Just the facts, Jack!

[BDBoop]

Key Tax Facts

15,753: The number of households in 1961 with $1 million in taxable income (adjusted for inflation).
361,000: The number of households in 2011 estimated to have $1 million in taxable income.
43.1: Percent of total reported income that Americans earning $1 million paid in taxes in 1961 (adjusted for 2011 dollars)
23.1: Percent of total reported income that Americans earning $1 million are likely to pay in taxes in 2011, estimated from latest IRS data.
47.4: Percent of profits corporations paid in taxes in 1961.
11.1: Percent of profits corporations paid in taxes in 2011.

It's completely irrational to insist that corporations and the ones who hoovered up all the money, and have all the money, shouldn't have to pay the taxes inherent TO the money.

Unnecessary Austerity, Unnecessary Shutdown - IPS

Two different problems BDBoop.. The comparison was cherry-picked to 1961 just before the rate structure started to collapse from about 20 brackets to less. In 1961, personal income over 100K was taxed at 89%. No incentive at all to really earn more than 50K. In 1964 it was down to 70% at 100K.. There was NEVER a year in that period that govt REVENUES didn't increase!!!

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20110323.pdf

Marginal individual rates at the top bracket have shown very little influence on govt revenues -- but have arguably "allowed" more people the opportunity to BE rich. You can have your whack at readjusting them AFTER we wake up to economic reality and control the spending. But the lefties better get wise about WHAT TAX TOOLS they really want to use, because raising the top INCOME tax rate is not gonna do shit to humble hedge fund mgrs and Warren Buffet. It's gonna hurt Jimmy Buffett.. Because Warren's income is CAP GAINS taxable and that's why today's rich pay LESS. Because MORE people are involved in investment than in 1961 and less is coming from salary.. And if you whine just about the BUSH tax cuts -- you're TOTALLY ignoring the realities of the problem. You better also muck with the cap gains carefully, because the economy is MORE sensitive to that number than income tax brackets.

For Corporations -- there IS DEFINATELY a problem. But it's NOT the RATE they are paying. It's all the tax rebates that the govt (mostly actually the left thru green energy) has handed to them.. It's SUBSIDIES that are the problem, not the rate. In fact, NO company should get a subsidy for a product that ALREADY EXISTS like ethanol or dishwashers, or light bulbs, or wind turbines. The only subsidies that have a meaningful ROI are R&D subsidies for new products. And the corporate rates should actually come down again AFTER you stop the madness of politicians pandering to corporate laziness. Like appointing Jeff Immelt as your "jobs advisor" whilst he charges the govt 75bucks for every dishwasher that GE sells because you leftist MORONS think that's saving the planet..

Sir, I think we both know that "cherry picking to 1961" could fly out the window, and we'd still have all our money hoovered out by the top 1% (and corporations.) Therefore. It's past time things return to a more logical tax rate/system, along with an overhaul of the tax system.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

all the right wing talking points....a spending problem

Yes....spending on housing, electricity, gas, the kids education, medical bills

Such extravagance

Housing is much more expensive because the average size of new homes have dramatically increased. College is now considered an entitlement regardless of any potential earnings increase that could be realized. Yes, the average family has a spending problem.

Yes, wanting your kids to be able to go to college, wanting to own your own home....used to be the American dream

Now the conservatives call it your spending problem

Obviously, if Congress raises your taxes, you'll better be able to afford your American dream.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's completely irrational to insist that corporations and the ones who hoovered up all the money, and have all the money, shouldn't have to pay the taxes inherent TO the money.

Unnecessary Austerity, Unnecessary Shutdown - IPS

Two different problems BDBoop.. The comparison was cherry-picked to 1961 just before the rate structure started to collapse from about 20 brackets to less. In 1961, personal income over 100K was taxed at 89%. No incentive at all to really earn more than 50K. In 1964 it was down to 70% at 100K.. There was NEVER a year in that period that govt REVENUES didn't increase!!!

