to expand...

The red steal is the absolutely absurd tax platform and Nordquist pledge the republicons have held for twenty or more years. The red steal is the shift in wealth from the have nots to the haves. The red steal was the tax breaks given to corporations with the lie coupled in that the high taxes are the reason US entities are fleeing - a false premise given that they don't pay any taxes, anyway. The red steal is what the Republicons passed; shifting wealth from low and middle income earners to the top earners.

Don't play coy with me.

apdst said:
The tax cuts helped small businesses.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Trump Exaggerates 'Small-Business' Tax Cuts - FactCheck.org

Not -all- small businesses actually benefited from this tax plan. I know of a few locally that have been slammed by his tax plan. It is not as simple as you propose.

Let's see if you can argue without "attacking the source."
 
apdst said:
You're the one that said the green steal is going to cost $30 trillion. Thanks for admitting you lied. Have a great day! :lamo
Click to expand...

And another right wing liar doubles down, and lies some more.


Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper
It is estimated at 3 trillion a year, not ten. And how much do you think we spend now?

Do you even know what the Green Deal is all about?
Click to expand...

apdst responds:

The Good News About a Green New Deal | The New Yorker
A more credible source says 5-9 trillion a year.

The new green disaster is designed to collapse the system so the government can take total control.
Click to expand...

In reality, you have not provided any proof for these two lies, nor the third one. Going to try again, or do you just want to lie some more?
 
MTAtech said:
Yes, it completely refutes your argument.

As I said in that post:

Taxes are not passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. As proof, General Electric hasn't paid federal income taxes in at least a decade. Are GE's prices to their customer's any less expensive compared to their competition that pays taxes? No.
Click to expand...


If the ABC company and the XYZ company both make widgets (they have identical materials and manufacturing costs) and, after paying taxes (and allowing for profits to shareholders) the ABC company can sell its widgets for $100.00 each, how much can the XYZ company charge for its widgets if it decides that it wants to pay even more profits to shareholders than ABC does - WITHOUT losing "market share"?

$100.00

MTAtech said:
Th Apple CEO is being disingenuous. Apple charges hundreds of dollars for an iPhone, even though it costs less than $50 to manufacture an iPhone. Demand dictates the price. Does anyone really think Apple would drop the price of iPhones if Apple's tax costs were lower? Of course not. If Apple's tax bill was lower, the savings would go to Apple and its shareholders, not consumers.
Click to expand...

And, of course, "demand" is one of those things like "Drink Blatz Beer and you will get laid a lot." isn't it?

My "smart phone" (which, on some days, is smarter than I am) came with around 30 built in apps. I probably use four of them - clock functions, calculator, notepad, and e-Mail/text messaging (very occasionally).
 
Old Trapper said:
Since Apple pays little to no tax I doubt that the Trump tax plan had much effect on their pricing. Neither does demand. When the manufacturer controls the market, and the falsifies demand, there is little that the consumer can do. That is why they can charge $900.00 for a 50 dollar item.

BTW, I do believe in this latest tax scheme Apple took their extra proifts and bought back stocks.

Apple Says It Will Buy Back $100 Billion in Stock - The New York Times
Click to expand...

Buying back stock is a "Good Thing" as far as the shareholders (whose stocks are NOT being "bought back") are concerned, since the company only pays dividends to "issued stock not owned by the company"

If a company with 200 shareholders makes $1,000,000 in profits (every year) and gets a one time $1,000,000 "tax windfall" the company could:


  • payout $10,000 to each shareholder;
  • pay 100 shareholders $20,000 each to purchase their shares and $0.00 to the remaining shareholders in "Year 1" ($10,000 in Year 2 - as opposed to $5,000 [$10,000 in Year 3 - as opposed to $5,000 {$10,000 in Year 4 - as opposed to $5,000 <and so on>}]]


The shareholders who did NOT sell their shares back to the company would be $5,000 ahead at the end of Year 4, and would continue to gain each year thereafter. Not only that, but because their shares now attracted twice as much in annual dividends, the sale potential for those shares would rise (and so would the sale price).
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Buying back stock is a "Good Thing" as far as the shareholders (whose stocks are NOT being "bought back") are concerned, since the company only pays dividends to "issued stock not owned by the company"

If a company with 200 shareholders makes $1,000,000 in profits (every year) and gets a one time $1,000,000 "tax windfall" the company could:


  • payout $10,000 to each shareholder;
  • pay 100 shareholders $20,000 each to purchase their shares and $0.00 to the remaining shareholders in "Year 1" ($10,000 in Year 2 - as opposed to $5,000 [$10,000 in Year 3 - as opposed to $5,000 {$10,000 in Year 4 - as opposed to $5,000 <and so on>}]]


The shareholders who did NOT sell their shares back to the company would be $5,000 ahead at the end of Year 4, and would continue to gain each year thereafter. Not only that, but because their shares now attracted twice as much in annual dividends, the sale potential for those shares would rise (and so would the sale price).
Click to expand...

Buying back stocks does nothing for the average worker, and only increases the value of the corporate stock which then increases the wealth of the limited few. Does nothing for the economy, or economic growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom