• 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!

Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

GE and other big corporations like Exxon weren't paying taxes under the Bush administration. And which party is it that wants to close the loopholes?

Wall street changed their tune after Obama went after them. Look who they are supporting this time:

"So who do they want to win in 2012? Based on contribution patterns so far, the overwhelming favorite of the Wall Street banks to win in 2012 is Mitt Romney."

The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Trying To Buy The 2012 Election

Orly? GE :
COLUMN-America is GE's tax haven: David Cay Johnston | Reuters

From 2001 through 2005, GE paid almost identical tax rates on its profits, 19.3 percent in the U.S. and 19.7 percent offshore. During those five years GE reported 56.1 percent of its profits in the United States.

A good part of the reason why GE did not pay as many taxes is because of green credits enabled by Obama and the losses they wrote off account for 2009 and 2010.
 
Orly? GE :

"WASHINGTON---With federal income taxes due in a few weeks, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent allied with Democrats, on Sunday released a list of ten big profitable U.S. companies paying little or no taxes. Sanders wants to close the loopholes that make this tax avoidance legal. Some people call the income tax system with generous loopholes for big companies corporate welfare or corporate entitlements. As Congress returns to work this week--after yet another break--to negotiate over big budget cuts--with social safety net programs facing reductions--Sanders is pushing for corporations to pay more of a fair "share."

The Bernie Sanders Ten, per release....

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent."

Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders list - Lynn Sweet
 
Opportunity Cost,

I am pretty sure this post was not something you grasped. It had nothing to do with the stimulus in any way.
It does have something to do with it in a "How many straws does it take to break the came'ls back" sorta way.
 
"WASHINGTON---With federal income taxes due in a few weeks, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent allied with Democrats, on Sunday released a list of ten big profitable U.S. companies paying little or no taxes. Sanders wants to close the loopholes that make this tax avoidance legal. Some people call the income tax system with generous loopholes for big companies corporate welfare or corporate entitlements. As Congress returns to work this week--after yet another break--to negotiate over big budget cuts--with social safety net programs facing reductions--Sanders is pushing for corporations to pay more of a fair "share."

The Bernie Sanders Ten, per release....

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent."

Ten giant U.S. companies avoiding income taxes: Sen. Bernie Sanders list - Lynn Sweet

With all due respect this is your original premise :
GE and other big corporations like Exxon weren't paying taxes under the Bush administration. And which party is it that wants to close the loopholes?

Wall street changed their tune after Obama went after them. Look who they are supporting this time:

I take one of your own examples and prove it is not true as you present it and you turn around with a list of companies that are not paying taxes right now. I think you better get on your Obama phone and have a talk with him. Democrats currently control 2/3 of the branches that control the tax code, maybe you ought to be a little less partisan in your accusations.

My personal opinion is throw out all incumbants with more than 2 or 3 terms, Dem or R. They seem to sell out awfully easy after that 2nd term.

Second, Id go over that list with a fine tooth comb if I could, Im betting its not as accurate as its portrayed.
 
With all due respect this is your original premise :

I take one of your own examples and prove it is not true as you present it and you turn around with a list of companies that are not paying taxes right now. I think you better get on your Obama phone and have a talk with him. Democrats currently control 2/3 of the branches that control the tax code, maybe you ought to be a little less partisan in your accusations.

My personal opinion is throw out all incumbants with more than 2 or 3 terms, Dem or R. They seem to sell out awfully easy after that 2nd term.

Second, Id go over that list with a fine tooth comb if I could, Im betting its not as accurate as its portrayed.

You couldn't be bothered to note the dates that predated the Obama presidency??? These are the same tax loopholes provided under the Bush tax cuts that the Democrats want to eliminate. Glad you are in concurrence with the President and the Democrats in Congress that we should eliminate them!
 
You couldn't be bothered to note the dates that predated the Obama presidency??? These are the same tax loopholes provided under the Bush tax cuts that the Democrats want to eliminate. Glad you are in concurrence with the President and the Democrats in Congress that we should eliminate them!

Im totally sure its that simple. Is it even possible they are getting partial refunds from their quarterly filings? We dont know. We get a narrative that is about an inch deep. Im skeptical those numbers are 100% accurate and I cant even really find out from the data presented. So I went and got some data that showed your conclusion to be false and get a (bolded) strawman from you.

I cant even honestly say well played...because it wasnt.
 