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20110323.pdf

Marginal individual rates at the top bracket have shown very little influence on govt revenues -- but have arguably "allowed" more people the opportunity to BE rich. You can have your whack at readjusting them AFTER we wake up to economic reality and control the spending. But the lefties better get wise about WHAT TAX TOOLS they really want to use, because raising the top INCOME tax rate is not gonna do shit to humble hedge fund mgrs and Warren Buffet. It's gonna hurt Jimmy Buffett.. Because Warren's income is CAP GAINS taxable and that's why today's rich pay LESS. Because MORE people are involved in investment than in 1961 and less is coming from salary.. And if you whine just about the BUSH tax cuts -- you're TOTALLY ignoring the realities of the problem. You better also muck with the cap gains carefully, because the economy is MORE sensitive to that number than income tax brackets.

For Corporations -- there IS DEFINATELY a problem. But it's NOT the RATE they are paying. It's all the tax rebates that the govt (mostly actually the left thru green energy) has handed to them.. It's SUBSIDIES that are the problem, not the rate. In fact, NO company should get a subsidy for a product that ALREADY EXISTS like ethanol or dishwashers, or light bulbs, or wind turbines. The only subsidies that have a meaningful ROI are R&D subsidies for new products. And the corporate rates should actually come down again AFTER you stop the madness of politicians pandering to corporate laziness. Like appointing Jeff Immelt as your "jobs advisor" whilst he charges the govt 75bucks for every dishwasher that GE sells because you leftist MORONS think that's saving the planet..

Sir, I think we both know that "cherry picking to 1961" could fly out the window, and we'd still have all our money hoovered out by the top 1% (and corporations.) Therefore. It's past time things return to a more logical tax rate/system, along with an overhaul of the tax system.

Explain "more logical tax rate/system" Please.. Also why that doesn't include "an overhaul of the tax system" as you added to your statement..

People are working hard here on your OP -- I gave you SPECIFICS on how the tax rate structure has changed for individuals over 50 years. AND some specifics on why corporations pay less taxes...

Are you that dis-interested in HOW to fix it? Or are you just expecting your check?

 

[asterism]

all the right wing talking points....a spending problem

Yes....spending on housing, electricity, gas, the kids education, medical bills

Such extravagance

Housing is much more expensive because the average size of new homes have dramatically increased. College is now considered an entitlement regardless of any potential earnings increase that could be realized. Yes, the average family has a spending problem.

Yes, wanting your kids to be able to go to college, wanting to own your own home....used to be the American dream

Now the conservatives call it your spending problem

And look at how the American Dream has been perverted. Now it's a house almost twice the size and a college degree that does not increase earning potential at all.

It's a spending problem. People spend too much and receive little value.

 

[asterism]

It's completely irrational to insist that corporations and the ones who hoovered up all the money, and have all the money, shouldn't have to pay the taxes inherent TO the money.

Unnecessary Austerity, Unnecessary Shutdown - IPS

Two different problems BDBoop.. The comparison was cherry-picked to 1961 just before the rate structure started to collapse from about 20 brackets to less. In 1961, personal income over 100K was taxed at 89%. No incentive at all to really earn more than 50K. In 1964 it was down to 70% at 100K.. There was NEVER a year in that period that govt REVENUES didn't increase!!!

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20110323.pdf

Marginal individual rates at the top bracket have shown very little influence on govt revenues -- but have arguably "allowed" more people the opportunity to BE rich. You can have your whack at readjusting them AFTER we wake up to economic reality and control the spending. But the lefties better get wise about WHAT TAX TOOLS they really want to use, because raising the top INCOME tax rate is not gonna do shit to humble hedge fund mgrs and Warren Buffet. It's gonna hurt Jimmy Buffett.. Because Warren's income is CAP GAINS taxable and that's why today's rich pay LESS. Because MORE people are involved in investment than in 1961 and less is coming from salary.. And if you whine just about the BUSH tax cuts -- you're TOTALLY ignoring the realities of the problem. You better also muck with the cap gains carefully, because the economy is MORE sensitive to that number than income tax brackets.

