• 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: 30 top firms paid no federal income taxes

Helix said:
weird. i thought the banks made a lot of money by paying me next to no interest on the money that i store there while they invest it and make lots of money loaning it out to other people with interest. seems that letting me spend it where i want in the amounts that i want is about the least that they could do.
Click to expand...

Wether you think they make enough is hardly the point. The point is that Durbin ammendment cost bank billions of dollars in revenue, and they will get it back.

There have been a lot of defaults and write-offs lately. Just in case you didn't realize some of the reasons why banks charge interest that you believe to be too high.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
from apdst



Perhaps that is suppose to be the way it works. Sadly, the actual information revealed says the opposite.

Study: Many corporations pay no income taxes - Nov. 3, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/business/280-big-public-firms-paid-little-us-tax-study-finds.html

Also, please keep in mind that part of this issue is not only companies who manage to avoid paying taxes for a year or a filing period, but the far larger number of companies who pay something in taxation but it is rather little compared to their actual legal rate. Both articles give you the data.
Click to expand...

So, you're admitting that those companie do pay taxes? Not only do they pay income taxes, but they cough up billions in social security, medicare, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.

The notion that coporations pay no taxes is anti-buisness propaganda.
 
buck said:
Wether you think they make enough is hardly the point. The point is that Durbin ammendment cost bank billions of dollars in revenue, and they will get it back.

There have been a lot of defaults and write-offs lately. Just in case you didn't realize some of the reasons why banks charge interest that you believe to be too high.
Click to expand...

do you expect that we'll see a significant reduction in executive salaries given that the banks are in such dire straits? i certainly don't. i'm not sure how they can expect customers to pay another dime in fees when they obstinately refuse to curb their own internal excesses.

banking has become too consolidated. we'd be better served by smaller regional banks that actually had to compete with each other. that's where my money goes, anyway. perhaps if the reduction in debit card fees that the large banks signed up for when they demanded a taxpayer bailout sinks the TBTF banks, we'll see a return to regional banking.
 
Helix said:
weird. i thought the banks made a lot of money by paying me next to no interest on the money that i store there while they invest it and make lots of money loaning it out to other people with interest. seems that letting me spend it where i want in the amounts that i want is about the least that they could do.

if the pauper banks are really hurting because they are constrained by the government, let them charge a bunch of extra fees and see who plays ball. i won't be one of those people. i'd prefer to have an account to pay bills from, but i'm not giving them any more than they already get from having my savings and paying me almost no interest.

perhaps if the banks are really hurting as much as conservatives argue and it's all because of the fee restrictions that they themselves signed up for when they demanded a bailout, they might considering paying their executives a bit less. those salaries are becoming less and less sustainable. i'm even more unwilling to pay them a monthly fee than the CEO is unwilling to take a pay cut.
Click to expand...

You are flopping all over the place like the fish I dragged into the boat last weekend. At least the fish would understand basic economics.
 
conservativeguy said:
You are flopping all over the place like the fish I dragged into the boat last weekend. At least the fish would understand basic economics.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Do not do this.
 
Helix said:
perhaps if the reduction in debit card fees that the large banks signed up for when they demanded a taxpayer bailout sinks the TBTF banks, we'll see a return to regional banking.
Click to expand...

First, not all banks recieved bailout funds. They too are stuck with the Durbin Ammendment. Second, reduction of debit card fees (signed into law in July 2010) was not a condition of receiving TARP funds given in 2008.

do you expect that we'll see a significant reduction in executive salaries given that the banks are in such dire straits? i certainly don't.
Click to expand...

You're funny. Yes, executive pay at banks is down about 60.0% last I heard. Of course, you probably don't think 60% is signifcant or will at least make some type of excuse why it doesn't count. Can't wait to hear it.
 
buck said:
First, not all banks recieved bailout funds. They too are stuck with the Durbin Ammendment. Second, reduction of debit card fees (signed into law in July 2010) was not a condition of receiving TARP funds given in 2008.
Click to expand...

i did not argue that it was. however, by depending heavily on the taxpayer to remain solvent, the banks signed up for increased scrutiny.


buck said:
You're funny. Yes, executive pay at banks is down about 60.0% last I heard. Of course, you probably don't think 60% is signifcant or will at least make some type of excuse why it doesn't count. Can't wait to hear it.
Click to expand...

do you have a source? are you referring to the years when the banks were paying back the loans and compensation packages were under increased legal scrutiny?
 
The point to be gleened from this...is that the whiney rich dont pay anything near what they whine they do...and corporations pay even less...thats why they have gotten fabulously wealthier while everyone else gets poorer...but the same cheerleaders keep right on cheering..
 
Helix said:
i did not argue that it was. however, by depending heavily on the taxpayer to remain solvent, the banks signed up for increased scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Wether true or not, they will get the revenue back through less conspicuous fees.

do you have a source? are you referring to the years when the banks were paying back the loans and compensation packages were under increased legal scrutiny?
Click to expand...

Bank Executives Take Pay Cuts | MyBankTracker.com
The average pay of top bankers in the U.S. and Europe fell about 60% during 2009, according to data released by The Financial Times.
Click to expand...

If you have anything more current showing that compensation has been returned to the prior levels?
 
buck said:
Wether true or not, they will get the revenue back through less conspicuous fees.



Bank Executives Take Pay Cuts | MyBankTracker.com


If you have anything more current showing that compensation has been returned to the prior levels?
Click to expand...

financial times says average is up 36 percent, but a few banks are lower.

Interactive: 2010 bank CEO pay - FT.com

another source; different pool for average; 26 percent increase : Bank CEOs Give Themselves a Big Pay Raise in 2010 - Business - GOOD
 
Helix said:
financial times says average is up 36 percent, but a few banks are lower.

Interactive: 2010 bank CEO pay - FT.com

another source; different pool for average; 26 percent increase : Bank CEOs Give Themselves a Big Pay Raise in 2010 - Business - GOOD
Click to expand...

In other words, they make quite a bit less than they used to. They were down 66 percent and up about 30 percent since then.

That's quite a big pay cut they took. I personally don't think it's necessary that htey took the pay cut, but thank you for confirming that they did.
 
buck said:
In other words, they make quite a bit less than they used to. They were down 66 percent and up about 30 percent since then.

That's quite a big pay cut they took. I personally don't think it's necessary that htey took the pay cut, but thank you for confirming that they did.
Click to expand...

It's misleading to present the cuts of 2008 - 2009 as some kind of trend. According to your source, they took a one time cut during the height of the crisis. According to mine, compensation has been skyrocketing back up ever since.

So it looks like there's still quite a bit of cost cutting to be done from executive salaries for these poor banks.
 
Helix said:
It's misleading to present the cuts of 2008 - 2009 as some kind of trend. According to your source, they took a one time cut during the height of the crisis. According to mine, compensation has been skyrocketing back up ever since.

So it looks like there's still quite a bit of cost cutting to be done from executive salaries for these poor banks.
Click to expand...

Ever since? It's only been one year between my source and yours. They are still lower then when they started. In other words they have cut executive salary costs. Again, I don' think they even should cut the salaries, but they did none the less.
 
apdst said:
So, you're admitting that those companie do pay taxes? Not only do they pay income taxes, but they cough up billions in social security, medicare, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.

The notion that coporations pay no taxes is anti-buisness propaganda.
Click to expand...

What in the world are you going on about? I gave you two authoritative recent links which show that some companies pay no tax while others pay far less than the actual category they would be in for payment.

What is it about that which you seem not to understand?

lpast said it very well in his post which came a few after yours

The point to be gleened from this...is that the whiney rich dont pay anything near what they whine they do...and corporations pay even less...thats why they have gotten fabulously wealthier while everyone else gets poorer...but the same cheerleaders keep right on cheering..
Click to expand...

Both links I provided show this in spades.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/news/economy/corporate_taxes/






http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/bu...udy-finds.html

The study looked at 280 companies in the Fortune 500 that were profitable for all three years between 2008 and 2010.
The results: 111 companies paid effective tax rates of less than 17.5% over the three-year period; 98 paid a rate between 17.5% and 30%; and 71 paid more than 30%.
The average rate? 18.5%.
Some companies paid zero. And 30 actually owed less than nothing in income taxes over the three years.
Click to expand...

The corporate tax rate is 35%.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
What in the world are you going on about? I gave you two authoritative recent links which show that some companies pay no tax while others pay far less than the actual category they would be in for payment.

What is it about that which you seem not to understand?

lpast said it very well in his post which came a few after yours



Both links I provided show this in spades.

Study: Many corporations pay no income taxes - Nov. 3, 2011






http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/bu...udy-finds.html



The corporate tax rate is 35%.
Click to expand...

It 35% if the corporation reports enough income to be in the 35% tax bracket.
 
Lachean said:
Taxing corporations doesn't work, they just pass the increase in costs down to the consumers of their goods/services. All corporate taxes do is inefficiently generate revenue by increasing prices.
Click to expand...

Assuming a non-competitive market where costs can be passed on to consumers without a sizable loss of market share and profit, yes. But that is somewhat hard to find these days (outside of luxury goods). Especially as firms fight more over market share then profits.
 
conservativeguy said:
Like I said, even if you read the methodology section you wouldn't understand it. This moronic study reached its conclusion by:

1) using audited financial statements they ignored legitimate business expenses to recast each company's earnings into positive territory

2) they made pedestrian assumptions regarding each company's domestic versus foreign earnings

3) then they compared the each company's tax expense to a fictitious earnings calculation

4) then they claimed these companies didn't pay much in taxes.

5) they also excluded from the analyses the actual results of thousands of publicly traded companies. Gee I wonder why they did that?

Reading the liberal drivel in the text of the report highlights the authors' lack of objectivity.
Click to expand...

I can't open the file for some reason. PDF damaged.

What kind of legitimate business expenses? Some GAAP/IFRS items are not deductible for various reasons. Just because you may think they are legitimate does not make them so. Warranty reserve expenses for one.

The audit report should have federal tax expense. While that is not actually their federal taxes paid, that number shouldn't go from a high number to zero without extraordinary circumstances.

That said, 2008-2010 wasn't the best year for many firms. So it wouldn't be that surprising if firms weren't paying taxes after applying net operating loss carryfowards to eliminate what tax liability they had bringing them to zero tax liability.
 
buck said:
It's expected by pretty much all of the analysts, that the banks will still pass the costs of hte legislation on to consumers. They'll just do it in less obvious ways. You can't truly expect the banking industry to just eat billions of dollars in lost revenue, can you?
Click to expand...
this is why we need to be able to audit the fed and all it's banks.
 
Keeping making it more complex yahoos, you can never outsmart the millions that are trying to minimize their tax burden. So many parallels in other aspects of life, you really should put 2 and 2 together soon. Look at software security. Put your best and brightest making a "perfectly secure network", and the next day college kids hack it. Think mfcfly(s).

And worse, most every individual here takes what deductions they can to reduce their tax burden, it would be foolish to do otherwise. Decrying a corporation for doing the same just illustrates the lack of ethics some bring to the table when they talk politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom