• 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!

Boeing Paid No Federal Income Tax Last Year: Analysis

TheNextEra said:
Yes, but to flip that the people (or the 47% according to Romney), are the bad guys to many conservatives. So the hypocrisy works both ways.
Click to expand...

Maybe we can agree there is enough hypocrisy in U.S. politics to inundate the entire political spectrum; with a little thought we might also agree that 47% reference is hyperbole.

That 47% includes not only low income but also those who legally shelter/plan their income by obeying the tax code. The latter being a legislative situation.

In my life, I've never met anyone who wishes ill toward the needy.

Are there many who are aggravated by the administration of the govt. welfare program? That question gets an amplified bullhorn resounding YES. Therein lies part of the solution; blaming companies and persons who obey the tax code is only more rhetorical, "let's change the subject and find someone to blame for our poor decisions", diversion from reality. It's an example of promoting envy, blame, and hate divisiveness that many self anointed sages use to maintain power and influence.

The Great American Game continues.

Have a great day TNE

Thom Paine
 
Last edited:
Thom Paine said:
Maybe we can agree there is enough hypocrisy in U.S. politics to inundate the entire political spectrum; with a little thought we might also agree that 47% reference is hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is as demonstrated by your own comment:

It's an example of promoting envy, blame, and hate divisiveness that many self anointed sages use to maintain power and influence.
Click to expand...

I like the way you dismiss a criticism because it's criticism of hyperbole, and then criticize hyperbole while posting more hyperbole.
 
As an accountant, I get pretty damn sick of leftists with no economic brain to even pretend to have try to say things like "xxx pays no taxes".

Go read a book.
 
HenryChinaski said:
It's a rigged game for sure. Boeing Paid No Federal Income Tax Last Year: Analysis
Click to expand...

Boeing disputes the report’s findings, saying its federal tax rate was actually 26.4 percent last year. Chaz Bickers, a Boeing spokesman, said the analysis ignores a crucial part of the company's tax expense. When the Boeing decides to embark on building a new aircraft, its taxes are deferred to encourage investment that could take decades to materialize a profit. But once they actually deliver the aircraft, those deferred taxes turn into current ones.

“Our current tax expense has been reduced somewhat in recent years by the very large investment we have made in American jobs, production facilities and research and development for our new airplanes -- they are taxes that largely are deferred until we begin to deliver our new airplanes (and get the revenue back from our investment) in high volume at steady rates,” Bickers wrote in an email to The Huffington Post.
Click to expand...

If you don't like the tax code, blame Congress. I was a successful business owner for 20 years. Miniscule when compared to Boeing, of course!!! But the theory's the same. I could never have grown my business had I had to pay taxes up front on the money we used to buy new equipment. Why is this so hard to understand? I'll tell you why: because we're always looking for the boogieman.
 
MaggieD said:
If you don't like the tax code, blame Congress. I was a successful business owner for 20 years. Miniscule when compared to Boeing, of course!!! But the theory's the same. I could never have grown my business had I had to pay taxes up front on the money we used to buy new equipment. Why is this so hard to understand? I'll tell you why: because we're always looking for the boogieman.
Click to expand...

The money *you* used to buy equipment is depreciated, so you did pay taxes on most of it. Boeing however, did not due to tax breaks that they gave to Boeing.

Do you think it's fair that they get tax breaks that you do not, or do you think the tax code should apply equally to all businesses?
 
sangha said:
The money *you* used to buy equipment is depreciated, so you did pay taxes on most of it. Boeing however, did not due to tax breaks that they gave to Boeing.

Do you think it's fair that they get tax breaks that you do not, or do you think the tax code should apply equally to all businesses?
Click to expand...

No, that's not true. Anything we purchased less than $10,000 (if I remember correctly) was an instant tax write-off. Some small portion of it was recovered when/if the equipment was sold. If over $10,000, it was depreciated over X years exempting future income from taxes until the entire amount was written off. And again, some small part was recovered when/if the equipment was sold.

I think when an airplane costs $150 million to bring on line and the company has to earn $200 million before it can affford to pay for it, most especially in the airline industry, is ridiculous.

Edit:

I can almost guarantee that the small business owner is cheatin' the taxman far more easily and often than big business.
 
MaggieD said:
No, that's not true. Anything we purchased less than $10,000 (if I remember correctly) was an instant tax write-off. Some small portion of it was recovered when/if the equipment was sold. If over $10,000, it was depreciated over X years exempting future income from taxes until the entire amount was written off. And again, some small part was recovered when/if the equipment was sold.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right about there being a certain limit below which equipment can be completely expensed in the year of purchase. The same rule applies to Boeing. However, in addition to that Boeing got a tax break that was passed by Congress which does not apply to you.

Do you think that's fair?


I think when an airplane costs $150 million to bring on line and the company has to earn $200 million before it can affford to pay for it, most especially in the airline industry, is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

That statement implies that a company of Boeing's size cannot afford to make a $150 million dollar investment. I'm not sure that your question's premise is accurate.

Edit:

I can almost guarantee that the small business owner is cheatin' the taxman far more easily and often than big business.
Click to expand...

IMO, that would depend on how you define "cheating". If you only include deceitful claims, you're probably right. But I consider using profits to influence the tax code to be something less than fair play.
 
I like the idea of eliminating corporate and business taxes, but DC will never agree to it. It not only takes away their power to control others, but takes away a large share of lobbyists that grease their palms.
 
sangha said:
Yes, you're right about there being a certain limit below which equipment can be completely expensed in the year of purchase. The same rule applies to Boeing. However, in addition to that Boeing got a tax break that was passed by Congress which does not apply to you.

Do you think that's fair?




That statement implies that a company of Boeing's size cannot afford to make a $150 million dollar investment. I'm not sure that your question's premise is accurate.



IMO, that would depend on how you define "cheating". If you only include deceitful claims, you're probably right. But I consider using profits to influence the tax code to be something less than fair play.
Click to expand...

Then write to your Congress critter.
 
newpublius said:
First off, everybody outsources. Outsourcing has taken on a pejorative term and in its unqualified use obviously refers to importing things. So what? The average workers goes to work, specializes in that job, gets paid and then uses those wages to buy everything else that he or she needs. All of those things are outsources, many of them are imported. Particularly consumer goods of course.

They're going to outsource paper and will buy trucks and do other things as well.

Ultimately you can't say that companies outsourcing should pay 'double the tax' because obviously those laws would violate trade agreements.
Click to expand...

sangha said:
Boeing 787’s problems blamed on outsourcing, lack of oversight | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times
Click to expand...

I do have negative feelings about businesses that take entire departments of their workers and dump them for overseas workers. Since I also proposed eliminating the tax, I suppose doubling it won't be very much.

Many products are absolutely inappropriate for American manufacture. We can't make toys and things like that. But I've seen programmers lose their jobs to India and I'm tired of trying to transcend the accents of customer service workers overseas. So my concern is not about imported products, it's about administrative positions.
 
Carjosse said:
The last time I checked most small businesses and your average joe don't have the ability to off-shore money or other massive tax saving loopholes and take advantage of things only a large team of corporate tax accountants could do. What they they are doing could very well be illegal.
Click to expand...

Then eliminate the corporate tax. Problem solved.
 
specklebang said:
I do have negative feelings about businesses that take entire departments of their workers and dump them for overseas workers. Since I also proposed eliminating the tax, I suppose doubling it won't be very much.

Many products are absolutely inappropriate for American manufacture. We can't make toys and things like that. But I've seen programmers lose their jobs to India and I'm tired of trying to transcend the accents of customer service workers overseas. So my concern is not about imported products, it's about administrative positions.
Click to expand...

Well, what about businesses that just sort of start up and incorporate foreign sources goods and services? For instance, I manufacture leather jackets here in NJ. I 'outsource' zippers of course and those zippers are absolutely Made in China.

Of course, Ford tends to predate the outsourcing trends and now their Mustang has a Chinese built transmission in it. You going to tax them double now? See? Its impossible to sort out.
 
newpublius said:
Well, what about businesses that just sort of start up and incorporate foreign sources goods and services? For instance, I manufacture leather jackets here in NJ. I 'outsource' zippers of course and those zippers are absolutely Made in China.

Of course, Ford tends to predate the outsourcing trends and now their Mustang has a Chinese built transmission in it. You going to tax them double now? See? Its impossible to sort out.
Click to expand...

You ask a valid question. I don't have a good answer, it might be complicated or unsolvable. It will take more brainpower than I, even with the cat's helping, have at my disposal.:)
 
jmotivator said:
Then eliminate the corporate tax. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

When Boeing takes billions in taxpayer funds but pays no taxes, it's good. We should reduce their taxes further.

When the poor take thousands in taxpayer funds, it's evil. They should have their right to vote taken away and be drug tested despite the lack of probable cause.
 
upsideguy said:
What is really interesting is that corporate tax receipts account for less and less of federal tax receipts.... In fact, the largest part of tax receipts now is from payroll taxes. You know, the tax that 47% that supposedly pays no taxes, actually pays.
Click to expand...

