• 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

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.

Now you show your ignorance. A sole proprietor is stupid, that's way. They has a choice to be a sole proprietor or form an LLC or a "S" corp, which puts them on the same level as a corporation. But I see you don't know the difference. In fact an LLC or a "S" corp is not double taxed as a corporation. Now tell me why LLC's and S corps are not double taxed and the shareholders of corporations are.
 
Last edited:
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.

Yeah and your anointed one is bitching about companies leaving because of high taxes, maybe you should try and educate your beloved Obama. Tell him companies leave for a variety of reasons and then tell him to stop bitching.

Do you have anything other than partisan vomit to the hide the fact you literally don't understand what I'm talking about?

The vomit you speak of is Obama's, he's the one going around bitching about companies leaving and not paying their fair share of taxes. For me they should leave until we change the tax law to "0" for corporations. Of course liberals don't understand that the shareholders of corporations are double taxed.
 
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.

Almost all of them in practice provide a credit for previous VAT paid. I could go into the details, available here, but the effect of a credit invoice VAT is to just tax the last sale to the final consumer. The VAT paid during production is also rebated at the point of export, so exports don't have any imbedded VAT in the price.

And our current sales tax (RST) taxes all kinds of business inputs. By some estimates, businesses pay about 40% of all RST, and when those products are exported, there is no way to rebate the embedded RST in the cost of that good so it makes U.S. produced goods more expensive overseas than they'd be with a VAT.

There's more, but if you want to tax final consumption only, a VAT works better in practice.
 
Almost all of them in practice provide a credit for previous VAT paid. I could go into the details, available here, but the effect of a credit invoice VAT is to just tax the last sale to the final consumer. The VAT paid during production is also rebated at the point of export, so exports don't have any imbedded VAT in the price.

And our current sales tax (RST) taxes all kinds of business inputs. By some estimates, businesses pay about 40% of all RST, and when those products are exported, there is no way to rebate the embedded RST in the cost of that good so it makes U.S. produced goods more expensive overseas than they'd be with a VAT.

There's more, but if you want to tax final consumption only, a VAT works better in practice.

So, as most of us want to simplify the tax code, you want to keep it complex?

No Thanks.
 
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.

Well that means they should have like infinity jobs because corporate tax rate is inversely proportional to job creation.
 
You guys are still arguing about the lie in the OP even though I showed proof it was a lie in post #39.

What is it with you guys?
 
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.
I have no problem with this, our corporate tax rate is already too high. On top of that, a corporation that pays taxes is being double taxed because the shareholders get taxed again on their income.

So what, these 20 only get taxed once, instead of twice? Big deal.
 
I have no problem with this, our corporate tax rate is already too high. On top of that, a corporation that pays taxes is being double taxed because the shareholders get taxed again on their income.

So what, these 20 only get taxed once, instead of twice? Big deal.

No, they're getting taxes zero times.
 
So, as most of us want to simplify the tax code, you want to keep it complex?

No Thanks.

A VAT is no more complex than the RST in practice.

Besides, simplicity isn't THE goal. Would you rather have an arguably slightly simpler RST under which businesses pay 40% of the RST and cause U.S. produced goods to be less competitive internationally, or have slightly more complex (in theory) VAT that allows U.S. producers to export products free of imbedded consumption taxes? I'd rather have one that works better and is better for U.S. producers.

And if you want to simplify the code, then you need to get rid of special tax exemptions like the exclusion for employer provided health insurance, mortgage interest deductions, deductions for property taxes and state income taxes paid, deductions for charity, etc. It would raise your taxes if you take those deductions but it would be simpler!
 
I looked at the first company listed. 2014 Q 2, Merck already paid $947 million in taxes. They expect to pay between $2.5 to 2.8 billion for 2014. I didn't bother checking the other nine. Maybe you should.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjQ0NDgyfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1

I checked that out, and they had a tax BENEFIT of 947 million - aka a negative tax of $947. Here's how it was listed on the release:

Income tax (benefit) expense (947) (409)

Edit - I see, the full year expense is estimated at 2.5B. So you're correct. It's not equal to the amount they'll pay, but with an expense amount that large, you'd expect their tax liability to be significant.
 
Last edited:
And where is the fairness in that?

