4 out of 5 of America's biggest companies paid $0 of Federal tax in 2009

[Care4all]

Did you not read the link or are you retarded? Exxon paid NEGATIVE INCOME TAX in 2009. The IRS GAVE THEM over 150 million dollars. How the **** is that THEIR money?[/U][/B]

To which link are you referring?

The one in the op...


- Exxon Mobil: paid $0 in federal taxes & received $156 million in federal benefits

- Chevron: paid $0 in federal taxes & received $19 million in federal benefits

- General Electric: paid $0 in federal taxes & received $1.1 billion in federal benefits

- Bank of America: paid $0 in federal taxes & received $2.8 billion in federal benefits

 

[boedicca]

Nobody is saying that.

Exxon employs tens of thousands of people in the U.S., and pays payroll taxes for all of them. They pay millions for oil and gas leases and royalties to the Feds. Their products generate $.184 per gallon for the Feds. (Fed taxes on a gallon of gas exceeds the profit - think about it).

With a combined tax rate of 47% on it's global operations - what more do you think they should pay? The U.S. put tax treaties in place for good reasons that benefit the U.S. - what parts of our economy should we destroy in order to raise Exxon's tax rate further?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Perhaps your outrage would be better aimed at the over and double taxation of individuals than in trying to make the tax code even more complicated for Exxon.

For purposes of arguing that corporations have free speech rights - a corporation is a separate individual

For purposes of arguing "double taxation" - a corporation doesn't count as a separate person.

Do I have it about right?

 

[boedicca]

For purposes of arguing that corporations have free speech rights - a corporation is a separate individual

For purposes of arguing "double taxation" - a corporation doesn't count as a separate person.

Do I have it about right?

Your synapses seem to be short circuiting.

You are concerned about double taxation for individuals - and want to force the same situation on companies that will just increase the price of products consumers buy? Cuz that's what would happen (as well as significant increases in unemployment).

The real issue, which you refuse to acknowledge, is that our tax code is overly complicated and needs to be simplified FOR EVERYONE.

The faux populism of attacking one company or sector is a political ploy to distract citizens from massive increases in government spending that are outpacing tax receipts. It's to soften you up for More Tax Increases For Everybody - including you.

 

[CMike]

so Earned Income tax credits, given to those at the bottom tier, who pay absolutely no income tax, is NOT welfare, because these people pay OTHER taxes?

just a yes or no will suffice....to establish the hypocrisy or not.

Okay, yet again, Exxon paid $7.7 billion in US taxes last year.

I'll tell you what welfare is.

Let's use rightwinger for an example, just for the heck of it. Right winger aka sewer worker winger, decides that he would rather live off the taxpayers than work.

Rightwinger stays home, watches soaps all day, and collects welfare and food stamps. He adds nothing to this country.

Exxon on the other hand, doesn't stay at home. It produces. It creates livelihoods for over $35,000 americans, who pay taxes as well. It paid $7.7 billion in taxes to the US last year. It produces a very important product for Americans.

It also pays american suppliers for supplies, who use that money to pay their employees, who also pay taxes.

That is the difference between a lazy butt like right winger, and a big corporation that is an assest to this country.

So you're saying Exxon is like, some sort of benevolent charity, that we the taxpayer should be as kind as possible to, and in fact, revere, possibly even worship?


Bless us oh ExxonMobil!

I told this story before, but I want to make a point.

In 2007 I was struggelling financially. I was in pretty bad shape. I took a job doing door to door sales for commission only. I then some time later created my own company and hired my own salespeople.

In 2009 my income was about 12 times 2007. My taxes for 2009 are more than double my entire income for 2007.

I also now employ people, who some do very well.

Now I am a at least somewhat responsible for giving jobs to a number of people, and providing them livelihoods.

I want to make it clear that I didn't grow my business for anything other than making profit and providing for my wife and myself. My intention was not charity. My people work for their money. Their motivation is not charity either.

However, as a result of my company growing, I contribute quite a bit to the economy. I paid a shit load in taxes, and I employ a chunk of people. That is a by product that came from my motivation to make profit.

