Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Think Progress ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009.
exxon-mobilLast week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. Most egregious, Forbes notes, is General Electric, which generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion. Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:
Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.
<more>
My mistake was in thinking that these figures somehow reflected actual tax benefits and liabilities. So what we should have written was that ExxonMobil "recorded" no U.S. income taxes for 2009 instead of "paid." All you re-bloggers out there, please note the clarification. Mea culpa.
And for all you commenters outraged that Exxon isn't paying taxes in the U.S., don't worry, it is. Our article only focused on income taxes, but it's worth noting that the 10-k also records $7.7 billion in other taxes in the U.S. (like sales taxes) and more than $50 billion of other taxes and duties paid (I mean recorded) overseas.
[
How does it feel to be spreading a lie in order to demonize large corporations?
How is anyone "hiding income"?? Hiding income is illegal. You've already admitted they are doing nothing illegal.
Let's step back here. A company has a fiduciary duty (and that's a technical legal term--look it up) to its shareholders. It does not have a fiduciary duty to its employees. And it damn sure does not have fiduciary duty to the U.S. government. The company would be in violation of that duty if it did not employ every legal method to minimize its tax liability.
So you admit there is nothing illegal going on here. And yet you won't state what exactly your problem with the practice is. I'd say you're the one cherry picking.
OMG are you retarded?? I have already said that it's not illegal but that I don't like the process of them hiding money in shell companies and other such means.
this is from the article link to by the OP.
Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi.
Maybe you choose not to like my terminology but are you actually trying to claim that they do not do this?? I have already clearly stated what my problem is and that it is my belief that if they wish to engage in these type of activities then they should not receive the benefits granted to American companies such as corporate welfare and leasing of rights for oil or minerals. Why is it so hard for you to understand something that is written in plain english?
Aha. I see. The issue is that you personally think they ought to just open their coffers to the U.S. government and let it all hang out.
As I pointed out, they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders not to do that. The fact that you are somehow personally offended by their perfectly legal activities is tough shit on you.
You have no arguments here, only feelings. Go off and feel someone's pain.
[
How does it feel to be spreading a lie in order to demonize large corporations?
For Progressives it feels like business as usual.
OMG are you retarded?? I have already said that it's not illegal but that I don't like the process of them hiding money in shell companies and other such means.
this is from the article link to by the OP.
Maybe you choose not to like my terminology but are you actually trying to claim that they do not do this?? I have already clearly stated what my problem is and that it is my belief that if they wish to engage in these type of activities then they should not receive the benefits granted to American companies such as corporate welfare and leasing of rights for oil or minerals. Why is it so hard for you to understand something that is written in plain english?
Aha. I see. The issue is that you personally think they ought to just open their coffers to the U.S. government and let it all hang out.
As I pointed out, they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders not to do that. The fact that you are somehow personally offended by their perfectly legal activities is tough shit on you.
You have no arguments here, only feelings. Go off and feel someone's pain.
Please keep your moronic selfserving MISinterpretations of what you wish to attribute to me when I have clearly explained my postition to yourself. LOL
Why can't you be honest and actually debate based on what I have actually said instead of what you falsely try to atttribute to me so you can dishonestly attack me based on your work of fiction??
[
How does it feel to be spreading a lie in order to demonize large corporations?
For Progressives it feels like business as usual.
When caught in a lie it seems they run, rather than apologize.
I would suggest all you tax lovers get you check books out and start writing checks to the IRS.... lead by example.
I would suggest all you tax lovers get you check books out and start writing checks to the IRS.... lead by example.
okay... will do... I am willing to not only sacrifice my words and anger in an online forum, but like all true patriots, I am willing to sacrifice my money, and in extreme cases, my life, to the great cause that is freedom and democracy. In fact, unlike Exxon Mobil, I was a patriot and pain my taxes by April 15 because I love this country and want to see it, not just my pocketbook, prosper.
Aha. I see. The issue is that you personally think they ought to just open their coffers to the U.S. government and let it all hang out.
As I pointed out, they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders not to do that. The fact that you are somehow personally offended by their perfectly legal activities is tough shit on you.
You have no arguments here, only feelings. Go off and feel someone's pain.
Please keep your moronic selfserving MISinterpretations of what you wish to attribute to me when I have clearly explained my postition to yourself. LOL
Why can't you be honest and actually debate based on what I have actually said instead of what you falsely try to atttribute to me so you can dishonestly attack me based on your work of fiction??
There is no misinterpretation on my part. You admit they do nothing illegal. You admit they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.
So the only source of your discontent is your own personal feeling that gosh darn they must be doing SOMETHING wrong. But you can't explain what it is, despite being shown conclusively it is nothing.
The issue is that you personally think they ought to just open their coffers to the U.S. government and let it all hang out.
Please keep your moronic selfserving MISinterpretations of what you wish to attribute to me when I have clearly explained my postition to yourself. LOL
Why can't you be honest and actually debate based on what I have actually said instead of what you falsely try to atttribute to me so you can dishonestly attack me based on your work of fiction??
There is no misinterpretation on my part. You admit they do nothing illegal. You admit they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.
So the only source of your discontent is your own personal feeling that gosh darn they must be doing SOMETHING wrong. But you can't explain what it is, despite being shown conclusively it is nothing.
The MISinterpretation came about when you created a work of fiction and then DISHOENSTLY tried to attribute it to me.
The issue is that you personally think they ought to just open their coffers to the U.S. government and let it all hang out.
I NEVER said anythign of the kind and it was quite disheonst of you try to attribute something like that to me so you could try to discredit me as you attacked me for somethign I NEVER said.
Furthermore, I have already explained in detail what my problem with it is and you, apparently once again desperate to expose your disghonesty, try to claim that i can't do it when I already have.
I have a serious question??
Can you be hoenst enough to actually debate what was said or is being completely dishonest the only way that you feel you can win a debate?
For Progressives it feels like business as usual.
When caught in a lie it seems they run, rather than apologize.
Assuming they don't obfuscate, change the subject or blame Bush first.
There is no misinterpretation on my part. You admit they do nothing illegal. You admit they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.
So the only source of your discontent is your own personal feeling that gosh darn they must be doing SOMETHING wrong. But you can't explain what it is, despite being shown conclusively it is nothing.
The MISinterpretation came about when you created a work of fiction and then DISHOENSTLY tried to attribute it to me.
The issue is that you personally think they ought to just open their coffers to the U.S. government and let it all hang out.
I NEVER said anythign of the kind and it was quite disheonst of you try to attribute something like that to me so you could try to discredit me as you attacked me for somethign I NEVER said.
Furthermore, I have already explained in detail what my problem with it is and you, apparently once again desperate to expose your disghonesty, try to claim that i can't do it when I already have.
I have a serious question??
Can you be hoenst enough to actually debate what was said or is being completely dishonest the only way that you feel you can win a debate?
Are you still beating this dead horse?
Face it, your objection is not grounded in law. It is not grounded in morality. It is solely grounded in your own class envy that says that any person or organization making that much money needs to fork more of it out to the U.S. because...well, just because it's right. I cannot argue with your redistributionist feelings. No one can because they aren't rational.
The MISinterpretation came about when you created a work of fiction and then DISHOENSTLY tried to attribute it to me.
I NEVER said anythign of the kind and it was quite disheonst of you try to attribute something like that to me so you could try to discredit me as you attacked me for somethign I NEVER said.
Furthermore, I have already explained in detail what my problem with it is and you, apparently once again desperate to expose your disghonesty, try to claim that i can't do it when I already have.
I have a serious question??
Can you be hoenst enough to actually debate what was said or is being completely dishonest the only way that you feel you can win a debate?
Are you still beating this dead horse?
Face it, your objection is not grounded in law. It is not grounded in morality. It is solely grounded in your own class envy that says that any person or organization making that much money needs to fork more of it out to the U.S. because...well, just because it's right. I cannot argue with your redistributionist feelings. No one can because they aren't rational.
Aw how typical. You are caught in a lie as you tried to atttribute something to me that I never said and your response is avoidance, more obfuscation and more dishonesty as you continue to try and attribute your works of fiction to me.
So i guess that answers my last question and shows that you can't be honest enough to actually debate what was said.
Are you still beating this dead horse?
Face it, your objection is not grounded in law. It is not grounded in morality. It is solely grounded in your own class envy that says that any person or organization making that much money needs to fork more of it out to the U.S. because...well, just because it's right. I cannot argue with your redistributionist feelings. No one can because they aren't rational.
Aw how typical. You are caught in a lie as you tried to atttribute something to me that I never said and your response is avoidance, more obfuscation and more dishonesty as you continue to try and attribute your works of fiction to me.
So i guess that answers my last question and shows that you can't be honest enough to actually debate what was said.
Does the term "projection" mean anything to you?
You cannot defend your position. This is because it is indefensible--legally and morally. All you have is your own feelings.
Aw how typical. You are caught in a lie as you tried to atttribute something to me that I never said and your response is avoidance, more obfuscation and more dishonesty as you continue to try and attribute your works of fiction to me.
So i guess that answers my last question and shows that you can't be honest enough to actually debate what was said.
Does the term "projection" mean anything to you?
You cannot defend your position. This is because it is indefensible--legally and morally. All you have is your own feelings.
WOW and your post is a perfect example of projection. Imagine that.
So thanks once again for not admitting your lie after being caught in it and then repeating your previous lie despite the fact that I have defended my position and stated it quite clearly in previous posts.
You cannot defend your dishonesty of attributing things to me that i NEVER said so you instead project your dishonesty and lack of integrity onto me in a desperate attempt to CYA. How typical.
Does the term "projection" mean anything to you?
You cannot defend your position. This is because it is indefensible--legally and morally. All you have is your own feelings.
WOW and your post is a perfect example of projection. Imagine that.
So thanks once again for not admitting your lie after being caught in it and then repeating your previous lie despite the fact that I have defended my position and stated it quite clearly in previous posts.
You cannot defend your dishonesty of attributing things to me that i NEVER said so you instead project your dishonesty and lack of integrity onto me in a desperate attempt to CYA. How typical.
1) The only lying has been on your part
2) That lying consists of stating repeatedly that you have defended your position, which you have not
3) Accusing me of doing exactly what you are in fact doing is not arguing but being argumentative. Not the same thing nor a reasonable substitute.
The fact remains: You have no basis for your feeling that American corporations are getting away with murder because they act like everyone else on the planet to minimize their tax liabilities.
The issue is that you personally think they ought to just open their coffers to the U.S. government and let it all hang out.
For Progressives it feels like business as usual.
When caught in a lie it seems they run, rather than apologize.
Assuming they don't obfuscate, change the subject or blame Bush first.
Running around screaming "it's a lie" doesn't make the truth any less truthful. I have fairly characterized your views. I have also exposed their problems, problems which you refuse to address despite ample opportunity.
You are an empty gourd. Sorry.
Hmmmm....I gotta figure out that whole "wholly owned subsidiary" thing....
It helps if you use it in a sentence. Such as: MSNBC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dimocrat party.
Link?
Because for some reason I do not believe that.
