Study: 30 top firms paid no federal income taxes

jambalaya said:

I am no financial wizard but what does it mean when a coporation earns money?.

Click to expand...

It shows up on P&L? You're right to ask that. Even small companies have non-intuitive finances. Last I checked on big companies it was big oil, and they spend the majority of their earnings on re-investment in the company (equipment, site expansions, R&D, etc.), and stock buy-backs and dividends. Talking like 80% or something on that. Hardly the evil super villans that ignorant propoganda try to push.

These hack job "studies" are always debunked by less partisan sources as being misleading at best. Often they simply make glaring errors in their reporting due to a lack of understanding accounting, or leave out facts such as a corporation might pay a very large sum in foreign taxes, but because of legal U.S. tax treaties, don't double pay to the U.S., and thus avoid "U.S. federal taxes", but they do pay a lot in taxes. That's part of treaty negotiations, governments use tax benefits to encourage growth in their trade-partner ally. Hardly a corporations issue, even if one tries to classify normal operations of government an issue.

FilmFestGuy said:

No. It was written by a decades-old research facility to pinpoint how corporations don't pay anywhere near the marginal tax rate that they claim is too high.

But go ahead and repeat what your propagandists have told you to say. I understand.

Click to expand...

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.

Anyone have the write off of losses in 2008 available for comparison? Bet it makes an impact in why this was done for 3 years.

dirtpoorchris said:

What the heck is OWS protesting again?

Person A) I dont know therefore they dont know

Person B) Economic Equality and to get those 1%'ers that control the majority of money out of bed of politics.

Person C) mmmmmm. Yummy. McDonalds.

Click to expand...

Well...the theoretical answer is of course B. However since the vast majority of the protesters are liberals and the vast majority of them vote democrat and the vast majority of democrats receive cash from the bankers and brokers and the current president just brought on staff as his chief adviser one of the biggest broker lobbyists around...the REAL answer is probably closer to C. But if you threw in a D) Who the **** cares, man...we are da PEOPLE!!!! Yeah!!!! you would probably be spot on.

Mach said:

So you're for the tea party idea of a flat (or flatter) tax that eliminates the things you apparently believe are problems?
Or perhaps you think government is the answer? *looks at greece, looks at the housing bubble, snicker*

Really, what are you proposing?

Click to expand...

obviously he is coming out in favor of the House 2012 Budget, which stripped out many of the loopholes and provisions that allow companies to minimize their tax exposure.

30 corporations paid no income tax?

well, as an opponent of the corporate income tax, i'd call this.... a good start.
too bad it probably cost them a couple hundred million, or more, in order to pay no income tax.

Lachean said:

Are you saying you support bank fees brought about by tax increases on the American consumer?

Of course some companies suffer when they try to increase prices, like Netflix, but that bank fee from BoA is a terrible analogy. Nor does the fact that customers revolt when companies have to increase prices discount the point I made. So yeah, why would I go tell BoA something they already know?

"Hey, people won't like a new fee." Gee really? What majora$$hole thought that information was warranted?

Click to expand...

you said the companies would pass the cost of any tax increase to the costomer. i said if they did that the costomer would vote with their dollar much like they did with BoA and yes netflix as well. i don't see how it is such a "terrible analogy" seems like a pretty good analogy to me.

from apdst

Out here--and not in the chambers of the state senate--a company can't report a profit and pay no income taxes. That's just the way it works.

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

majora$$hole said:

you said the companies would pass the cost of any tax increase to the costomer. i said if they did that the costomer would vote with their dollar much like they did with BoA and yes netflix as well. i don't see how it is such a "terrible analogy" seems like a pretty good analogy to me.

Click to expand...

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?

Mach said:

It shows up on P&L? You're right to ask that. Even small companies have non-intuitive finances. Last I checked on big companies it was big oil, and they spend the majority of their earnings on re-investment in the company (equipment, site expansions, R&D, etc.), and stock buy-backs and dividends. Talking like 80% or something on that. Hardly the evil super villans that ignorant propoganda try to push.

These hack job "studies" are always debunked by less partisan sources as being misleading at best. Often they simply make glaring errors in their reporting due to a lack of understanding accounting, or leave out facts such as a corporation might pay a very large sum in foreign taxes, but because of legal U.S. tax treaties, don't double pay to the U.S., and thus avoid "U.S. federal taxes", but they do pay a lot in taxes. That's part of treaty negotiations, governments use tax benefits to encourage growth in their trade-partner ally. Hardly a corporations issue, even if one tries to classify normal operations of government an issue.

Click to expand...

Thanks. It is amazing how facts, details and true perspective reveal the bias and propaganda behind such reports.

Mach said:

It shows up on P&L? You're right to ask that. Even small companies have non-intuitive finances. Last I checked on big companies it was big oil, and they spend the majority of their earnings on re-investment in the company (equipment, site expansions, R&D, etc.), and stock buy-backs and dividends. Talking like 80% or something on that. Hardly the evil super villans that ignorant propoganda try to push.

These hack job "studies" are always debunked by less partisan sources as being misleading at best. Often they simply make glaring errors in their reporting due to a lack of understanding accounting, or leave out facts such as a corporation might pay a very large sum in foreign taxes, but because of legal U.S. tax treaties, don't double pay to the U.S., and thus avoid "U.S. federal taxes", but they do pay a lot in taxes. That's part of treaty negotiations, governments use tax benefits to encourage growth in their trade-partner ally. Hardly a corporations issue, even if one tries to classify normal operations of government an issue.

Click to expand...

I am willing to guess 99.99% of the Country does not have a clue how the US penalizes the crap out of US based multinational companies that want to bring home the foreign sourced earnings but would pay massive US taxes to do so. Nope, its easier to simply claim those companies are greedy and sitting on cash.....that propaganda sells easier than explaining how we are shooting ourselves in the head with terrible tax policies.