So no, Exxon doesn't need to be worshipped. However, we should realize that they contribute a lot the US economy in the form of jobs and taxes in their motivation to make profit. There is nothing wrong with making profit, as long as it's done ethically and honestly.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Exxon employs tens of thousands of people in the U.S., and pays payroll taxes for all of them.

That's awesome. Are they doing this for charitable reasons, or are they doing it to make a profit?

They pay millions for oil and gas leases and royalties to the Feds. Their products generate $.184 gallon for the Feds.

...and... ? So what? What's your point? Wal Mart has to pay for its product, too, and when it sells cigarettes, they are generating federal tobacco taxes.

With a combined tax rate of 47% on it's global operations - what more do you think they should pay?

I fail to see how paying high foreign tax rates in anyway should justify paying zero income taxes in the U.S. The foreign tax dollars that Exxon pays do not go to the U.S. Treasury, they do us no good, so frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about what Exxon pays in foreign taxes. Maybe if they think the foreign taxes are too high, they should withdraw their operations from those countries - and then maybe those countries will think about lowering their taxes, don't you think?


I guess my question really is -

Why do we, the U.S., have to literally charge Exxon zero income tax in order to get them to do business here - so that Exxon can go off to Nigeria and pay the Nigerian government ridiculous tax rates? Should it instead be the government of Nigeria that lowers its taxes to keep Exxon making jobs in Nigeria?

Why do WE THE U.S. TAXPAYER have to pay Nigeria's tax bill?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Your synapses seem to be short circuiting.

You are concerned about double taxation for individuals

Not really.

- and want to force the same situation on companies that will just increase the price of products consumers buy?

ITS NOT DOUBLE TAXATION TO TAX EXXON'S INCOME IN PROPORTION TO ITS U.S. BUSINESS SHARE.

I'm fine with Exxon getting credit for taxes its paid in Nigeria - but not in EXCESS of what they would have paid in U.S. taxes! That's absurd! Clearly Exxon does business in the U.S. - whatever portion of their income is derived from doing business in the U.S. should be taxed like any other corporation's income would. Whatever portion they do in Nigeria - they should have to pay the full Nigerian tax for it, not have part of it subsidized by the taxpayer!

Cuz that's what would happen (as well as significant increases in unemployment).

How come Wal Mart hasn't laid off all its employees? IT had to pay net federal income taxes.

The faux populism of attacking one company or sector is a political ploy to distract citizens from massive increases in government spending that are outpacing tax receipts.

its actually 4 companies in three different sectors mentioned in the article, though I'm sure they are more companies like them. I had assumed we all understood Exxon to be merely representative of the group of companies that pay no U.S. federal income taxes yet derive profit from their business in the U.S. Poor assumption.

It's to soften you up for More Tax Increases For Everybody - including you.

Its funny you should mention me, since I paid federal income tax for 2009, and Exxon Mobil did not. Then again, I'm not a large benevolent charity like Exxon.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I want to make it clear that I didn't grow my business for anything other than making profit and providing for my wife and myself. My intention was not charity. My people work for their money. Their motivation is not charity either.

However, as a result of my company growing, I contribute quite a bit to the economy. I paid a shit load in taxes, and I employ a chunk of people. That is a by product that came from my motivation to make profit.

It doesn't bother you that your company paid more in income taxes than ExxonMobil? How many more people could you afford to hire, how much could your business expand, if you paid ZERO income tax?

 

[boedicca]

Why do WE THE U.S. TAXPAYER have to pay Nigeria's tax bill?

My word, you are a one dimensional thinker.

Let's see if you can connect the dots.

1. The U.S. economy is highly dependent upon oil for energy.
2. The U.S. government does not allow sufficient domestic exploration and development to satisfy our energy needs.
3. Oil companies seek oi sources in foreign companies.
4. Those foreign companies tax the oil companies.
5. That oil is then sent to the U.S. and used to fuel our economy.
6. Many many many jobs depend upon reasonable priced oil.
7. The U.S. government taxes gasoline at $.184 per gallon (making more profit per gallon that does the gasoline industry).
8. The U.S. government has rigged the U.S. tax code as compensation to oil companies to foot the bill for risky overseas investments so that we can get cheap oil from foreign sources.

So - go ahead. Make it more expensive for oil companies to produce to increasing their tax burden further. You'll just pay more for each gallon of gasoline.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Why do WE THE U.S. TAXPAYER have to pay Nigeria's tax bill?

My word, you are a one dimensional thinker.

Let's see if you can connect the dots.

1. The U.S. economy is highly dependent upon oil for energy.
2. The U.S. government does not allow sufficient domestic exploration and development to satisfy our energy needs.
3. Oil companies seek oi sources in foreign companies.
4. Those foreign companies tax the oil companies.
5. That oil is then sent to the U.S. and used to fuel our economy.
6. Many many many jobs depend upon reasonable priced oil.
7. The U.S. government taxes gasoline at $.184 per gallon (making more profit per gallon that does the gasoline industry).
8. The U.S. government has rigged the U.S. tax code as compensation to oil companies to foot the bill for risky overseas investments so that we can get cheap oil from foreign sources.

So - go ahead. Make it more expensive for oil companies to produce to increasing their tax burden further. You'll just pay more for each gallon of gasoline.

I'm paying for it already in the form of more tax dollars having to come out of my pocket to compensate. Or perhaps more to the truth - my children will pay for it. So if I have to pay for it somehow anyway, I'd much prefer to pay for it at the pump when I actually by gas.


Tell me, do you consider yourself a fiscal conservative? Because subsidizing the cost of producing oil, corn, air travel, etc. with federal tax money is essentially a way to get the rich to help pay for the poor's oil, corn, etc. A rich man who pays 10,000 times the tax of a poor man does not consume 10,000 times the amount of gasoline or corn as that poor man - yet he pays 10,000 times the share of subsides that go into lowering the prices of those products.

 

[Neubarth]

Meanwhile, though, boedicca, we are using up the rest of the world's oil. We have tremendous reserves in Alaska and in oil shale that we are holding in reserve for the time the rest of the world runs out of oil.

I have read several reports that would indicate that the untapped oil off of the North Shore of Alaska is greater than the total original oil reserves in the Middle East. If so, we own the world. Unfortunately, we signed a treaty to never drill in the Artic Ocean. I wonder when that treaty comes up for renewal?

 

[boedicca]

I'm paying for it already in the form of more tax dollars having to come out of my pocket to compensate. Or perhaps more to the truth - my children will pay for it. So if I have to pay for it somehow anyway, I'd much prefer to pay for it at the pump when I actually by gas.


Tell me, do you consider yourself a fiscal conservative? Because subsidizing the cost of producing oil, corn, air travel, etc. with federal tax money is essentially a way to get the rich to help pay for the poor's oil, corn, etc. A rich man who pays 10,000 times the tax of a poor man does not consume 10,000 times the amount of gasoline or corn as that poor man - yet he pays 10,000 times the share of subsides that go into lowering the prices of those products.

I don't know how many times I have to say it: the tax code is far too complicated and full of favors, penalties, and unintended consequences.

It is the result of legislation based on ANECDOTES, which make very bad law. The real answer is simplification - which is the best disinfectant.

The situation with Exxon a result of years of social and economic engineering on the part of the feds, and the lobbying response to either manipulate benefits or minimize damage. You are focused on the symptom. The ROOT cause is the overwhelming complexity.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Meanwhile, though, boedicca, we are using up the rest of the world's oil. We have tremendous reserves in Alaska and in oil shale that we are holding in reserve for the time the rest of the world runs out of oil.

I have read several reports that would indicate that the untapped oil off of the North Shore of Alaska is greater than the total original oil reserves in the Middle East. If so, we own the world. Unfortunately, we signed a treaty to never drill in the Artic Ocean. I wonder when that treaty comes up for renewal?

Constitutionally - and correct me if I'm wrong - all it takes is an act of congress to withdraw from a treaty. Constitution explicitly states how treaties are entered into - Presidential approval and ratification by 2/3 of Senate - but does not state how they are withdrawn from, therefore, I think its implicit in their lawmaking ability.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I don't know how many times I have to say it: the tax code is far too complicated and full of favors, penalties, and unintended consequences.

That's awesome. We're talking about something more particular than that, would you mind focusing for a second?

It is the result of legislation based on ANECDOTES, which make very bad law.

Really? The foreign tax credit legislation is based on anecdotes? Which ones? Please link me to anything that can explain this to me.