Im totally sure its that simple. Is it even possible they are getting partial refunds from their quarterly filings? We dont know. We get a narrative that is about an inch deep. Im skeptical those numbers are 100% accurate and I cant even really find out from the data presented. So I went and got some data that showed your conclusion to be false and get a (bolded) strawman from you.

I cant even honestly say well played...because it wasnt.

You are the one that brought up the tax loopholes and now you are unsure of them??? Let me know when you make up your mind.
 
Er uh...false...:

PolitiFact | Bernie Sanders says ExxonMobil paid no taxes in 2009, but that's inaccurate

Considering it is the first on the list and opined to be the 'most' I will stop at this point and merely say...try again.

I accept politifact's analysis:

"We agree that the tax policy toward companies like ExxonMobil is a fair subject for debate, but we do think that Sanders' articulation of the facts in his floor speech was misleading, because he omitted several important caveats, including a failure to note that the $156 million number only refers to one specific type of tax -- U.S. income taxes. To his credit, Sanders did make that distinction in a June 9, 2010, speech, saying that ExxonMobil "reported to the SEC that not only did it avoid paying any federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million refund from the IRS."

Still, while focusing on the negative-$156 million figure and saying that the company "paid zero in taxes" in 2009 was eye-catching, it is, at best, misleading. And it ignores the fact that the company paid hundreds of millions in state income taxes, sales taxes and other types of taxes. We can't verify the company's claim that its net tax was $500 million in 2009, but it's incorrect for Sanders to say "paid zero in taxes." We rate his claim False. "
 
You are the one that brought up the tax loopholes and now you are unsure of them??? Let me know when you make up your mind.

You really are terrible at this. Quote from you in post 196, and I commented afterward:
GE and other big corporations like Exxon weren't paying taxes under the Bush administration. And which party is it that wants to close the loopholes?

Wall street changed their tune after Obama went after them. Look who they are supporting this time:

"So who do they want to win in 2012? Based on contribution patterns so far, the overwhelming favorite of the Wall Street banks to win in 2012 is Mitt Romney."

The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Trying To Buy The 2012 Election

My previous post was something along these lines back in post 157:
Ability? How the **** do you propose to legislate ability? Opportunity is being crushed by regulatory burden on small businesses. The more onerous you make regulation on business without differentiating between small businesses and large, the easier it become for large businesses to put the small guy out.

I didnt bring up tax breaks, you did.

You should advertise for that goal post moving business, you have it down to a science.
 
You really are terrible at this. Quote from you in post 196, and I commented afterward:


My previous post was something along these lines back in post 157:


I didnt bring up tax breaks, you did.

You should advertise for that goal post moving business, you have it down to a science.



This from your link:

"From 2001 through 2010, GE's total American corporate tax burden averaged 9.4 percent of its profits in American corporate income taxes compared to its 17.9 percent foreign tax rate."

COLUMN-America is GE's tax haven: David Cay Johnston | Reuters

So tell me, how many of those years was Obama president? It is in fact the president and the Democrats who propose to end the tax breaks and loopholes for companies outsourcing jobs, and the GOP that has been blocking them.
 
This from your link:

"From 2001 through 2010, GE's total American corporate tax burden averaged 9.4 percent of its profits in American corporate income taxes compared to its 17.9 percent foreign tax rate."

COLUMN-America is GE's tax haven: David Cay Johnston | Reuters

So tell me, how many of those years was Obama president? It is in fact the president and the Democrats who propose to end the tax breaks and loopholes for companies outsourcing jobs, and the GOP that has been blocking them.

Ahem :
From 2001 through 2005, GE paid almost identical tax rates on its profits, 19.3 percent in the U.S. and 19.7 percent offshore. During those five years GE reported 56.1 percent of its profits in the United States.

But for 2006 through 2010 a number of significant changes show up in the fine print of GE's 10-K disclosures.

Id say their tax burden went down under Obama thanks to his green initiatives that are little more than tax shelters for companies ready to take advantage of them.
BTW, Immelt is voting for Romney.
 
Ahem :


Id say their tax burden went down under Obama thanks to his green initiatives that are little more than tax shelters for companies ready to take advantage of them.
BTW, Immelt is voting for Romney.

That might be what you say, but it isn't what the article says.

BTW, all the big Wall Street donors are also supporting Romney. I guess they found out Obama wasn't going to play ball.
 
That might be what you say, but it isn't what the article says.