For Corporations -- there IS DEFINATELY a problem. But it's NOT the RATE they are paying. It's all the tax rebates that the govt (mostly actually the left thru green energy) has handed to them.. It's SUBSIDIES that are the problem, not the rate. In fact, NO company should get a subsidy for a product that ALREADY EXISTS like ethanol or dishwashers, or light bulbs, or wind turbines. The only subsidies that have a meaningful ROI are R&D subsidies for new products. And the corporate rates should actually come down again AFTER you stop the madness of politicians pandering to corporate laziness. Like appointing Jeff Immelt as your "jobs advisor" whilst he charges the govt 75bucks for every dishwasher that GE sells because you leftist MORONS think that's saving the planet..

Sir, I think we both know that "cherry picking to 1961" could fly out the window, and we'd still have all our money hoovered out by the top 1% (and corporations.) Therefore. It's past time things return to a more logical tax rate/system, along with an overhaul of the tax system.

Look at your own data. Higher tax rates resulted in lower total government revenue.

 

[MikeK]

Corporations should have to pay very little if any income taxes...period.
They already pay a portion of SS tax for every employee, property taxes, inventory taxes and collect mountains of sales taxes for the government...for free.
Corporations also provide healthcare coverage, provide jobs for their employees - but more importantly they are a cog in the wheel that provides jobs for suppliers, vendors, raw material manufacturers, transportation etc. etc. etc.

It is fantastically stupid to insist on raising taxes on businesses - I mean COW stupid.
Just as stupid as it was to pass NAFTA so thousands of "spokes in the jobs wheel" disappeared so investors could make more money.

You are one of many Americans who are effectively brainwashed by the misleading mantras of such corporate-sponsored propagandists as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other multi-millionaire right-wing broadcasters. What you've been led to believe would make sense were it not for the inordinately unbalanced distribution of the Nation's wealth resources which has systematically occurred during the past three decades of Reaganomics and accompanying deregulations.

You obviously are unaware of just how much wealth has been transferred from the 95% majority of Americans to a 5% minority along with substantial reductions in the tax rates of corporations and the super-rich. If you were aware of the real numbers involved in this long-term financial maneuvering I'm quite sure your ideas would change.

Unless something radical is done (significant tax increases) to restore economic balance it is unavoidable that our Country will fall into another depression which is believed will be much worse than the last one.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I wouldn't watch Beck or Hannity or listen to Rush if it was the only thing on.

I will apologize for that presumption but not for the main point of my argument, which is the national economy is presently analogous to a ship which is listing perilously. There is no question that its weight must be shifted to restore balance and the numbers clearly reveal the weight disparity.

The situation is circumstantially identical that that which brought about the Great Depression and one of the things FDR did to correct the problem is impose a progressive tax rate with a 91% maximum. And that rate prevailed throughout the most prosperous three decades in our history.

I believe these things because I RUN A BUSINESS.

All businesses do not inhabit the same taxable category. If you run a blue chip corporation your tax rate should be significantly higher than the fellow who runs a lawn service or a pizzeria -- and rightfully so. And it should be noted that taxes are imposed on last year's profits, not on this year's projected operating expenses. So the notion that taxes impede hiring and growth is spurious.

You tied corporations and the super rich together, can't do that. I never said anything about taxation of wealthy people - I said taxation of businesses.

A significant number of the super-rich are corporate executives. But regardless of its source, wealth is wealth and it should be taxed accordingly. If you happen to be rich a progressive tax increase won't break you. It will make you a little less rich. That's all.

My level of wealth is relatively modest, so my tax rate is proportionate. If I were a millionaire my tax rate would be significantly higher, but it certainly wouldn't break me. And in your situation your tax rate will be proportional with your annual business profit.

In closing I will ask what you think of the fact that the most profitable corporations in America paid little to no taxes in recent years? Would you say some adjustments are in order?

