10 Corporate Tax Dodgers You Should Know About

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/29/10-comp...ate-taxes/

What can we do about this? We have the best govt. money can buy.

What do you know? Other than GE, everyone else on the list has very little competition and are basically part of their industry's oligarchy. The best way to jump start the economy on Main Street and generate the entrepreneurial spirit is to put corporations on the same playing field as individuals and small business. In this environment of expensive regulations and tax inequality, most individuals and small businesses simply can't compete in most industries..

I don't agree Ever. Those Oil companies have competition. The banks most certainly do. Merck... Pfizer. They all have competition.

(06-02-2014 07:33 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't agree Ever. Those Oil companies have competition. The banks most certainly do. Merck... Pfizer. They all have competition.

Not really. They aren't monopolies, they are oligarchies and the barriers to entry are way to high to start up new competition. There are small community banks and credit unions, but they don't swim in the same waters as BoA or Citi. BoA and Citi offer those products, but that is only a very small portion of their business.

They didn't "dodge" anything. They simply paid what the US Tax Code required.

As far as overseas profits, if the US corporate rate was in line with the lower rates around the world, they wouldn't need to store profits elsewhere. And they wouldn't need to have all the carve outs that the tax code currently allows.

Everyone of the credits and deductions was put into the tax code for a reason. The oil depletion allowance is 100 years old and was written at a time when the country was trying to encourage oil production. Is it still necessary, well maybe not.

Right now, subsidies to renewable energy companies, are greater than the tax code deductions for oil firms. Let's get rid of both.

(06-02-2014 08:05 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  They didn't "dodge" anything. They simply paid what the US Tax Code required.

As far as overseas profits, if the US corporate rate was in line with the lower rates around the world, they wouldn't need to store profits elsewhere. And they wouldn't need to have all the carve outs that the tax code currently allows.

When a company tries to buy another company just so it can move its headquarters overseas in order to get away from the highest in the world US corp tax rate, you'd think the folks in DC would wake up.

(06-02-2014 07:32 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  What do you know? Other than GE, everyone else on the list has very little competition and are basically part of their industry's oligarchy. The best way to jump start the economy on Main Street and generate the entrepreneurial spirit is to put corporations on the same playing field as individuals and small business. In this environment of expensive regulations and tax inequality, most individuals and small businesses simply can't compete in most industries..

Corporations are people after all.

No such thing as a "Corporation Tax". Its a failure of basic economic understanding just like "taxing the wealthy". You can't tax people or things that can transfer those costs to others. All taxes are paid for by consumers.

Sure would help pay some debts off.
But if it's not being done illegally then it's our government's
fault not theirs.

(06-02-2014 10:28 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  No such thing as a "Corporation Tax". Its a failure of basic economic understanding just like "taxing the wealthy". You can't tax people or things that can transfer those costs to others. All taxes are paid for by consumers.

Untrue. Microeconomics tells us the burden is shared by the entity and the consumer. Who bears the most brunt of the tax depends on the demand elasticity. If the product is inelastic like a gallon of gasoline, the consumer takes more of the hit. If it is elastic like a box of Chips Ahoy, the company takes more of a hit.

(06-02-2014 10:47 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 10:28 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  No such thing as a "Corporation Tax". Its a failure of basic economic understanding just like "taxing the wealthy". You can't tax people or things that can transfer those costs to others. All taxes are paid for by consumers.

Untrue. Microeconomics tells us the burden is shared by the entity and the consumer. Who bears the most brunt of the tax depends on the demand elasticity. If the product is inelastic like a gallon of gasoline, the consumer takes more of the hit. If it is elastic like a box of Chips Ahoy, the company takes more of a hit.

And at the end of the day the company, with the ability to transfer that cost to others, such as employees and consumers; can do so. Again, the consumer (who is also the employee base) pays for the cost. It seems you're referring to temporary swings in prices caused by commodity value fluctuations (a cost most companies usually absorb on the assumption its not related to permanent costs increases); and not long term price increases related to permanent cost increases (such as a tax increase).

How do Govt. tax subsidies (enacted by both democratic and republican congress) impact the economic argument?

(06-02-2014 07:25 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  10 Corporate Tax Dodgers You Should Know About

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/29/10-comp...ate-taxes/

What can we do about this? We have the best govt. money can buy.

What we can do about this is become educated on the actual issues and not merely jump to poor conclusions based on a headline.... not saying YOU have, but I know many others will and have.

Examples....

BofA (Merrill Lynch), Citi and Microsoft are global companies. Sure, they would owe taxes here if they brought that money here, but why should they if they aren't using it here? Similarly, accumulated profits aren't taxable until they are recognized. It's like buying a stock at $10 and having it go to $2,000. You don't pay tax on it until you sell it.

GE, Fed Ex and Verizon were all given 'incentives' by the government to purchase equipment... Things that politicians call 'job creation'... Buying equipment is an expense so it reduces your tax burden... and it is often financed meaning the immediate expense is far more than the actual current cash outlay... and the 'incentive' is also immediate.

