• 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!

20 U.S. companies that paid 0% in taxes

sangha said:
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Merck_PR_final1.pdf
Click to expand...

And you wonder why when you have double taxation.

Double taxation is a term used to describe the way taxes are imposed on corporate shareholders and on corporations. The corporation is taxed on its earnings (profits), and the shareholders are taxed again on the dividends they receive from those earnings.

There is a continuing discussion about the fairness of taxing dividends in addition to taxing the corporation; note that the corporation itself pays tax on its profits and dividends are taxed to the individual shareholders.

Corporate Double Taxation - Business Tax Law
 
Born Free said:
You don't have to give a rat's ass about anything, and that would mean you don't give a rat's ass when a company leaves the US to acquire a lower tax base. But if you did give a rat's ass about them leaving then you might want to reform the corporate tax code so thay don't want to leave.

BTW tell Obama to stop bitching about companies leaving the US to get a lower tax rate.

Just saying
Click to expand...

Ever since I started attacking Obama on just about everything -- I'm out of the loop...:damn


He won't take my calls or nothing...

:shrug:
 
Deuce said:
The effective corporate tax rate isn't the highest in the world.
Click to expand...

nice strawman we are not talking effective tax rate.
 
Born Free said:
Corporations should be taxed at "0". When dividends are issued to the shareholders they are taxed on that dividend as ordinary income.

Worse yet, and you wonder why Corporations do everything they can to not pay taxes.

Double taxation is a term used to describe the way taxes are imposed on corporate shareholders and on corporations. The corporation is taxed on its earnings (profits), and the shareholders are taxed again on the dividends they receive from those earnings.

There is a continuing discussion about the fairness of taxing dividends in addition to taxing the corporation; note that the corporation itself pays tax on its profits and dividends are taxed to the individual shareholders.

Corporate Double Taxation - Business Tax Law
Click to expand...

We'll need to change the law if corporations are going to be taxed at 0%.
 
99percenter said:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-insane-u-s--corporate-tax-system-145353359.html

"Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit. Eight of the 20 companies were in real estate or real estate-related businesses."

Looks like the "job creator's" are overtaxed.
Click to expand...

And yet...not a word uttered about the almost $4 Trillion that individuals didn't pay over the 4 year period from 2012 to 2016.

Top 10 Individual Tax Breaks - US News
 
Lord of Planar said:
We should just do away with all deductions, and tax at a fair rate.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Unfortunately, that will never happen. Politicians will never give up a method that enables them to influence, coerce and control all American individuals and businesses.
 
Mycroft said:
I agree.

Unfortunately, that will never happen. Politicians will never give up a method that enables them to influence, coerce and control all American individuals and businesses.
Click to expand...
Yep.

It's power for them to control.
 
Born Free said:
First your statement of me not knowing the difference between statutory and effective is a ****ing lie.
Click to expand...

When have you ever posted anything that suggested you did know the difference?

Second, all I did was quote the what was published in the site that I posted. Take up your argument with the author of the OP and tell him how stupid he is for not knowing the difference between statutory and effective.

Third I would add that that corporations are leaving this country not because of low taxes, but because of high taxes.
Click to expand...

And that's why I said you don't know the difference between effective and gustatory. Actual average effective is about 12.5%, which is comparatively lower than the industrialized world which does not have the obscenely large amount of deductions and deferrals that makes the US system so convoluted. You don't know the difference and it's obvious you don't.

Companies leave for a variety of reasons and companies move to the US for a variety of reasons. Until you demonstrate you know the difference between effective and statutory, there is frankly no reason to put any value in what you say here.

And your ass Obama is going around claiming anyone that leaves the US to get a lower tax rate is unpatriotic. What is unpatriotic is Obama's refusal to reform the corporate tax laws so companies have no desire to leave.

But of course liberals can't figure that out, all liberals want to preach is, geeeee there is a difference between statutory and effective. And then cry when a company leaves to acquire a lower tax base.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything other than partisan vomit to the hide the fact you literally don't understand what I'm talking about?
 
Born Free said:
And where is the fairness in that?
Click to expand...

You have significantly reduced personal liability.

Tell me why a sole proprietor should have total liability and 1 level of taxation and a corporation had very limited liability and 1 level of taxation.

Not that I think you understand this topic at all.
 
Mycroft said:
I agree.

Unfortunately, that will never happen. Politicians will never give up a method that enables them to influence, coerce and control all American individuals and businesses.
Click to expand...