If they get it all back via tax credits and benefit payments (and welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, job training, etc etc etc) are they really paying payroll tax? The govt collects about a 800bn in payroll tax, but pays out 600bn in income security, and another 800bn in social security, 500bn in medicare, etc.

Theyre just sending checks back in forth, with more coming in than out.
 
Deuce said:
When Boeing takes billions in taxpayer funds but pays no taxes, it's good. We should reduce their taxes further.

When the poor take thousands in taxpayer funds, it's evil. They should have their right to vote taken away and be drug tested despite the lack of probable cause.
Click to expand...

The tax payer is getting a jet from Boeing. What are we getting from the poor?
 
Do you guys even do any research yourself, or just believe what the shrills say?

I noticed one of the links I found only talked about a tax refund Boeing received, then talked about them not paying taxes using that as an excuse. Looking at their 10-K tells a different story.

Tell me. If any of you paid taxes throughout the year, then received a tax refund, does that mean you didn't pay taxes?

I suggest before any of you continue to show ignorance, that you verify the facts. It's easy to search a companies 10-K form Just google "company name 10-k and year."
 
Lord of Planar said:
Do you guys even do any research yourself, or just believe what the shrills say?

I noticed one of the links I found only talked about a tax refund Boeing received, then talked about them not paying taxes using that as an excuse. Looking at their 10-K tells a different story.

Tell me. If any of you paid taxes throughout the year, then received a tax refund, does that mean you didn't pay taxes?

I suggest before any of you continue to show ignorance, that you verify the facts. It's easy to search a companies 10-K form Just google "company name 10-k and year."
Click to expand...

I believe that 47% of people don't pay taxes come from those counting people who paid taxes and received refunds.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I believe that 47% of people don't pay taxes come from those counting people who paid taxes and received refunds.
Click to expand...
This is very true. That number comes from the end of year reconciliation. You know, the 1040, 1040A, and 1040EZ forms. The 47% of the people that are counted are those who get back every penny back, or get back money they didn't pay. In the case of these corporations, the money claimed is still owed, but deferred. They will end up paying in the end.

In both cases, the 47% sometimes pays more in FICA than they get back. With the corporations, it is almost certain that these corporations pay far more in the matching payroll taxes to FICA than you think.
 
HenryChinaski said:
It's a rigged game for sure. Boeing Paid No Federal Income Tax Last Year: Analysis
Click to expand...

And your point is?

The usual response when someone applies for unemployment or SNAP or SS Disability is something like "I am entitled to it..I paid into it...I did not write the laws". Boeing, I am assuming, took advantage of all the tax laws legally. And the liberal states that they operate in, like Washington, probably gave them state tax breaks to stay there.

As much as I think that people and corporations should pay their taxes and not go after every tax loophole that just doesn't seem to be the way things work and it is not the way our legislators designed them.

But don't be too worried. Corporate taxation is probably the least efficient and effective tax system and lower taxes for them means higher profits and capital gains taxes for their investors.
 
Lord of Planar said:
This is very true. That number comes from the end of year reconciliation. You know, the 1040, 1040A, and 1040EZ forms. The 47% of the people that are counted are those who get back every penny back, or get back money they didn't pay. In the case of these corporations, the money claimed is still owed, but deferred. They will end up paying in the end.

In both cases, the 47% sometimes pays more in FICA than they get back. With the corporations, it is almost certain that these corporations pay far more in the matching payroll taxes to FICA than you think.
Click to expand...

Deferred?
 
sangha said:
The money *you* used to buy equipment is depreciated, so you did pay taxes on most of it. Boeing however, did not due to tax breaks that they gave to Boeing.

Do you think it's fair that they get tax breaks that you do not, or do you think the tax code should apply equally to all businesses?
Click to expand...

It would be fun to do a study, or find a study, that looked at corporate wealth in a country versus per capita income or even income in the bottom quintile (when subsidies are included). It seems to me that one of the traits in undeveloped countries is a poor corporation system and the majority of people being self employed. In Laos, for example, it appears that 90% of the population is self employed, with their little farm, or fishing boat, or motorcycle/taxi, or sidewalk stall to sell merchandise. And the per capital income is $3,000/yr.
I suppose that we could eliminate corporations and the pooling of capital for building, infrastructure, and hiring people.

BTW, one of the advantages in the US is anyone can buy stock/equity and take advantage of those tax breaks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom