Most US Companies avoid paying income tax

[Article 15]

You do not though have ANY problem with posts about Obama , or have I missed where you have asked similar questions of people like Kirk and Seallybobo?

Perhaps, Sarge, you missed the thread about the McCain campaign having a system that awards points to people who cut and paste campaign talking points that they can exchange for prizes ... I haven't seen anything like that from the Obama camp yet ...

The poster that that I called out on that did exactly that, with an exact verbatim talking point ... cut and pasted ...

Carry on.

 

[sealybobo]

This breaking story about most companies not paying any taxes is all the proof I need that there isn't anything the gop could do that you wouldn't approve or defend. don't ever call me partisan.

torture, fine. spying on americans,outing cia agents,lying us into war,empty the treasury. must be a great job where failure and corruption are honorable traits and rewarded.

 

[Chris]

This breaking story about most companies not paying any taxes is all the proof I need that there isn't anything the gop could do that you wouldn't approve or defend. don't ever call me partisan.

torture, fine. spying on americans,outing cia agents,lying us into war,empty the treasury. must be a great job where failure and corruption are honorable traits and rewarded.

Nice post.

 

[jreeves]

jreeves, this chart shows the top earners paying the most taxes, but that is independent of the corporate taxes. The taxes the corps pay are different than the taxes their CEO's and board members, for example, are paying.

I know that, Bobo said that the top 1%'s taxes were cut under the Bush tax cuts which is inaccurate. The top 1% paid more taxes after the Bush tax cuts.

 

[jreeves]

I love how you post all this shit, then when you click on the links on the site....It's always a dead link....kinda smells like your thoughts...


Btw...
WASHINGTON, Aug 12, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- AP's Misreading of GAO Report Repeated Uncritically by Other Media
An AP article today on the GAO's new report on corporate tax liabilities contains a serious error that undermines the story's thesis.
The AP reported that, according to the GAO study comparing tax liabilities of corporations from 1998-2005, "about 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes [in 2005] were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts." Furthermore, this claim was repeated in numerous stories.
After careful review of the AP's story, Tax Foundation economist Josh Barro found that the AP significantly overstated the number of large corporations not paying corporate taxes.
"The actual report reflects that, of the 1.26 million U.S. corporations with no 2005 tax liability, just 3,565 were large," says Barro. "That's 0.28%, which is 90 times less than the figure reported by the AP. Policymakers and the public should not be deceived by this story that misrepresents the GAO report."
While the AP story quoted Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) citing this report in claiming that "it's time for big corporations to pay their fair share," Barro explains that, according to the GAO report, 75% of large corporations did pay corporate income tax in 2005. Furthermore, in the vast majority (85%) of cases where they did not, it was because they had zero or negative net income for 2005. For instance, American Airlines and General Motors avoided income tax for 2005 by losing $862 million and $10.5 billion, respectively, in 2005. [/B]"These facts significantly undercut the thrust of the AP's story, which is that significant numbers of corporations, especially large ones, are avoiding tax liability," Barro stated. "In fact, the GAO report shows that large, profitable corporations are paying taxes on their profits." The AP story can be found online at: Most companies in US avoid federal income taxes - Yahoo! News. The GAO report can be found at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf
The Tax Foundation is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that has monitored fiscal policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937.
SOURCE Tax Foundation
AP Makes Serious Error in Story on Corporate Income Tax - MarketWatch

I guess Bobo is going to ignore this report from a non-partisan source. I'm not shocked though when Bobo breathes he exhales donkey shit...

 

[chopcrazy]

I guess Bobo is going to ignore this report from a non-partisan source. I'm not shocked though when Bobo breathes he exhales donkey shit...

Here is another item from the CBO (Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates:1979 to 2005) that shows those in in the top 40% of household income ($85,200+) in 2005 contributed 99.4% of the individual income taxe liabilities. The top 40% of corporations contributed 94% of corp income taxes liabilities.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Perhaps, Sarge, you missed the thread about the McCain campaign having a system that awards points to people who cut and paste campaign talking points that they can exchange for prizes ... I haven't seen anything like that from the Obama camp yet ...

The poster that that I called out on that did exactly that, with an exact verbatim talking point ... cut and pasted ...

Carry on.

So what? Again you have no problem with people singing Obama's praise, scripted or not. How about you take your fascist desire to silence the opposition and stuff it in the correct hole?

 

[Care4all]

Here is another item from the CBO (Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates:1979 to 2005) that shows those in in the top 40% of household income ($85,200+) in 2005 contributed 99.4% of the individual income taxe liabilities. The top 40% of corporations contributed 94% of corp income taxes liabilities.

income taxes bring in ONLY 33% of the money to fund the federal budget.

Where does this FACT fit in to the picture?

ALSO, Chop, who earns the most has to be considered also...

Do those paying the most ALSO EARN THE MOST? Of course they do.....and if they are contributing to more of the income tax load they are MAKING THE MOST and they are making MORE than they did before the bush tax cuts that benefited them, and those in the lower 60% are making LESS and earning less of that "Pie" out there that has been grabbed by the wealthiest.

Those earning the 85k-$150k plus -in your top 40% are the ones that are getting screwed in their income taxes payed, because all of those earnings were made by A WORKING WAGE....

and our system is set up to reward those that DO NOT WORK for their wages, but invest for their yearly earnings.....(paying ONLY a 15% tax of capital gains or dividend)

And punishes those that work for a wage.

Those making up to 100k ALSO PAY 13% of their wages in SS tax, including what the employer puts in, in their name for them, (which would be part of their salary)

Those making over 100k pay none of this over the first 100k.....

SS surplus taxes ARE FUNDING the spending that INCOME taxes SHOULD BE FUNDING....

TO ONLY analyze who pays the most taxes by soley looking at income taxes which ONLY FUND 33% of our Federal budget is crazy, absurd and a measure that the wealthiest WANT YOU TO DO....making the tax picture appear to be more unfair to them, WHEN IT IS NOT.

Care

 

[sealybobo]

I know that, Bobo said that the top 1%'s taxes were cut under the Bush tax cuts which is inaccurate. The top 1% paid more taxes after the Bush tax cuts.

What? Prove that please!!!

 

[sealybobo]

I guess Bobo is going to ignore this report from a non-partisan source. I'm not shocked though when Bobo breathes he exhales donkey shit...

he said your links are dead dumb shit. Please explain how the top 1% paid more under bush. I can't wait to disprove it.

 

[sealybobo]

So what? Again you have no problem with people singing Obama's praise, scripted or not. How about you take your fascist desire to silence the opposition and stuff it in the correct hole?

You are the fascists silly.

 

[Care4all]

From The TimesJune 28, 2007

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary
Tom Bawden in New York
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.


They echo those made this month by Nicholas Ferguson, one of the leading figures in Britain’s private equity industry, when he criticised tax rates that left its multimillionaire venture capitalists “paying less tax than a cleaning lady”.

 

[sealybobo]

If you assume a standard deduction (and everyone AT LEAST gets a standard deduction of $5,150), her taxable income is $44,850. We'll assume she's single with no dependents - which would imply an even greater standard deduction.

Her total federal tax burden would come to $7,556, or 15.1% effective.

What is Buffet talking about in the post right before this one? That's what i was talking about. I think you were trying to throw me off with your fuzzy math. The rich pay a smaller percentage than us poor people. Correct? Is Buffet wrong or dilusional?

 

[chopcrazy]

income taxes bring in ONLY 33% of the money to fund the federal budget.

Where does this FACT fit in to the picture?

ALSO, Chop, who earns the most has to be considered also...

Do those paying the most ALSO EARN THE MOST? Of course they do.....and if they are contributing to more of the income tax load they are MAKING THE MOST and they are making MORE than they did before the bush tax cuts that benefited them, and those in the lower 60% are making LESS and earning less of that "Pie" out there that has been grabbed by the wealthiest.

Those earning the 85k-$150k plus -in your top 40% are the ones that are getting screwed in their income taxes payed, because all of those earnings were made by A WORKING WAGE....

and our system is set up to reward those that DO NOT WORK for their wages, but invest for their yearly earnings.....(paying ONLY a 15% tax of capital gains or dividend)

And punishes those that work for a wage.

Those making up to 100k ALSO PAY 13% of their wages in SS tax, including what the employer puts in, in their name for them, (which would be part of their salary)

Those making over 100k pay none of this over the first 100k.....

SS surplus taxes ARE FUNDING the spending that INCOME taxes SHOULD BE FUNDING....

TO ONLY analyze who pays the most taxes by soley looking at income taxes which ONLY FUND 33% of our Federal budget is crazy, absurd and a measure that the wealthiest WANT YOU TO DO....making the tax picture appear to be more unfair to them, WHEN IT IS NOT.

Care

Individual Income taxes comprise 60% of the on-budget receipts. It is Congress that likes to spend the off-budget surplus receipts for on-budget expenditures. There could be a separate debate discussing off-budget [social security] revenue and expenditures (present and future), who should pay for a person's social security, problems ahead, etc..

I never said anything about being fair. The point is the top 40% pay pretty much all the taxes. Increasing the rate will just bring in more tax revenue. If Congress thinks it is necessary that more revenue is needed to offset the spending, then so be it.

I would take the reverse position that saving (investing) is rewarded with the lower tax rate. The working wages that person earned are still taxed. If I save 10% for 35 years and build a nice nest egg, are you proposing that the nest egg be taxed as wage income?

 

[sealybobo]

Individual Income taxes comprise 60% of the on-budget receipts. It is Congress that likes to spend the off-budget surplus receipts for on-budget expenditures. There could be a separate debate discussing off-budget [social security] revenue and expenditures (present and future), who should pay for a person's social security, problems ahead, etc..

I never said anything about being fair. The point is the top 40% pay pretty much all the taxes. Increasing the rate will just bring in more tax revenue. If Congress thinks it is necessary that more revenue is needed to offset the spending, then so be it.

I would take the reverse position that saving (investing) is rewarded with the lower tax rate. The working wages that person earned are still taxed. If I save 10% for 35 years and build a nice nest egg, are you proposing that the nest egg be taxed as wage income?

It is taxed as wage income, correct? Only the ROTH is not. Or if you only take out a little at a time it isn't taxed. But if your nest egg is big, like millions, and you draw it out, yes you pay taxes. No?

 

[chopcrazy]

What is Buffet talking about in the post right before this one? That's what i was talking about. I think you were trying to throw me off with your fuzzy math. The rich pay a smaller percentage than us poor people. Correct? Is Buffet wrong or dilusional?

Buffet does not break down which tax rate is used for each income source. He does not say if he is including payroll taxes nor does he differentiate how much of his income was from wages, dividends or capital gain sources.

Basically, he gives an incomplete picture.

 

[sealybobo]

Buffet does not break down which tax rate is used for each income source. He does not say if he is including payroll taxes nor does he differentiate how much of his income was from wages, dividends or capital gain sources.

Basically, he gives an incomplete picture.

I believe that is what most Republicans do whenever they discuss the economy.

 

[editec]

Buffet does not break down which tax rate is used for each income source. He does not say if he is including payroll taxes nor does he differentiate how much of his income was from wages, dividends or capital gain sources.

Basically, he gives an incomplete picture.

No, actually he is giving you the complete picture, which is exactly why his percentage of taxes paid for all his revenues cources is lower than his secretary's.

If he only included taxes he pays on his INCOME from salary, THEN his rates would be higher than his secretary's.

 

[Care4all]

Buffet does not break down which tax rate is used for each income source. He does not say if he is including payroll taxes nor does he differentiate how much of his income was from wages, dividends or capital gain sources.

Basically, he gives an incomplete picture.

he gives the COMPLETE picture, you on the otherhand, ARE NOT Chop!


you are giving an accounting for only Income taxes, which pay for ONLY 33% of our expenditures of the Federal Budget....THIS IS WHAT the wealthy want you to do, and not look at the whole picture....

care

 

[editec]

he gives the COMPLETE picture, you on the otherhand, ARE NOT Chop!


you are giving an accounting for only Income taxes, which pay for ONLY 33% of our expenditures of the Federal Budget....THIS IS WHAT the wealthy want you to do, and not look at the whole picture....

care

Yup!

This tool is playing the neo-con's tax dodge by discussing taxes about as honestly as your average street con plays three-card monty.

He knows everything you've told him about taxation as well as you do.. maybe better.

That is exactly why he so carefully avoids discussing taxation honestly, taking into account how ALL taxes are really paid and by whom, and draws on only those very misleading stats which suit his smoke -and-mirrors world view.

Oh the poor rich pay so much taxes! Oh boo! hoo! hoo! for them!​