Many of the other issues, including Merck and its 18% net tax rate or XOM and it's 15% rate (where is the problem in that?) merely involve timing... i.e. Honeywell and others had large expenses between 2009 and 2012 which reduces its burden and were given massive breaks by the 'stimulus'.

We're getting exactly what so many called 'the right thing to do' at the time and now we're bitching because it's 'not fair'. Well, no spit.

Look... Any time the government encourages something through incentives, that means that only a company that would otherwise have a large tax bill will be able to take advantage of the incentive. Someone who is losing money can't use a tax break. The higher their tax bracket, the more the incentive is worth to them.

Moving funds around to get a rate close to gains rates or moving money between subsidiaries is common practice... People do it, too. If we ran the math on how much tax money individuals 'steal' from the government through things like pre-tax payments for insurance or 401k deductions and tax deferral, it would be trillions. Every time your broker talks about the power of tax deferral, that money you 'make' is money you aren't paying to the government.

If you want to 'solve' the problem, then you have to go to a flat tax rate with virtually no exemptions.... and you'd also have to keep the rate low enough that it is competitive (after fees) with the rest of the world. Of course, most who cry about these headlines wouldn't accept THAT...

(06-02-2014 07:25 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  10 Corporate Tax Dodgers You Should Know About

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/29/10-comp...ate-taxes/

What can we do about this? We have the best govt. money can buy.

What the vast majority of it involves is simply finding a way to pay the lowest legal tax rate possible. Why should they do anything other than that?

What to do about it? Lower our taxes to the point where we are where they can get the lowest legal tax rate possible. When we did that in the past, it worked tremendously well.

(06-02-2014 08:05 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  They didn't "dodge" anything. They simply paid what the US Tax Code required.

As far as overseas profits, if the US corporate rate was in line with the lower rates around the world, they wouldn't need to store profits elsewhere. And they wouldn't need to have all the carve outs that the tax code currently allows.

Everyone of the credits and deductions was put into the tax code for a reason. The oil depletion allowance is 100 years old and was written at a time when the country was trying to encourage oil production. Is it still necessary, well maybe not.

Right now, subsidies to renewable energy companies, are greater than the tax code deductions for oil firms. Let's get rid of both.

We could have a lower tax rate if we weren't the world's policeman.

(06-02-2014 08:05 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  They didn't "dodge" anything. They simply paid what the US Tax Code required.

this

[/thread]

(06-02-2014 05:46 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  We could have a lower tax rate if we weren't the world's policeman.

This cuts both ways. Generally speaking I think the left wants to be the world's arbiter of right and wrong and the right wants to have the power to enforce it.

In order to cut our military, we'd have to 'butt out' of much of the world.

(06-02-2014 05:46 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  We could have a lower tax rate if we weren't the world's policeman.

As much as I'd like to see us cut some overseas bases and get involved in much less military adventurism, we have to remember that without the U.S., there IS NO FREE WORLD. We just have to be very mindful of where, when and how we get involved in the affairs of other nations, especially since we can not afford it. Stick to cases where our U.S. interests are directly threatened. Forget places like Libya, Syria, etc. Of course, this would require a major shift in thinking of many in Washington, D.C. so it is unlikely to ever happen.

Now, don't jump me for saying we are free. I'm aware of all that has gone on regarding our rights.

It is past time for us to have a national conversation about our role in the world. You think any other country will stand up for the oppressed? WHO, specifically?

(06-02-2014 11:08 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 10:47 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 10:28 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  No such thing as a "Corporation Tax". Its a failure of basic economic understanding just like "taxing the wealthy". You can't tax people or things that can transfer those costs to others. All taxes are paid for by consumers.

Untrue. Microeconomics tells us the burden is shared by the entity and the consumer. Who bears the most brunt of the tax depends on the demand elasticity. If the product is inelastic like a gallon of gasoline, the consumer takes more of the hit. If it is elastic like a box of Chips Ahoy, the company takes more of a hit.

And at the end of the day the company, with the ability to transfer that cost to others, such as employees and consumers; can do so. Again, the consumer (who is also the employee base) pays for the cost. It seems you're referring to temporary swings in prices caused by commodity value fluctuations (a cost most companies usually absorb on the assumption its not related to permanent costs increases); and not long term price increases related to permanent cost increases (such as a tax increase).

Its foolish to suggest corporations pay taxes, they are simply conduits for collecting the money. If the return on capital does not make X% prices are raised, if not being able to raise prices other costs are cut (wages). People pay not conduits.

(06-02-2014 05:54 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 08:05 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  They didn't "dodge" anything. They simply paid what the US Tax Code required.

this

[/thread]

Yep, all these folks pissed at how little corps pay in US taxes are barking up the wrong tree. They should be pissed at the politicians that created the laws that allow these corps to save money on taxes. Pretty sure many of those politicans accepted campaign money from many of the same corporations.