Dividends are income so are subject to income tax. What is unfair about that?
Corporate profits are taxed under a separate corporate tax not income tax.
 
Dividends are income so are subject to income tax. What is unfair about that?
Corporate profits are taxed under a separate corporate tax not income tax.

Well, you are taxing with the corporate income tax, then, when it is distributed to the shareholders as dividends, it is taxed again as income.
 
And as the OP demonstrates, one can have net income and still pay zero income tax

Yes, I guess we should say that we are talking about net taxable income, if that is an accounting term, otherwise it doesn't add up that they have net income but don't pay income tax.
 
Yes, I guess we should say that we are talking about net taxable income, if that is an accounting term, otherwise it doesn't add up that they have net income but don't pay income tax.

It's a tax term, and companies can and do report $billions in GAAP income and PAY no U.S. income taxes. They might record an income tax expense, but be able to defer that expense for years, perhaps indefinitely. Many companies doing business internationally will have to record an income tax expense based on worldwide profits, but can avoid PAYING U.S. income taxes by leaving the money offshore, and only paying taxes when it's repatriated into the U.S. It's why it's such a big deal in recent months for a repatriation holiday, so U.S. companies can bring cash sitting in the Caymans etc. back to the U.S. tax free or at a substantially reduced rate.

I used to be for higher corporate income taxes, but I've become convinced that the biggest companies will always be able to avoid U.S. income taxes, and I'd rather we reduce the rate to very low, become a tax haven for international companies, and then tax distributions of profits at normal rates. So I'd trade corporate income taxes of 15% or so, for ending the preference for dividends, or most capital gains on shares of stock, maybe eliminate the payroll tax cap, etc.

We've had several major INDIVIDUAL income tax cuts in recent decades, but little activity on the corporate side. I think that's because the big companies don't care about U.S. tax rates because they can hire hundreds of tax lawyers and avoid paying the statutory rate. So it's a tax that falls disproportionately on medium sized U.S. companies that do business only in the U.S. So we punish domestic businesses versus those who have offshored large parts of their operations. It's messed up IMO, and while I don't think it's a good thing that major companies don't pay income tax in the U.S. - they enjoy HUGE benefits and should contribute the cost of those benefits - realistically it's not going to happen. So we tax the owners instead... Same way we do with S Corps and LLCs etc.
 
It's a tax term, and companies can and do report $billions in GAAP income and PAY no U.S. income taxes. They might record an income tax expense, but be able to defer that expense for years, perhaps indefinitely. Many companies doing business internationally will have to record an income tax expense based on worldwide profits, but can avoid PAYING U.S. income taxes by leaving the money offshore, and only paying taxes when it's repatriated into the U.S. It's why it's such a big deal in recent months for a repatriation holiday, so U.S. companies can bring cash sitting in the Caymans etc. back to the U.S. tax free or at a substantially reduced rate.

Yes, we tax them for income at home and abroad, so they want to keep it off shore. Many other countries don't do that, because they are already taxed on that money by the country where they are operating.

But it is our tax laws that encourage companies to seek HQ's overseas, to keep money overseas, and discourage other companies from coming here. The tone of the posts are "see what these evil corporations are doing", when it is the government that makes the laws and tells them do this, and we'll tax you, but do that, and we won't. They are only playing by the rules.
 
Well, you are taxing with the corporate income tax, then, when it is distributed to the shareholders as dividends, it is taxed again as income.

Corporate taxes are on profits not income. That is a totally different animal from individual income tax. You pay sales tax with income that was already taxed too. So that is also double taxation by your logic.
 
A VAT is no more complex than the RST in practice.

Besides, simplicity isn't THE goal. Would you rather have an arguably slightly simpler RST under which businesses pay 40% of the RST and cause U.S. produced goods to be less competitive internationally, or have slightly more complex (in theory) VAT that allows U.S. producers to export products free of imbedded consumption taxes? I'd rather have one that works better and is better for U.S. producers.

And if you want to simplify the code, then you need to get rid of special tax exemptions like the exclusion for employer provided health insurance, mortgage interest deductions, deductions for property taxes and state income taxes paid, deductions for charity, etc. It would raise your taxes if you take those deductions but it would be simpler!

I don't want business to pay any taxes. It is harmful to our global competitiveness. I guess you like all the made in China products we have today. Not I.
 
