30 Major Corporations Paid No Income Taxes in The Last Three Years

[guyser]

Go ahead and try to "VAT" or "GST" their asses. I'm sure they will appreciate that economic vision.

No kidding, however the push is on for VAT to become reality. Even Republicans are saying it just may be the way to go. "The current tax code is a complex mess"

[bush_cheney2004]

No kidding, however the push is on for VAT to become reality. Even Republicans are saying it just may be the way to go. "The current tax code is a complex mess"

If it was that easy it would have been done long ago. Far easier to tax illegal dope with stamps nobody buys.

[guyser]

If it was that easy it would have been done long ago. Far easier to tax illegal dope with stamps nobody buys.

Who said it was easy?

More advanced tax systems use it and apparently it would help keep jobs in the US and improve competitiveness.

Former advisor to GW is heading this up.

[bush_cheney2004]

More advanced tax systems use it and apparently it would help keep jobs in the US and improve competitiveness.

More advanced is just a different way of saying more tax revenue. The US already knows how to that, but doesn't want.

Former advisor to GW is heading this up.

Well, your guys didn't like anything GW or his "advisors" dreamed up.

[blueblood]

There should absolutely not be a flat tax. A lower income family spends a much higher percentage of their income on necessities like food, clothing and shelter. A flat tax could cut into their ability to pay for necessities. Someone that has much more money has more ability to contribute without worrying about cutting into their ability to pay for necessities, hence the progressive tax system we use. The problem is all the credits and loopholes. The tax system needs to be simplified.

Pfft!!

A flat tax would encourage them to only pay for necessities and to save their money instead of wasting their money. A flat tax also allows those with money to contribute more to the economy instead of the government.

Here's an example of a flat tax being beneficial:

GDP Growth 2011

Wow, 7% growth, western economies can only dream of growth like that.

Here's something you need to realize. There is more to contributing to society than paying taxes. For example I crop 3000 acres of land, half of its grain for bread, the other half is cooking oil. My products feed people. Then there is the inputs I spend to grow the crop. I have charge accounts all over town which supports local businesses. Then there is the money I save in the credit union (more favorable banking conditions for my purposes), which provides capital for other people's loans. Then there is investments which help out other companies. Finally for genorosity there is the people I hire when I need help. At times there will be 3-5 extra guys on. How many people did you hire? Then there is the tax bill, which is far more than the average person dollar for dollar even enjoying the corporate rate. Hell I'm picking up the slack for lots of people. And you want to take more??? How about I sell out my inventory, sell the iron, sell the buildings, seed the land to grass, drive semi truck for a living,, fire my hired help, cancel my charge accounts and live off the interest of my firesale?? Do you think society would be richer if I did that or poorer?

[dre]

Pfft!!

A flat tax would encourage them to only pay for necessities and to save their money instead of wasting their money. A flat tax also allows those with money to contribute more to the economy instead of the government.

Here's an example of a flat tax being beneficial:

GDP Growth 2011

Wow, 7% growth, western economies can only dream of growth like that.

Here's something you need to realize. There is more to contributing to society than paying taxes. For example I crop 3000 acres of land, half of its grain for bread, the other half is cooking oil. My products feed people. Then there is the inputs I spend to grow the crop. I have charge accounts all over town which supports local businesses. Then there is the money I save in the credit union (more favorable banking conditions for my purposes), which provides capital for other people's loans. Then there is investments which help out other companies. Finally for genorosity there is the people I hire when I need help. At times there will be 3-5 extra guys on. How many people did you hire? Then there is the tax bill, which is far more than the average person dollar for dollar even enjoying the corporate rate. Hell I'm picking up the slack for lots of people. And you want to take more??? How about I sell out my inventory, sell the iron, sell the buildings, seed the land to grass, drive semi truck for a living,, fire my hired help, cancel my charge accounts and live off the interest of my firesale?? Do you think society would be richer if I did that or poorer?

A flat tax would encourage them to only pay for necessities and to save their money instead of wasting their money. A flat tax also allows those with money to contribute more to the economy instead of the government.

Again you dont understand what money is or how our monetary system works. High personal savings rates would destroy our economy create scarcity of dollars, and drive more production overseas as a result of inflation.

[blueblood]

Again you dont understand what money is or how our monetary system works. High personal savings rates would destroy our economy create scarcity of dollars, and drive more production overseas as a result of inflation.

What??? A scarcity of dollars gives the currency we use more buying power as there is less of it. If you are smart and have money in savings, that's a benefit to you. Prices would go down as a result of people not borrowing to spend on houses and cars, and with less money around to chase.. Over time there would be more production here because over time interest rates would be cut to encourage lending so that the banks won't be gouged paying bondholders/depositors.

That's how a bank is supposed to work ideally instead of a central bank engaging in open market operations with frac. reserve banking and arbitrarily setting interest rates. People are trying to save money, why not reward them for it?

That's a beauty, high interest rates increase inflation!!!

Edited November 4, 2011 by blueblood

[dre]

What??? A scarcity of dollars gives the currency we use more buying power as there is less of it. If you are smart and have money in savings, that's a benefit to you. Prices would go down as a result of people not borrowing to spend on houses and cars, and with less money around to chase.. Over time there would be more production here because over time interest rates would be cut to encourage lending so that the banks won't be gouged paying bondholders/depositors.

That's how a bank is supposed to work ideally instead of a central bank engaging in open market operations with frac. reserve banking and arbitrarily setting interest rates. People are trying to save money, why not reward them for it?

That's a beauty, high interest rates increase inflation!!!

I meant to say deflation not inflation btw. And yes. A scarcity of dollars (deflation) increases purchasing power, which discourages domestic production. Why would you set up shop in a place where you have to pay your workers in expensive tokens instead of cheap ones? Price instability also discourages trading between individuals in the domestic economy.

That's how a bank is supposed to work ideally instead of a central bank engaging in open market operations with frac. reserve banking and arbitrarily setting interest rates. People are trying to save money, why not reward them for it?

Banks have not worked that way for 100 years, and they wont work that way again unless the system is rebuilt from the ground up.

[blueblood]

I meant to say deflation not inflation btw. And yes. A scarcity of dollars (deflation) increases purchasing power, which discourages domestic production. Why would you set up shop in a place where you have to pay your workers in expensive tokens instead of cheap ones? Price instability also discourages trading between individuals in the domestic economy.

Banks have not worked that way for 100 years, and they wont work that way again unless the system is rebuilt from the ground up.

But the dollar has a to have some value. It's going to be pretty hard to ramp up production if your equipment that your buying is worthless, or your workers have to haul wheelbarrows of money to the bakery to buy bread.

What do you think was a result of the interest rate hike in the early 80's

[dre]

But the dollar has a to have some value. It's going to be pretty hard to ramp up production if your equipment that your buying is worthless, or your workers have to haul wheelbarrows of money to the bakery to buy bread.

What do you think was a result of the interest rate hike in the early 80's

But the dollar has a to have some value.

Yeah thats why we need a new monetary and banking system. Because currency in this system is detached from value.

A lot of people tried to warn us about this over the last few hundred years but we didnt listen.

Thomas Jefferson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The

issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to

whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

James Madison

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." — SIR JOSIAH STAMP, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain):

Edited November 4, 2011 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

A lot of people tried to warn us about this over the last few hundred years but we didnt listen.

Why should "we"....do you think that's how the real world works? Ever heard of Global Warming?

[August1991]

Again you dont understand what money is or how our monetary system works. High personal savings rates would destroy our economy create scarcity of dollars, and drive more production overseas as a result of inflation.

Not necessarily true. For the past few years, China has had one of the highest savings rates in the world and it has also had one of the highest growth rates. Japan between 1950 and 1970 is another example.

-----

This thread title is misleading. Corporate shareholders (the owners of these corporations) all paid taxes on any income they earned. The corporate officers also paid income taxes.

All taxes must fall on a living, breathing human being. When the government taxes property, it can only tax the owner of the property.

The thread's implicit statement is that the rich pay too few taxes. But is that true?

The top one per cent in the U.S. pays 38 per cent of all income taxes; in Canada, the figure would be roughly 25 per cent. If that strikes you as too little, how much should it be? On what principle?

Andrew Coyne

Coyne's article is excellent, BTW. Well worth a read.

Edited November 4, 2011 by August1991

[jacee]

Pfft!!

A flat tax would encourage them to only pay for necessities and to save their money instead of wasting their money. A flat tax also allows those with money to contribute more to the economy instead of the government.

Here's an example of a flat tax being beneficial:

GDP Growth 2011

Wow, 7% growth, western economies can only dream of growth like that.

Here's something you need to realize. There is more to contributing to society than paying taxes. For example I crop 3000 acres of land, half of its grain for bread, the other half is cooking oil. My products feed people. Then there is the inputs I spend to grow the crop. I have charge accounts all over town which supports local businesses. Then there is the money I save in the credit union (more favorable banking conditions for my purposes), which provides capital for other people's loans. Then there is investments which help out other companies. Finally for genorosity there is the people I hire when I need help. At times there will be 3-5 extra guys on. How many people did you hire? Then there is the tax bill, which is far more than the average person dollar for dollar even enjoying the corporate rate. Hell I'm picking up the slack for lots of people. And you want to take more??? How about I sell out my inventory, sell the iron, sell the buildings, seed the land to grass, drive semi truck for a living,, fire my hired help, cancel my charge accounts and live off the interest of my firesale?? Do you think society would be richer if I did that or poorer?

You would likely lease it out for someone else to farm.

Truck driving's a vicious business. Lot's of pressure to break laws, falsify logs, etc. And those are the good employers.

[blueblood]

You would likely lease it out for someone else to farm.

Truck driving's a vicious business. Lot's of pressure to break laws, falsify logs, etc. And those are the good employers.

Nope in my scenario, I'm "wanting" to join the "99 percent" and enjoy the benefits of the progressive tax system, can't have multiple income streams, or I can donate to parks canada or some nature organization. By the way lots of those protesters would be happy to see that land revert back to nature.

Now, would I be contributing more to society by staying in business or blowing it all up and driving truck for 50k per year?

[CPCFTW]

And for a better understanding of why those companies pay such low taxes, please refer to page 11 of the ctj report:

http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf

Accelerated depreciation, and stock options compensation.

Most big corporations give their executives (and sometimes other employees) options to buy the company’s stock at a favorable price in the future. When those options are exercised, companies can take a tax deduction for the difference between what the employees pay for the stock and what it’s worth (while employees report this difference as taxable wages).

Stock options are taxed in the hands of the executives. Other than the optics to hippies, what's the difference if I pay $0 in taxes, but my CEOs pay $200 million taxes on stock option income, or if I pay $200 million in taxes and my CEOS pay $0 stock option income taxes?

The tax laws generally allow companies to write off their capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out. This “accelerated depreciation” is technically a tax deferral, but so long as a company continues to invest, the tax deferral tends to be indefinite.

"So long as the company continues to invest"... Heaven forbid we encourage companies to continue to invest in capital to increase productivity.

[Rick]

You would likely lease it out for someone else to farm.

Truck driving's a vicious business. Lot's of pressure to break laws, falsify logs, etc. And those are the good employers.

And most of them don't even pay their employees for all of their time spent working.

Truck driving is one step above slave labour and it's not a big step up either.

[bush_cheney2004]

And most of them don't even pay their employees for all of their time spent working.

Truck driving is one step above slave labour and it's not a big step up either.

Depends on the arrangement, as owner-operators can do quite well with milk runs and good business savvy. It's not for everyone...hard work with it's own reward on the open road. Trucking and truck drivers are the transporation backbone of the North American economy.

[cybercoma]

Depends on the arrangement, as owner-operators can do quite well with milk runs and good business savvy. It's not for everyone...hard work with it's own reward on the open road. Trucking and truck drivers are the transporation backbone of the North American economy.

Owner-operators are the most exploited.

[bush_cheney2004]

Owner-operators are the most exploited.

Only if they want to be. "Exploitation" is a favorite word for "victim" minded folk like you. We have an owner-operator in the family and he does better than just fine.

[cybercoma]

Good for him. I wish everyone was doing that well. They're not and it's often through no fault of their own.

Edited November 4, 2011 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

Good for him. I wish everyone was doing that well. They're not and it's often through no fault of their own.

So what...do you think that exhonerates people from responsibility for their own circumstances? Does the world owe us something as preposterous as a guaranteed income?

"Through no fault of their own" has got to be one of the lamest excuses for inaction that I have ever heard. It is more of the victim mentality.

[eyeball]

Not necessarily true. For the past few years, China has had one of the highest savings rates in the world and it has also had one of the highest growth rates. Japan between 1950 and 1970 is another example.

-----

This thread title is misleading. Corporate shareholders (the owners of these corporations) all paid taxes on any income they earned. The corporate officers also paid income taxes.

All taxes must fall on a living, breathing human being. When the government taxes property, it can only tax the owner of the property.

The thread's implicit statement is that the rich pay too few taxes. But is that true?

Andrew Coyne

Coyne's article is excellent, BTW. Well worth a read.

That was a very good article. I especially agreed with Coyne pointing out that we could do better by focusing on closing the gap between the lowest 10% and the rest, by increasing social spending.

There are two things I still see missing in this issue as well as Coyne's assessment. There is no mention of the draw-down of the natural capital of the planet upon which real financial capital rests. There is also no mention of the power gaps that exist in our society. I find this very odd given how power and wealth go together even more than peas and carrots - you just cannot have or sustain one without the other.

Could the separation of power from wealth and the separation of our human economy from our planet's environment and ecosystems somehow be related? Maybe this separation, like a break from reality, is the gap we need to bridge.

[jacee]

The thread's implicit statement is that the rich pay too few taxes. But is that true?

Andrew Coyne

Coyne's article is excellent, BTW. Well worth a read.

Coyne makes some interesting points, like this one:

As I say, that’s looking at the top quintile. But drill deeper into the numbers, and you find something quite remarkable. It turns out it isn’t the top 20 per cent of the population whose share of the income pie has grown. It’s all in the top one per cent: the bottom 19 per cent of the top 20 per cent, that is those in the 81st through 99th percentiles, have seen no increase in their share.

Interesting that the protesters are right, that even the wealthy are in the same boat as the rest of us - no improvement in income - except for the highest income 1% - so the 99% is a very real phenomenon.

However, Andrew Coyne is (purposely?) obfuscating the real issue by focusing only on income and avoiding discussion of accumulation of WEALTH: WealthiEST and highest income are NOT the same thing/people.

To clarify the difference, in each year some hockey players may make the highest income bracket, but their careers are short and it's unlikely that they'll ever accumulate the kind of wealth as those among the wealthiEST 1%, ie, the kind of wealth that seems to multiply itself.

In quintiles, dividing the population into 5 groups, each containing 20% of Canadian households, 2005 data shows this distribution of wealth in Canada in 2005:

1Poorest 20% - .1% of wealth

2Second 20% - 2.3%

3Middle 20% - 8.4%

4Fourth 20% - 20.2%

5Top 20% - 69.2%

But if you break down the 'Top 20%' you get

5a Wealthy 19% - 29% of the wealth

5b WealthiEST 1% - 40% of the wealth.

Edited November 4, 2011 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

Surprising to me was Coyne's claim that $170,000 CDN was the income threshold for top 1% status in Canada, compared to $400,000 USD in the United States (2007 data). That is a huge differential...we need another OCCUPY Movement to address the wide income disparity betwen the 1% in Canada and 1% in the USA.

Edited November 4, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[blueblood]

Surprising to me was Coyne's claim that $170,000 CDN was the income threshold for top 1% status in Canada, compared to %400,000 USD in the United States (2007 data). That is a huge differential...we need another OCCUPY Movement to address the wide income disparity betwen the 1% in Canada and 1% in the USA.

Would that be gross or net income?