7 Largest Corporations paying NEGATIVE Taxes!!! &%*#$!# Leeches!!!

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

That 'taking a loss' is of course after paying the ceo's salary correct?

a reply to: Sremmos80

All salaries. Oh and funny thing about businesses... posting a loss is one of the tricks used to avoid paying taxes. Especially if you're a huge conglomeration that can move $$$ from one division to another.

a reply to: Hefficide

Nearly half the population does not pay FEDERAL income taxes. Yes, they may pay local and other taxes, but not federal income taxes which is what is being discussed. You could take every dime of the top 5% of wage earners and it still would not be enough to run the government.

I always find it funny that those that complain the most pay the least.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Hefficide

Nearly half the population does not pay FEDERAL income taxes. Yes, they may pay local and other taxes, but not federal income taxes which is what is being discussed. You could take every dime of the top 5% of wage earners and it still would not be enough to run the government.

I always find it funny that those that complain the most pay the least.

I agree make the government smaller..
I do not agree that poor people have more money to give.

At the same time make sure anyone making over a billion or 10 billion is paying what they should instead of hiding their money on an island somewhere or in switzerland or in China...

I always believed income taxes are a form of blackmail. Don't pay, go to jail. If that's not blackmailing someone, I'm not sure what is???

Blackmail - Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.

Sounds like blackmail to me. No?

originally posted by: McChillin
I always believed income taxes are a form of blackmail. Don't pay, go to jail. If that's not blackmailing someone, I'm not sure what is???

Blackmail - Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.

Sounds like blackmail to me. No?

That is blackmail..

The only way it wasn't blackmail is if I signed a contract saying I agreed to this way of doing things.


Hahaha.. Srry guys.. That's my last post on this one I swear. stayed up too late..

Let everyone else have their voice now.

Sorry

Holy red-herrings Batman! We go from Corporations paying negative income taxes to robbing the top 5% of everything they own. You're not very good at darts are you? I say that because you've not only missed the board, you've hit the wrong wall entirely.

I always find it funny that those who know the least are the most entrenched in their opinions.

Maybe you could take a moment and edumakate yourself on taxation.

originally posted by: Hefficide

Holy red-herrings Batman! We go from Corporations paying negative income taxes to robbing the top 5% of everything they own. You're not very good at darts are you? I say that because you've not only missed the board, you've hit the wrong wall entirely.

I always find it funny that those who know the least are the most entrenched in their opinions.

Maybe you could take a moment and edumakate yourself on taxation.

So, let me get this straight: A group of people, make up a bunch of rules and call it law; impose it on us, and threaten us, when we don't obey their made up rules? Who gave them that authority? I never agreed to their rules, to begin with!

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

That 'taking a loss' is of course after paying the ceo's salary correct?

And every other employee, yes

a reply to: Hefficide

I simply addressed various points brought up. If you disagree, please feel free to back up your opinion with some facts.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Hefficide

I simply addressed various points brought up. If you disagree, please feel free to back up your opinion with some facts.

He did, all you needed to do was click on TAXATION, here it is again.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: schuyler

While what you said is true you're forgetting the effect of international business and how different tax rates effect the final price in different ways.

Lets take a random product from two companies. Both companies spend $60 to make the product. Company A sells it at $100 and pays a 10% tax rate so they profit $30 and pay $10. Company B sells it at $80 and pays a 20% tax rate. They profit $4 and pay $16. Company B pays more in taxes yet is more competitive by sacrificing profit margin. Company A is better for shareholders while Company B is better for it's customers. The US is currently mostly Company A while we lose market share, particularly in manufacturing to Company B's.

originally posted by: McChillinSo, let me get this straight: A group of people, make up a bunch of rules and call it law; impose it on us, and threaten us, when we don't obey their made up rules? Who gave them that authority? I never agreed to their rules, to begin with!

By choosing to live in their society and benefit from their infrastructure, you have agreed to obey their rules. Don't like it? Get involved in politics.

a reply to: olaru12

Simply posting a Wikipedia page of various tax definitions in no way addresses whether particular taxes are beneficial or not.

a reply to: Aazadan


Your tax rate is based off of your profits not off the sale price of the item.
Using your numbers, company a paid $4 tax and was left with $36 profit.
Company b paid $4 tax and was left with $16 profit.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: Aazadan


Your tax rate is based off of your profits not off the sale price of the item.
Using your numbers, company a paid $4 tax and was left with $36 profit.
Company b paid $4 tax and was left with $16 profit.

But that material and labor in your costs also had tax paid on it by the providers of those goods and services.

What I was trying to get it is that tax rates filter down and are ultimately paid by the consumer, but competition causes companies to eat some of the tax as part of their profit margin. With less competition, more and more tax is paid only by the end consumer.

a reply to: Aazadan


All tax is paid by the end consumer. Thats where a company gets money.
Anyone not making at least ten percent profit on expenditures will not be around very long.

I buy materials sales tax exempt by the way.
When I sell my finished products, I charge the customer sales tax. Then I turn that into the state.
The consumer pays the tax not my business. Raise that rate and I just pass it on to them.

California has raised it's taxes and Kanas has drastically cut theirs, let's compare outcomes:

Kansas went all-in on supply-side economics, slashing taxes on the affluent in the belief that this would spark a huge boom; the boom didn’t happen, but the budget deficit exploded, offering an object lesson to those willing to learn from experience.

And there’s an even bigger if less drastic experiment under way in the opposite direction. California has long suffered from political paralysis, with budget rules that allowed an increasingly extreme Republican minority to hamstring a Democratic majority; when the state’s housing bubble burst, it plunged into fiscal crisis. In 2012, however, Democratic dominance finally became strong enough to overcome the paralysis, and Gov. Jerry Brown was able to push through a modestly liberal agenda of higher taxes, spending increases and a rise in the minimum wage.

Above from: www.nytimes.com...

And the outcome for California:

What has actually happened? There is, I’m sorry to say, no sign of the promised catastrophe. (from the Right)

If tax increases are causing a major flight of jobs from California, you can’t see it in the job numbers. Employment is up 3.6 percent in the past 18 months, compared with a national average of 2.8 percent; at this point, California’s share of national employment, which was hit hard by the bursting of the state’s enormous housing bubble, is back to pre-recession levels.

There's more about Kansas's approach:

Two years ago Kansas embarked on a remarkable fiscal experiment: It sharply slashed income taxes without any clear idea of what would replace the lost revenue. Sam Brownback, the governor, proposed the legislation — in percentage terms, the largest tax cut in one year any state has ever enacted — in close consultation with the economist Arthur Laffer. And Mr. Brownback predicted that the cuts would jump-start an economic boom — “Look out, Texas,” he proclaimed.

But Kansas isn’t booming — in fact, its economy is lagging both neighboring states and America as a whole. Meanwhile, the state’s budget has plunged deep into deficit, provoking a Moody’s downgrade of its debt.

There’s an important lesson here — but it’s not what you think. Yes, the Kansas debacle shows that tax cuts don’t have magical powers, but we already knew that. The real lesson from Kansas is the enduring power of bad ideas, as long as those ideas serve the interests of the right people. [color]

From: leisureguy.wordpress.com...

Both pieces have references and links if you are interested.

The point it - we can't make any progress by anyone's definition unless we actually LEARN from experience.

Clearly, over the last forty years of 'supply side economics' has not worked for working people, even professional working people - but the mantras of SSE are still believed - why is that?

My thought on that is that those 'rallying the troops' don't mean that it works for 98% of the population - but they do believe and know that it works just fine for the 2%. And that self-serving 'belief' comes across to people - it's used car sales 101.

a reply to: Aazadan

Which company would you rather your pension or 401k be invested in? Company A or Company B. Remember, the profits that Company A generates get returned to the shareholder i.e., YOU in the form of dividends. Excess profits also allow company A to pay higher salaries and other perks, reinvest in the company for expansion (which means creating more jobs, etc). So while Company B may be paying more in taxes, why is that better? The government is far less efficient at distributing money than private entities. At some point, the shareholders of Company B will revolt. A company can only be benevolent for so long before market realities catch up. In your example, Company B would go out of business at some point because they likely couldn't afford to reinvest back into the company.

a reply to: KnightLight

If my last post came across as being personally critical of you, then I apologize. I was simply posing questions I thought would get to the heart of the topic.

Nowhere have I suggested that the poor should pay more in taxes than they already do (though I do think everyone should pay something to have some skin in the game). I'm neither rich nor an idealist. As an underemployed college-educated millennial, I know full well you can't squeeze blood out of a rock. Only recently did I regain health insurance after several years without. I live week to week like most Americans, and have almost no expendable income. For the past several years I have paid no income tax thanks to the earned income credit.

You sir are a veteran, and veterans are one of the only groups of people truly entitled to the basic needs of life. As far as I am concerned, veterans should be exempt from paying income tax altogether.

The average person, though, pays no more in Federal taxes than you do. The average person hasn't given years of his life for the security of our freedoms. Yet the average person expects way more in terms of benefits than you do.

The problem is not corporations (groups of people who make money together and thus pay individual income taxes upwards of 25%) not paying enough. The problem is too many people who have little or nothing to contribute, but demand more and more tax money be spent on their behalf.

There is a drought, but it's not because rich people are hoarding water. It's because every year the politicians want to add another damned tier to the gold-trimmed imported marble fountain that is the Federal government.