 

[MikeK]

And furthermore...as a guy who runs a business...we are not "hoarding" money.
I don't have a secret room behind my office where I get naked and roll in the cash and smoke Cuban cigars...I realize that is the vision many leftist dead-heads have.
It is true that I have not purchased any capital items since 2008. It is true that I have more liquid cash in assets than normal - but I don't do this to "hoard" it. I have a responsibility to protect the families that work for me. I can't predict what is going to happen, if there is a significant double-dip in the economy - that new piece of equipment might just be the thing that makes us go under. I need more liquid assets to get through tough months. This year we lost money 3 out of the 7 months...that means without cash in the bank - I would have to lay someone off. There is noooo way that I can see investing money into an economy that is so shaky...I just can't.
And 100,000's of other business owners/operators feel the same way.

But yeah...let's tax 'em more - that'll do the trick! Maybe instead of 51% of the working population paying zero income taxes - let's see if we can increase that to 60%!!! Yeah!!!...make them filthy corporations pay!!!!!

Note the tax rates that existed during the most prosperous decades in American history. How do you account for that phenomenon?

The tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf


The tax rates have never been lower than they are today and look where we are in comparison to then.

As for your complaint that 51% of the population pay no tax, the reason for that is they either are broke or have barely enough to survive on. Try to understand that the Nation's wealth resources have been redistributed during the past three decades so that the 5% of the population controls 95%. If the middle class was restored to its status prior to Reaganomics all would be paying their fair share just as they did back then.

 

[MikeK]

People who used to be able to support their family on one job, now need 2-3, and some have taken to selling plasma (don't laugh, I personally know 'these people').

Yeah...Now one works to support the family while the other works to pay the taxes.

Income taxes have never been lower than they are now. So what is your lament based on?

 

[MikeK]

Housing is much more expensive because the average size of new homes have dramatically increased. College is now considered an entitlement regardless of any potential earnings increase that could be realized. Yes, the average family has a spending problem.

Yes, wanting your kids to be able to go to college, wanting to own your own home....used to be the American dream

Now the conservatives call it your spending problem

Obviously, if Congress raises your taxes, you'll better be able to afford your American dream.

If Congress imposes an appropriately structured progressive tax rate the ultimate effect will be many more working people who can afford the American Dream -- that is provided the Congress also breaks the stranglehold the Military Industrial Complex has on the Economy.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are one of many Americans who are effectively brainwashed by the misleading mantras of such corporate-sponsored propagandists as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other multi-millionaire right-wing broadcasters. What you've been led to believe would make sense were it not for the inordinately unbalanced distribution of the Nation's wealth resources which has systematically occurred during the past three decades of Reaganomics and accompanying deregulations.

You obviously are unaware of just how much wealth has been transferred from the 95% majority of Americans to a 5% minority along with substantial reductions in the tax rates of corporations and the super-rich. If you were aware of the real numbers involved in this long-term financial maneuvering I'm quite sure your ideas would change.

Unless something radical is done (significant tax increases) to restore economic balance it is unavoidable that our Country will fall into another depression which is believed will be much worse than the last one.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I wouldn't watch Beck or Hannity or listen to Rush if it was the only thing on.

I will apologize for that presumption but not for the main point of my argument, which is the national economy is presently analogous to a ship which is listing perilously. There is no question that its weight must be shifted to restore balance and the numbers clearly reveal the weight disparity.

The situation is circumstantially identical that that which brought about the Great Depression and one of the things FDR did to correct the problem is impose a progressive tax rate with a 91% maximum. And that rate prevailed throughout the most prosperous three decades in our history.

I believe these things because I RUN A BUSINESS.

All businesses do not inhabit the same taxable category. If you run a blue chip corporation your tax rate should be significantly higher than the fellow who runs a lawn service or a pizzeria -- and rightfully so. And it should be noted that taxes are imposed on last year's profits, not on this year's projected operating expenses. So the notion that taxes impede hiring and growth is spurious.

You tied corporations and the super rich together, can't do that. I never said anything about taxation of wealthy people - I said taxation of businesses.

A significant number of the super-rich are corporate executives. But regardless of its source, wealth is wealth and it should be taxed accordingly. If you happen to be rich a progressive tax increase won't break you. It will make you a little less rich. That's all.

My level of wealth is relatively modest, so my tax rate is proportionate. If I were a millionaire my tax rate would be significantly higher, but it certainly wouldn't break me. And in your situation your tax rate will be proportional with your annual business profit.

In closing I will ask what you think of the fact that the most profitable corporations in America paid little to no taxes in recent years? Would you say some adjustments are in order?

MikeK:

You are full of some of the most dangerous misconceptions imaginable. So since you're so interested in where people get so f'in misinformed -- where was it for you?

The reason "the most profitable corporations in America paid little or no taxes" has NOTHING, NADA to do with the tax rates. It's the tax rebates and subsidies that knock their bill down to zero AND BELOW! This is patently true.. Instead of fixing competitive corporate rates -- the corrupt shamans we have as political leaders USE the tax code to promote their little agendas. And one of the LARGEST corporate give-aways in recent years has been GREEN ENERGY credits.. In fact, every washing machine sold by an American firm in America earns the company about $125 in tax credits. Add to that turbine credits for wind, solar credits, energy efficiency credits and ethanol and YOU and your lefty buds are SURELY saving the planet huh? You don't RAISE the corporate rates -- you stop the govt collusion by nuking the subsidies. The left knows why GE didn't pay any corporate taxes -- they GAVE them all those breaks..

And it should be noted that taxes are imposed on last year's profits, not on this year's projected operating expenses. So the notion that taxes impede hiring and growth is spurious.

WTF? Taxes have NOTHING to do with current year and future year planning and profit margins? Let's hope you're in the right occupation..

You also seem to think that Income tax Rates are the ideal method of punishing the rich.. First off -- fiscal conservatives (even poor ones) don't defend the rich because they can't afford to pay more.. They defend them because it's NOT extremely effective at raising revenues and because they want to see the govt REIGN IN SPENDING first. But all of your concentration on trying to correlate economic prosperity with tax rates leaves out the fact that over all that time --- Fed revenues as a percentage of GDP have been almost flat at between 16% and 19%.. That's because "the rich" recieve more income subject to Capital Gains than Salary in recent history. You're using the wrong damn TOOL!!!! Please don't be shy.. Tell me if you don't understand this, because it's damned important.

If Congress imposes an appropriately structured progressive tax rate the ultimate effect will be many more working people who can afford the American Dream -- that is provided the Congress also breaks the stranglehold the Military Industrial Complex has on the Economy.

Where is all this crap coming from? You think that without SEVERE budget rebalancing that raising another $80Bill from the RICH is gonna cause rainbows and unicorns to multiply? What about the 1/2 of all American tax filers that pay NOTHING towards ANY of the current spending outside of Payroll taxes? What is THEIR stake in all this?

THe NUMBER ONE problem America faces right now is that their government leadership has repeatedly squandered the opportunity to protect entitlements and to focus investments on the PROPER kind of MODERN jobs that America needs to survive. It's not BULLSHIT GREEN jobs that we need. We need an across the board policy that cause capital to flow into NEW modern concept industry. And an education system that fills our tech and science grad schools with AMERICAN kids, not foreigners. If that kind of leadership doesn't appear soon -- we are doomed. And this anti-business, class warfare shit is just fighting over the carcass...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And furthermore...as a guy who runs a business...we are not "hoarding" money.
I don't have a secret room behind my office where I get naked and roll in the cash and smoke Cuban cigars...I realize that is the vision many leftist dead-heads have.
It is true that I have not purchased any capital items since 2008. It is true that I have more liquid cash in assets than normal - but I don't do this to "hoard" it. I have a responsibility to protect the families that work for me. I can't predict what is going to happen, if there is a significant double-dip in the economy - that new piece of equipment might just be the thing that makes us go under. I need more liquid assets to get through tough months. This year we lost money 3 out of the 7 months...that means without cash in the bank - I would have to lay someone off. There is noooo way that I can see investing money into an economy that is so shaky...I just can't.
And 100,000's of other business owners/operators feel the same way.

But yeah...let's tax 'em more - that'll do the trick! Maybe instead of 51% of the working population paying zero income taxes - let's see if we can increase that to 60%!!! Yeah!!!...make them filthy corporations pay!!!!!

Note the tax rates that existed during the most prosperous decades in American history. How do you account for that phenomenon?

The tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf


The tax rates have never been lower than they are today and look where we are in comparison to then.

Wrong!


1988 - 28%

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, wanting your kids to be able to go to college, wanting to own your own home....used to be the American dream

Now the conservatives call it your spending problem

Obviously, if Congress raises your taxes, you'll better be able to afford your American dream.

If Congress imposes an appropriately structured progressive tax rate the ultimate effect will be many more working people who can afford the American Dream -- that is provided the Congress also breaks the stranglehold the Military Industrial Complex has on the Economy.

It's true, when you take more money away from corporations, corporations have more money to hire new employees and pay old employees more.

It's simple math.

 

[MikeK]

You are full of some of the most dangerous misconceptions imaginable. So since you're so interested in where people get so f'in misinformed -- where was it for you?

The reason "the most profitable corporations in America paid little or no taxes" has NOTHING, NADA to do with the tax rates. It's the tax rebates and subsidies that knock their bill down to zero AND BELOW! This is patently true.. Instead of fixing competitive corporate rates -- the corrupt shamans we have as political leaders USE the tax code to promote their little agendas. And one of the LARGEST corporate give-aways in recent years has been GREEN ENERGY credits.. In fact, every washing machine sold by an American firm in America earns the company about $125 in tax credits. Add to that turbine credits for wind, solar credits, energy efficiency credits and ethanol and YOU and your lefty buds are SURELY saving the planet huh? You don't RAISE the corporate rates -- you stop the govt collusion by nuking the subsidies. The left knows why GE didn't pay any corporate taxes -- they GAVE them all those breaks.

I don't know if the "left" or the "right" enabled some corporations to pay no taxes and I don't care. I don't think of political issues as schoolyard ball-games. What concerns me are the credible charges that major corporations have managed to avoid paying taxes on their massive profits. The following derives from one of several credible sources I've come to rely on, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), whom I am confident knows what he's talking about.

(Excerpt)

Senator Sanders has compiled a list of some of some of the 10 worst corporate income tax avoiders:

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. (Source: Exxon Mobil's 2009 shareholder report filed with the SEC here.)

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion. (Source: Forbes.com here, ProPublica here and Treasury here.)

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS. (Source: Citizens for Tax Justice here and The New York Times here. Note: despite rumors to the contrary, the Times has stood by its story.)

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. (Source: See 2009 Chevron annual report here. Note 15 on page FS-46 of this report shows a U.S. federal income tax liability of $128 million, but that it was able to defer $147 million for a U.S. federal income tax liability of $-19 million)

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year. . (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, here and Citizens for Tax Justice here.)

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction. (Source: the company's 2009 annual report, pg. 112, here.)

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. (Source: Bloomberg News here, ProPublica here, Treasury Department here.)

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury. (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, here, ProPublica here, Treasury Department here.)

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2006 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. (Sources: Profits can be found here. The deduction can be found on the company's 2010 SEC 10-K report to shareholders on 2009 finances, pg. 127, here)

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent. (Source: The New York Times here)

Release: Tax Time? Not for Giant Corporations - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

(Close:

Perhaps Senator Sanders might be interested in your explanation of why all of that is just a big misunderstanding and why you know better.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are full of some of the most dangerous misconceptions imaginable. So since you're so interested in where people get so f'in misinformed -- where was it for you?

The reason "the most profitable corporations in America paid little or no taxes" has NOTHING, NADA to do with the tax rates. It's the tax rebates and subsidies that knock their bill down to zero AND BELOW! This is patently true.. Instead of fixing competitive corporate rates -- the corrupt shamans we have as political leaders USE the tax code to promote their little agendas. And one of the LARGEST corporate give-aways in recent years has been GREEN ENERGY credits.. In fact, every washing machine sold by an American firm in America earns the company about $125 in tax credits. Add to that turbine credits for wind, solar credits, energy efficiency credits and ethanol and YOU and your lefty buds are SURELY saving the planet huh? You don't RAISE the corporate rates -- you stop the govt collusion by nuking the subsidies. The left knows why GE didn't pay any corporate taxes -- they GAVE them all those breaks.

I don't know if the "left" or the "right" enabled some corporations to pay no taxes and I don't care. I don't think of political issues as schoolyard ball-games. What concerns me are the credible charges that major corporations have managed to avoid paying taxes on their massive profits. The following derives from one of several credible sources I've come to rely on, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), whom I am confident knows what he's talking about.

(Excerpt)

Senator Sanders has compiled a list of some of some of the 10 worst corporate income tax avoiders:

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. (Source: Exxon Mobil's 2009 shareholder report filed with the SEC here.)

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion. (Source: Forbes.com here, ProPublica here and Treasury here.)

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS. (Source: Citizens for Tax Justice here and The New York Times here. Note: despite rumors to the contrary, the Times has stood by its story.)

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. (Source: See 2009 Chevron annual report here. Note 15 on page FS-46 of this report shows a U.S. federal income tax liability of $128 million, but that it was able to defer $147 million for a U.S. federal income tax liability of $-19 million)

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year. . (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, here and Citizens for Tax Justice here.)

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction. (Source: the company's 2009 annual report, pg. 112, here.)

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. (Source: Bloomberg News here, ProPublica here, Treasury Department here.)

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury. (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, here, ProPublica here, Treasury Department here.)

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2006 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. (Sources: Profits can be found here. The deduction can be found on the company's 2010 SEC 10-K report to shareholders on 2009 finances, pg. 127, here)

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent. (Source: The New York Times here)

Release: Tax Time? Not for Giant Corporations - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

(Close:

Perhaps Senator Sanders might be interested in your explanation of why all of that is just a big misunderstanding and why you know better.

Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits

How much did they lose the year before? More than $4.4 billion?

Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes.

How much did they lose the year before? More than $4 billion?

It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

Loans which have been repaid. I think the Treasury made over $12 billion in profits from the TARP loans to Citigroup.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are full of some of the most dangerous misconceptions imaginable. So since you're so interested in where people get so f'in misinformed -- where was it for you?

The reason "the most profitable corporations in America paid little or no taxes" has NOTHING, NADA to do with the tax rates. (except in such cases that the rates are higher than parking cash abroad). It's the tax rebates and subsidies that knock their bill down to zero AND BELOW! This is patently true.. Instead of fixing competitive corporate rates -- the corrupt shamans we have as political leaders USE the tax code to promote their little agendas. And one of the LARGEST corporate give-aways in recent years has been GREEN ENERGY credits.. In fact, every washing machine sold by an American firm in America earns the company about $125 in tax credits. Add to that turbine credits for wind, solar credits, energy efficiency credits and ethanol and YOU and your lefty buds are SURELY saving the planet huh? You don't RAISE the corporate rates -- you stop the govt collusion by nuking the subsidies. The left knows why GE didn't pay any corporate taxes -- they GAVE them all those breaks.

I don't know if the "left" or the "right" enabled some corporations to pay no taxes and I don't care. I don't think of political issues as schoolyard ball-games. What concerns me are the credible charges that major corporations have managed to avoid paying taxes on their massive profits. The following derives from one of several credible sources I've come to rely on, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), whom I am confident knows what he's talking about.

(Excerpt)

Senator Sanders has compiled a list of some of some of the 10 worst corporate income tax avoiders:

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. (Source: Exxon Mobil's 2009 shareholder report filed with the SEC here.)

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion. (Source: Forbes.com here, ProPublica here and Treasury here.)

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS. (Source: Citizens for Tax Justice here and The New York Times here. Note: despite rumors to the contrary, the Times has stood by its story.)

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. (Source: See 2009 Chevron annual report here. Note 15 on page FS-46 of this report shows a U.S. federal income tax liability of $128 million, but that it was able to defer $147 million for a U.S. federal income tax liability of $-19 million)

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year. . (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, here and Citizens for Tax Justice here.)