BTW, all the big Wall Street donors are also supporting Romney. I guess they found out Obama wasn't going to play ball.

you mean they didn't get their money's worth after giving Obumble millions and millions in 2008?
 
you mean they didn't get their money's worth after giving Obumble millions and millions in 2008?

Exactly he refused to play ball and backed financial reform and attacked their low capital gains rates.

Wall Street is backing a more sure bet this time around, the King of the 1%!!!
 
Exactly he refused to play ball and backed financial reform and attacked their low capital gains rates.

Wall Street is backing a more sure bet this time around, the King of the 1%!!!

Only the most gullible of fools would believe that Obama isn't helping his 1% posse members.

As I noted some of the 1% do better when there is less government, less parasites and less income stealers in office. And then there are those in the 1% who are parasites, big government leaches and income stealers. Like Obama's supporters
 
Only the most gullible of fools would believe that Obama isn't helping his 1% posse members.

Follow the money:

Analysis: Wall St. cash flows to Romney over Obama


"(Reuters) - The captains of Wall Street have picked a presidential candidate for 2012 and it is Republican Mitt Romney, rather than Democratic President Barack Obama, campaign donation records show.

The records released Tuesday by the Federal Election Commission illustrate a basic shift in political giving at the presidential level by the nation's financial elite.

After a fling with Obama - the charismatic Democrat embraced four years ago during the severe credit crisis that erupted under President George W. Bush - Wall Street is backing Romney in a return to its largely Republican inclinations.

Romney's six largest campaign contribution sources in 2011 were executives, family members and affiliated political action committees of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Citigroup and Bank of America, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based group that monitors campaign finances.

The center said that the leaders of the six Wall Street giants -- which were rescued from ruin by U.S. taxpayers about three years ago -- have given $1.8 million to the Romney campaign."

Analysis: Wall St. cash flows to Romney over Obama | Reuters
 
Which could mean that they think Romney will make a better President for the country which is, after all, good for business.
Which could mean they think Romney is going to beat Obama.
Which could mean they are repudiating Obama's crony capitalism.
Which could mean they think Obama is just incompetent.
Which could mean they are tired of giving money to an administration that demonizes them whenever they want to.

It doesnt have to mean what you think it does. It can mean a lot of things. It may not even mean what I think it does.
 
“In 2010, average real income per family grew by 2.3% … but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6%, while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery. Such an uneven recovery can help explain the recent public demonstrations against inequality.”

The 10 page update offers a clear picture of how income shares have varied over different business cycles, as well as the long-term trends since 1917. Top income shares fell dramatically after World War II, stayed flat, then began to rise in the early 1980s and have returned to their pre-War levels.

The top 10% in the US take now take home about 47% of all income, but this is driven by the top 1% who account for 20%.

The difference between the business cycle of the 1990s and the 2000s is that the incomes of the bottom 99% grew by 20% between 1993 and 2000, but only by 6.8% between 2002 and 2007.

Saez suggests that this “may … help explain why the dramatic growth in top incomes during the Clinton administration did not generate much public outcry while there has been a great level of attention to top incomes in the press and in the public debate since 2005.”

Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1% « Economics for public policy

If the 99% percent wasnt giving over 90% of the money to the 1% then you wouldn't see these types of numbers. The rich isn't stealing it from the poor, the poor are lining up and giving it to the rich.
 
If the 99% percent wasnt giving over 90% of the money to the 1% then you wouldn't see these types of numbers. The rich isn't stealing it from the poor, the poor are lining up and giving it to the rich.

You make it seem like there is choice.
 
You make it seem like there is choice.
There is...stop blowing your money on cigarettes, alcohol, and video games.

I DO so love the class warfare schtick. Remind me again how the rich are 'stealing' from the poor...and remind me again how even taking every penny from the rich is suddenly going to make the miserable pathetic failures that couldnt be bothered to prepare for their future suddenly successful...or even better off...and who exactly it is that is going to employ them...
 
There is...stop blowing your money on cigarettes, alcohol, and video games.

I DO so love the class warfare schtick. Remind me again how the rich are 'stealing' from the poor...and remind me again how even taking every penny from the rich is suddenly going to make the miserable pathetic failures that couldnt be bothered to prepare for their future suddenly successful...or even better off...and who exactly it is that is going to employ them...
I would love to see some proof that all the poor waste their money like that.

And no one here has said anything about taking anything from the rich.
 
Back
Top Bottom