The situation with Exxon a result of years of social and economic engineering on the part of the feds, and the lobbying response to either manipulate benefits or minimize damage. You are focused on the symptom. The ROOT cause is the overwhelming complexity.

??? No, I don't think so. The root cause is lobbyists going to Washington and convincing the Congressmen they've bought that the taxpayer should subsidize big business's foreign tax bill. That's pretty simple.

 

[Neubarth]

Meanwhile, though, boedicca, we are using up the rest of the world's oil. We have tremendous reserves in Alaska and in oil shale that we are holding in reserve for the time the rest of the world runs out of oil.

I have read several reports that would indicate that the untapped oil off of the North Shore of Alaska is greater than the total original oil reserves in the Middle East. If so, we own the world. Unfortunately, we signed a treaty to never drill in the Artic Ocean. I wonder when that treaty comes up for renewal?

Constitutionally - and correct me if I'm wrong - all it takes is an act of congress to withdraw from a treaty. Constitution explicitly states how treaties are entered into - Presidential approval and ratification by 2/3 of Senate - but does not state how they are withdrawn from, therefore, I think its implicit in their lawmaking ability.

I believe you are correct. Of course, it is in our best interest to keep that oil where it is, UNTAPPPED. IT WILL BE WORTH MORE THAN GOLD IN TEN YEARS.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Meanwhile, though, boedicca, we are using up the rest of the world's oil. We have tremendous reserves in Alaska and in oil shale that we are holding in reserve for the time the rest of the world runs out of oil.

I have read several reports that would indicate that the untapped oil off of the North Shore of Alaska is greater than the total original oil reserves in the Middle East. If so, we own the world. Unfortunately, we signed a treaty to never drill in the Artic Ocean. I wonder when that treaty comes up for renewal?

Constitutionally - and correct me if I'm wrong - all it takes is an act of congress to withdraw from a treaty. Constitution explicitly states how treaties are entered into - Presidential approval and ratification by 2/3 of Senate - but does not state how they are withdrawn from, therefore, I think its implicit in their lawmaking ability.

I believe you are correct. Of course, it is in our best interest to keep that oil where it is, UNTAPPPED. IT WILL BE WORTH MORE THAN GOLD IN TEN YEARS.

I agree 100% with you. Assuming no alternative energy source is developed, the last nation on earth to have oil will be king. We want to make sure that nation is us. Buying our oil from foreign sheiks who waste all their profits on fancy palaces is a good way to make sure THEY run out before we do.

 

[boedicca]

I don't know how many times I have to say it: the tax code is far too complicated and full of favors, penalties, and unintended consequences.

That's awesome. We're talking about something more particular than that, would you mind focusing for a second?



Really? The foreign tax credit legislation is based on anecdotes? Which ones? Please link me to anything that can explain this to me.

The situation with Exxon a result of years of social and economic engineering on the part of the feds, and the lobbying response to either manipulate benefits or minimize damage. You are focused on the symptom. The ROOT cause is the overwhelming complexity.

??? No, I don't think so. The root cause is lobbyists going to Washington and convincing the Congressmen they've bought that the taxpayer should subsidize big business's foreign tax bill. That's pretty simple.

Why do they feel the need to lobby?

Politicians seize on something like the Exxon information - and try to turn it into a mass generalization and basis for law and tax policy. This is a big driver for why the tax code is over 40,000 page and growing.

 

[CMike]

I want to make it clear that I didn't grow my business for anything other than making profit and providing for my wife and myself. My intention was not charity. My people work for their money. Their motivation is not charity either.

However, as a result of my company growing, I contribute quite a bit to the economy. I paid a shit load in taxes, and I employ a chunk of people. That is a by product that came from my motivation to make profit.

It doesn't bother you that your company paid more in income taxes than ExxonMobil? How many more people could you afford to hire, how much could your business expand, if you paid ZERO income tax?

My company didn't pay about $77 billion in taxes like Exxon did.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Why do they feel the need to lobby?

Profit motive.

Politicians seize on something like the Exxon information - and try to turn it into a mass generalization and basis for law and tax policy. This is a big driver for why the tax code is over 40,000 page and growing.

Now you're just babbling.

 

[boedicca]

And you are refusing to see the forest for the trees.