Corporate taxes are on profits not income. That is a totally different animal from individual income tax. You pay sales tax with income that was already taxed too. So that is also double taxation by your logic.

Yes, they are both double taxed then. I agree with that. Although one is a sales tax, the income tax hits you before the money is even in your hands, you have no choice. I don't see much of a distinction between profit and taxable income here. Not sure what, if any, point there is in that. No corporation pays tax on just their income, we are really referring to taxable income.
 
I don't want business to pay any taxes. It is harmful to our global competitiveness.

As demonstrated by all those tax-free nations whose products dominate the world marketplace.

Remind me who those nations are again? :shrug:

I guess you like all the made in China products we have today. Not I.

I guess you're a big fan of the Chinese economy. Not I

Y I don't see much of a distinction between profit and taxable income here.

This entire thread has been devoted to discussing the distinction, and you still don't see it?

Tsk, tsk!
 
Yes, we tax them for income at home and abroad, so they want to keep it off shore. Many other countries don't do that, because they are already taxed on that money by the country where they are operating.

But it is our tax laws that encourage companies to seek HQ's overseas, to keep money overseas, and discourage other companies from coming here. The tone of the posts are "see what these evil corporations are doing", when it is the government that makes the laws and tells them do this, and we'll tax you, but do that, and we won't. They are only playing by the rules.

Well, we can't compete with tax rates of ZERO like many of these tax havens offer. It's absurd - we allow for a "HQ" to be a mail drop in a tiny building with 1,000 other "corporate headquarters." I don't mind competing with countries that offer lower rates for actual businesses, but you can't defend the BS system we have now, where the HQ can be anywhere on the planet that one can send some mail. IMO, if someone wants to put a HQ in Bermuda, move the CEO and all the staff, support, etc. to Bermuda. Otherwise, your HQ is where the OPERATIONS for the HQ are located not where you've moved the piece of paper.

And they ARE only playing by the "rules" but the rules are corrupt, and if corporations pay $1 billion in lobbying etc. to get those rules, then we need to address the problem there, and not pretend that legislators getting paid (bribed) to pass favorable rules won't pass favorable rules. It's why I've also come to believe step one in any kind of reform is to reform campaign financing.
 
I don't want business to pay any taxes. It is harmful to our global competitiveness. I guess you like all the made in China products we have today. Not I.

It's really bizarre that you post that after I express support for a VAT. Under a VAT, businesses will NOT pay any VAT taxes, only consumers are taxed, and I explained why businesses will pay less under a VAT than under your preferred RST. Not sure what you want. VAT helps our businesses compete without embedded taxes, like I said!

A VAT is also regressive, but it does away with the problem of the 47% who 'pay no income taxes' because everyone who buys anything will pay Federal taxes with a Federal VAT. I guess you'll have to explain better how you'd finance government because I can't tell who you think should pay taxes.
 
Well, we can't compete with tax rates of ZERO like many of these tax havens offer. It's absurd - we allow for a "HQ" to be a mail drop in a tiny building with 1,000 other "corporate headquarters." I don't mind competing with countries that offer lower rates for actual businesses, but you can't defend the BS system we have now, where the HQ can be anywhere on the planet that one can send some mail. IMO, if someone wants to put a HQ in Bermuda, move the CEO and all the staff, support, etc. to Bermuda. Otherwise, your HQ is where the OPERATIONS for the HQ are located not where you've moved the piece of paper.

Government really has no authority to do something like that. It would be great to have a nice, simple system, but that seems impossible whenever government is involved.

And they ARE only playing by the "rules" but the rules are corrupt, and if corporations pay $1 billion in lobbying etc. to get those rules, then we need to address the problem there, and not pretend that legislators getting paid (bribed) to pass favorable rules won't pass favorable rules. It's why I've also come to believe step one in any kind of reform is to reform campaign financing.
Here's the problem as I see it. Why should corps waste so much on lobbying at the feet of government? We, the consumer, end up paying for all that. These career politicians only care about keeping their seats and amassing as much power as possible. They like this system, they want the private sector to throw money at them and come begging for favors. They have no incentive to change that, since they gaet re-elected 85% of the time. We need term limits so that they don't have that incentive anymore. It's just sickening how much money is sucked up by our government. Completely out of control. Way off from what was intended.
 
Back
Top Bottom