Study: 30 top firms paid no federal income taxes

Click to expand...

Cool!
Crapocracy in action. Congrats!

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...

why not? the rest of us have to on a daily basis.

Helix said:

why not? the rest of us have to on a daily basis.

Click to expand...

If I lost a large source of my income, I would have to find another source of income to make up for it. I think the "rest of us" would too.

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...

You know what that tells you. It tells you that the 35% tax rate the article claims companies are "suppose" to pay is simply a mark used by people like the NY Times and CNN to paint an inaccurate picture and spread their usual propaganda. Anybody with any sense at all knows that a tax rate doesn't mean anything because all of us from ordinary citizens to the big coporations have all kinds of exceptions and loopholes we can use to reduce our rate. For instance, if a company pays a lot of money in foreign taxes that could be used as a deduction when figuring their final bill. It is not an accurate portrayal to say that these companies are "getting away" without paying the taxes they should. They are paying exactly what they should because that is what the tax code allows. Even with the adjustments U.S. companies are still paying more in coporate income tax than a lot of countries. If you pay 35% in corporate income tax you are doing something seriously wrong. Frankly, I would like to see a more direct flat tax that would basically say pay your 20% for example no matter what. However, tax deductions offer incentives that are not only beneficial to the company but may be beneficial to everyone. Like what if a deduction was based on how many new jobs you created.

Once again, another misleading, jump on the class warfare bandwagon, article. I am not saying there is no inequity that we need to correct but the picure painted by these two fine news organizations (Gag!) is less than honest.

"the parasitic left believes corporations only use is to provide tax dollars that liberals use to buy the votes of their minions."


The parasitic right believes Corporations only use is to procure tax dollars that were paid by liberals to finance Corporate agendas.

DaveFagan said:

"the parasitic left believes corporations only use is to provide tax dollars that liberals use to buy the votes of their minions."


The parasitic right believes Corporations only use is to procure tax dollars that were paid by liberals to finance Corporate agendas.

Click to expand...

that is beyond stupid. we aren't the ones demanding that others pay are way in life. and when I see someone whine about corporations I see someone who really is on the fringe of reality

buck said:

If I lost a large source of my income, I would have to find another source of income to make up for it. I think the "rest of us" would too.

Click to expand...

BofA exists today in large part because of taxpayers. anyone in that organization who assumed that the money would come without any strings attached is too stupid to be an executive. they got off cheaply.

Helix said:

BofA exists today in large part because of taxpayers. anyone in that organization who assumed that the money would come without any strings attached is too stupid to be an executive. they got off cheaply.

Click to expand...

So? They will still recover the lost revenue. They'll just have to do it through less obvious means.

buck said:

So? They will still recover the lost revenue. They'll just have to do it through less obvious means.

Click to expand...

and if they nickel and dime the customer to death, people will return to stuffing their money in mattresses. you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

maybe once wealth finally trickles down, the average consumer will be able to afford new bank fees that offer no additional value, though.

Helix said:

and if they nickel and dime the customer to death, people will return to stuffing their money in mattresses. you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

maybe once wealth finally trickles down, the average consumer will be able to afford new bank fees that offer no additional value, though.

Click to expand...

There was actually value from the bank fees, but you are free to think otherwise. Consumers were paying the fees before (they probably totaled more then just $5.00/month) without any issues. Consumers will do it again. It just has to be less obvious.

buck said:

There was actually value from the bank fees, but you are free to think otherwise. Consumers were paying the fees before (they probably totaled more then just $5.00/month) without any issues. Consumers will do it again. It just has to be less obvious.

Click to expand...

there was value from the banks jacking up debit charges to the point where stores were demanding a minimum purchase to even let you use a card?

ok. i don't need that value. i can write a check or pay cash.

luckily, my bank doesn't do that, and it eliminated minimum balance BS in the 90s.

Helix said:

there was value from the banks jacking up debit charges to the point where stores were demanding a minimum purchase to even let you use a card?

Click to expand...

Yes. They were using those fees to subsidze other business and (some) was used to pay for the infrastructure and of course profit.

ok. i don't need that value. i can write a check or pay cash.

Click to expand...

The banks will be happy. I would fully expect them to attempt to push people from debit cards to more profitable products. Either a new product they come up with, credit card, checking account fees or whatever.

Helix said:

and if they nickel and dime the customer to death, people will return to stuffing their money in mattresses. you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

maybe once wealth finally trickles down, the average consumer will be able to afford new bank fees that offer no additional value, though.

Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea how the debit card industry functions. Who do you think used to pay for privilege millions enjoyed by using a debit card? Banks have invested billions in transaction infrastructure to make the debit cards available to everyone. They recouped those expenses by charging a tiny fee on retailers that accepted the cards to complete transactions. Along come the populist morons in congress to save the day. They take their cues from their crony capitalism buddies (VISA, Mastercard, etc) and pass a law that deprives the banks of making a return on the billions of invested infrastructure. Banks tried to raise the lost revenue by directly charging the consumer for the convenience of the card. Given the current political environment, as well as the growing number of whiny ass beggars taking to the streets, the banks have balked and are not going to charge the fee. When providing debit card services becomes unprofitable, you can expect one thing to happen.......banks will get out of the business. All the idiots that cried about the fees will now have to carry around fat wads of cash (you will pay a fee to withdraw money from an account) or write personal checks (checks are rarely free of charges). At the end of the day the blind and stupid masses will declare victory while paying more fees and/or being more inconvenienced ..... but at least they will have the shallow victory of saying "we stuck it to the man"......when in fact they are "the man" that got boned.

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.