No, the reason it will never happen is because no one in power is stupid enough to support a gross tax. No deductions at all? Tell me, how are grocery stores suppose to make any money when you charge then 4% gross tax?
 
obvious Child said:
No, the reason it will never happen is because no one in power is stupid enough to support a gross tax. No deductions at all? Tell me, how are grocery stores suppose to make any money when you charge then 4% gross tax?
Click to expand...

shrug...

Who says they have to be charged a 4% tax?

Hell...who says ANYONE has to be charged a 4% tax?

You got any more strawmen?
 
obvious Child said:
No, the reason it will never happen is because no one in power is stupid enough to support a gross tax. No deductions at all? Tell me, how are grocery stores suppose to make any money when you charge then 4% gross tax?
Click to expand...

The idea of a flat tax with no deductions just proves that some people don't have a clue how business and the tax system work.

They actually really believe that if I sell something for $2.00 and it cost me $1.99 to produce, I should pay taxes on the whole $2.00 :screwy
 
Lord of Planar said:
We should just do away with all deductions, and tax at a fair rate.
Click to expand...

That's the right answer, but it will never happen. Not sure if it's a power thing, a stupidity thing, or what, but no politician seems to want to champion the obvious solution.
 
obvious Child said:
You have significantly reduced personal liability.

Tell me why a sole proprietor should have total liability and 1 level of taxation and a corporation had very limited liability and 1 level of taxation.

Not that I think you understand this topic at all.
Click to expand...


Advantages and Disadvantages of Sole Proprietorships

The most common and simplest form of business is a sole proprietorship. Many small businesses operating in the United States are sole proprietorships. An individual proprietor owns and manages the business and is responsible for all business transactions. The owner is also personally responsible for all debts and liabilities incurred by the business. A sole proprietor can own the business for any duration of time and sell it when he or she sees fit. As owner, a sole proprietor can even pass a business down to his or her heirs.

The IRS expects self-employed individuals to pay federal income tax throughout the year, and if you don't pay estimated tax each quarter, Uncle Sam can charge you interest and impose nonpayment penalties. As long as you earn income in a given quarter, you owe tax for that quarter. You must pay federal income tax, along with Social Security and Medicare taxes, known collectively as self-employment tax. The amount of federal income tax you pay is based on your adjusted gross income.
In this type of business, there are no specific business taxes paid by the company. The owner pays taxes on income from the business as part of his or her personal income tax payments.

Sole proprietors need to comply with licensing requirements in the states in which they're doing business, as well as local regulations and zoning ordinances. The paperwork and formalities, however, are substantially less than those of corporations, allowing sole proprietors to open a business quickly and with relative ease - from a bureaucratic standpoint. It can also be less costly to start a business as a sole proprietor, which is attractive to many new business owners who often find it difficult to attract investors.

Advantages of a Sole Proprietorship

A sole proprietor has complete control and decision-making power over the business.
Sale or transfer can take place at the discretion of the sole proprietor.
No corporate tax payments
Minimal legal costs to forming a sole proprietorship
Few formal business requirements

Disadvantages of a Sole Proprietorship

The sole proprietor of the business can be held personally liable for the debts and obligations of the business. Additionally, this risk extends to any liabilities incurred as a result of acts committed by employees of the company.
All responsibilities and business decisions fall on the shoulders of the sole proprietor.
Investors won't usually invest in sole proprietorships.
Note: If the business is conducted under a fictitious name, it's up to the sole proprietor to file all applicable forms under the fictitious name or under doing business as (DBA). This, however, does not mean that the business is a separate entity from a legal standpoint. The sole proprietor remains liable even if he or she is doing business under a fictitious name.

Most sole proprietors rely on loans and personal assets to initially finance their business. Some will elect to incorporate once the business has started to grow, while other business owners maintain their sole proprietorship for many years.

Ownership rules: A sole proprietorship has one business owner.
Personal liability of owner: Proprietor has unlimited personal liability for the obligations of the business.
Tax treatment: Business entity is not taxed, as the profits and losses are passed through to the sole proprietor.
Key documents needed for formation: DBA filing, business license
Management of the business: Sole proprietor manages the business.
Capital contributions: Sole proprietor contributes whatever capital needed.


The two bolded statements are why sole proprietorship is no longer the preferred way to open businesses
Most people now choose LLC's because it limits the liability to the assets held by the company....not assets held by the owner/owners
 
Fenton said:
Excellent !