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction. (Source: the company's 2009 annual report, pg. 112, here.)

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. (Source: Bloomberg News here, ProPublica here, Treasury Department here.)

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury. (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, here, ProPublica here, Treasury Department here.)

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2006 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. (Sources: Profits can be found here. The deduction can be found on the company's 2010 SEC 10-K report to shareholders on 2009 finances, pg. 127, here)

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent. (Source: The New York Times here)

Release: Tax Time? Not for Giant Corporations - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

(Close:

Perhaps Senator Sanders might be interested in your explanation of why all of that is just a big misunderstanding and why you know better.

So MikeK -- you have NO IDEA why GE didn't pay any taxes, got a credits for future years and STILL isn't doing anything illegal.. You don't CARE why that is either -- But you're bound and determined to "fix it". How stupid is that really?

I TOLD you why these corporations aren't paying net taxes.. It's got NOTHING to do the rates. Your politicians KNOW this (even socialist Bernie Sanders).. But they want MORE power to continue using the tax code as govt/corporate collusion for THEIR projections of power and they are lying to you.. Surprise!!!

Either do some homework -- or realize that your political cause is marginalized because it might be YOUR SIDE that has been brainwashed by the media... Or at least you've been dis-served by whatever media you are consuming --- because YOU SHOULD KNOW this stuff..

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You are one of many Americans who are effectively brainwashed by the misleading mantras of such corporate-sponsored propagandists as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other multi-millionaire right-wing broadcasters. What you've been led to believe would make sense were it not for the inordinately unbalanced distribution of the Nation's wealth resources which has systematically occurred during the past three decades of Reaganomics and accompanying deregulations.

You obviously are unaware of just how much wealth has been transferred from the 95% majority of Americans to a 5% minority along with substantial reductions in the tax rates of corporations and the super-rich. If you were aware of the real numbers involved in this long-term financial maneuvering I'm quite sure your ideas would change.

Unless something radical is done (significant tax increases) to restore economic balance it is unavoidable that our Country will fall into another depression which is believed will be much worse than the last one.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I wouldn't watch Beck or Hannity or listen to Rush if it was the only thing on.

I will apologize for that presumption but not for the main point of my argument, which is the national economy is presently analogous to a ship which is listing perilously. There is no question that its weight must be shifted to restore balance and the numbers clearly reveal the weight disparity.

The situation is circumstantially identical that that which brought about the Great Depression and one of the things FDR did to correct the problem is impose a progressive tax rate with a 91% maximum. And that rate prevailed throughout the most prosperous three decades in our history.

I believe these things because I RUN A BUSINESS.

All businesses do not inhabit the same taxable category. If you run a blue chip corporation your tax rate should be significantly higher than the fellow who runs a lawn service or a pizzeria -- and rightfully so. And it should be noted that taxes are imposed on last year's profits, not on this year's projected operating expenses. So the notion that taxes impede hiring and growth is spurious.

You tied corporations and the super rich together, can't do that. I never said anything about taxation of wealthy people - I said taxation of businesses.

A significant number of the super-rich are corporate executives. But regardless of its source, wealth is wealth and it should be taxed accordingly. If you happen to be rich a progressive tax increase won't break you. It will make you a little less rich. That's all.

My level of wealth is relatively modest, so my tax rate is proportionate. If I were a millionaire my tax rate would be significantly higher, but it certainly wouldn't break me. And in your situation your tax rate will be proportional with your annual business profit.

In closing I will ask what you think of the fact that the most profitable corporations in America paid little to no taxes in recent years? Would you say some adjustments are in order?

No I wouldn't. Businesses should pay NO income tax with these exceptions...

1) They have closed American plants and moved them overseas.
2) Over X% of their business is reselling imported items.

That is about it.
I have no problem with multi-$million CEO's etc paying 30%+ of income taxes...however I DO have a problem that over half of all wage earners in this country pay no income taxes.