Corporations shouldn't pay taxes.
Click to expand...

Of course they should. The business entity receives a number of government benefits and taxes are the bill for them. I'm pretty indifferent about how that's done - property taxes are a decent way to charge local businesses for their share of local services for example - but IMO it's appropriate to level taxes on the entity, or the profits of the entity, as a way to match benefits and costs.
 
DA60 said:
Good.

I don't think any company should pay corporate/business taxes.

It's pointless anyway, they just pass it on to the consumer anyway (though I imagine big government lovers think that they don't and the Business Fairy comes along and gives these companies back all the monies they gave to the government in taxes).
Click to expand...


That's not true, or certainly is RARELY true. And it's not big government lovers who don't buy the idea that corporations just raise prices to offset all income taxes - it's anyone with a decent grasp of economics 101.

Taxes are paid 1) by consumers through higher prices, 2) by owners through lower after tax profits, AND/OR by 3) employees and executives through lower pay and/or bonuses. And where they fall, and in what combination, depends on all kinds of factors. It would almost NEVER be the case that a business could just take its income tax bill and then direct the marketing department to increase prices by the amount needed to net that income tax bill to zero. Econ 101 tells us that's just not how prices get set in a competitive marketplace.
 
Mycroft said:
shrug...

Who says they have to be charged a 4% tax?

Hell...who says ANYONE has to be charged a 4% tax?

You got any more strawmen?
Click to expand...

It's not the rate that is important. The fact is a gross receipts tax will hit high volume, low margin businesses far harder than those businesses that make similar profits, but on a fraction of the sales. It's neither necessarily better nor worse, just different and it depends on what you think the basis for tax should be.

Let's say Grocery Chain sells $1 billion worth of goods at a 1% margin to clear $10 million in gross profit. At 2% gross receipts tax they'd pay $20 million in tax.

Seller of yachts might only need $50 million in sales to clear $10 million in gross profit. At 2% GRT, they'd pay $1 million in tax. Same profit from sales of goods, but radically different effective tax rates. That's fine, and receipts might very well be a better basis to allocate the cost of government than profits, but that's the issue. Another issue is a company losing money still pays the tax, even during loss years, because profits aren't considered when levying the tax.

The biggest problem with them is let's say you have a grocery chain, and it sells crackers. Well, there is a GRT when the farmer buys fertilizer and fuel, etc. and another when the farmer sells wheat to a milling company, another when the milling company sells flour to a baker, when the baker sells to a distributor and when the distributor sells to grocery chain, and a final GRT when the grocery sells to the consumer. So the obvious strategy is for the grocery chain to vertically integrate and buy up the supply chain to the extent it can, and grow its own wheat, mill the flour, bake the crackers, etc. And then there is only ONE GRT - at the final sale.

It's why when countries want to go to a tax on consumption tax - and a GRT operates like a consumption tax - almost all industrialized countries have gone to a VAT that grants credits for VAT paid earlier in the supply chain. So long as credits offset previous taxes paid, there is no advantage to vertical integration. And ultimately the VAT is 'paid' at the point of final consumption, because the consumer cannot claim credits for previous VAT paid. Doesn't mean the consumer bears the entire tax - it could be that the selling price has to be reduced to move product that includes the VAT in it - but that is where the final tax is nominally paid.
 
sangha said:
The idea of a flat tax with no deductions just proves that some people don't have a clue how business and the tax system work.

They actually really believe that if I sell something for $2.00 and it cost me $1.99 to produce, I should pay taxes on the whole $2.00 :screwy
Click to expand...
We should just eliminate income taxes and switch to consumption based sales taxes.
 
Lord of Planar said:
We should just eliminate income taxes and switch to consumption based sales taxes.
Click to expand...

If you like consumption taxes, a VAT works better in practice, which is why nearly all national consumption taxes around the world take the form of a VAT. The biggest problem here is it would upend all the state sales tax systems, and require the states to also go to a VAT, probably with a uniform nationwide VAT tax base, which is definitely not the case with the sales tax.
 
JasperL said:
If you like consumption taxes, a VAT works better in practice, which is why nearly all national consumption taxes around the world take the form of a VAT. The biggest problem here is it would upend all the state sales tax systems, and require the states to also go to a VAT, probably with a uniform nationwide VAT tax base, which is definitely not the case with the sales tax.
Click to expand...

No, I don't like a VAT. It taxes every step of production, since it is a "value added" tax. We should just tax the end result value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom