While you two argue who the hell a taxpayer is...i thinks it would be time better served counting crows or other weighty matters.... The plain truth is that the rich pay far LESS than their fair share.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much In Taxes
(visit the link for the full news article)
Over a four years period from 2008 to 2011, Corning Inc. was one of 26 companies that managed to avoid paying any American income taxes, even though it earned nearly $3 billion during that time. In fact, according to Citizens For Tax Justice, the company received a $4 million refund from 2008 to 2010. That didn’t stop Susan Ford, a senior executive at the company, from telling the House Ways and Means Committee this week that America’s high corporate tax rate was putting her company at a disadvantage:
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Corporations should be taxed. They exist by charter and are legal creations that begin with regulation and demand constant regulation. Individuals are not legal creations, do not exist by charter and in fact preexist government. The question should not be why aren't corporations paying more in taxes, the real question should be why are individuals who have an unalienable right to earn a living paying taxes "on" the income they earn?
Is a ditch digger subject to the applicable revenue laws and liable for this so called "income tax"? Is a janitor subject to the applicable revenue laws and liable for this so called "income tax"? Is an architect subject to the applicable revenue laws and liable for this so called "income tax"? Is a doctor subject to the applicable revenue laws and liable for this so called "income tax"? Is a cook, waiter, busboy, dishwasher subject to the applicable revenue laws and liable for this so called "income tax"? Are contractors, day laborers, electricians and plumbers subject to the applicable revenue laws and liable for this so called "income tax"?
To the best of my knowledge, all the professions or jobs I just listed have not been made liable for any "income tax" but countless of those professionals and employees pay the damn tax anyway. What if most Americans are not even liable for the tax, not subject to the applicable revenue laws, but corporations most assuredly are? What if, instead of getting really angry because of the overwhelming sense of helplessness one feels when discovering that the taxes - they don't likely owe to begin with - they pay are being used to subsidize multinational corporations these people simply refused to pay the taxes they most likely don't owe to begin with?
Do you think if more than 250 million people stopped paying taxes they don't owe that Congress would keep giving the absurd tax breaks they give corporations? Do you think that the loss of revenue caused by more than 250 million people refusing to pay the taxes they don't owe would encourage the federal government to simply adjust and live within their means, or do you think they would look to those corporations to replace that lost income?
Wouldn't it be nice if people exercised the inherent political power they hold in this country and asserted their rights and starved the very beast that is biting the hand that feeds it?
Amazon.com: America: What Went Wrong? (9780836270013 ... www.amazon.com/America-Wrong-Donald-L-Barlett/.../083627001... $9.46 [Donald L. Barlett, James B. Steele] on Amazon.com. *FREE* super ... "Net operating loss" is perhaps the most egregious method of transferring wealth upward.
Many of the statistical comparisons of Phillip's book were originated here: the junk bond plunder of healthy companies, the massive export of high-wage jobs, the decline of pension funds and health care, et.al. And a sorry, sorry tale it is. Several pressing topics not included in Phillip's book are discussed here. "Net operating loss" is perhaps the most egregious method of transferring wealth upward. This highly biased tax allowance allows struggling companies to write off last year's net operating loss on this year's tax bill, forcing taxpayers to pay for operating losses incurred by private sector firms. Similarly, Chapter 11 bankruptcies allow indigent firms to continue operating with present management but immune from creditors. The net effect of both measures is to lessen risk and encourage reckless speculation, thereby undermining long-term market health. Included in the book are other degenerate measures deriving largely from the 1980's: Deduction of interest from corporate borrowing, Tax-free government bonds (deriving from early 1900's), Untaxed stock transactions, et.al. The overall result is to transfer the tax burden from wealthy categories to middle-cass brackets. For more far-sighted conservatives, this amounts to an alarming social and political development.
Because the federal income tax is a progressive tax and those with higher incomes pay a higher proportion in taxes, the value of a tax subsidy grows as income rises, reducing progressivity. This has led some to call tax expenditures "upside down subsidies," since they tend to generally benefit those with higher incomes more than those with lower incomes in a progressive income tax system. Not only do tax subsidies benefit a small group of interests — often those with higher incomes — they usually do not go through open, transparent political processes. Particularly true in the case of tax subsidies, expenditures through the revenue code are often large, hidden, and not subject to the same public debate as direct spending. Further, they do not get evaluated like much direct government spending does. Politicians often employ tax expenditures because they can use the tax code to confer benefits to constituents while campaigning on a platform of lowering taxes, which sounds quite a bit different than explaining that they use the tax code to benefit certain people and not others.
To understand the magnitude of the tax shift, consider this: If corporations paid federal income tax today at the effective rate paid in the 1950s, the U.S. Treasury would collect an extra $250 billion a year — wiping out the federal deficit overnight.
AIG was incorporated in Delaware on July 9, 1967, and has its executive offices in New York. That little provision and a similarly arcane clause written for another big insurer — Cigna — were worth an estimated $20 million to the two companies. They would have been obliged to pay that much in taxes had not a friendly, but anonymous, member of Congress' tax-writing committees inserted the exemption into law. You, of course, can't obtain such a tax break, since they go only to the politically well-connected. But if you could secure your own tax law, it might read like this: "This section of the Internal Revenue Code does not apply to a resident of West Virginia born on Jan. 31, 1949, who incorporated a business in Delaware on Feb. 23, 1968." Not possible, you think? Think again. If you believe that's preposterous, ponder yet another provision in the Internal Revenue Code that excused the still-unidentified beneficiaries from paying taxes that others in a similar situation were obliged to pay: "(E) Application of old rules to certain acquisitions. — In the case of a Texas resident whose birthdate is May 16, 1931, and a Michigan resident whose birthdate is November 16, 1941, in connection with a corporation incorporated in Texas on February 4, 1971, and a corporation incorporated in Florida on August 24, 1979..." Convinced? In any event, 1986 was not the first time that AIG helped to write the tax laws. In 1976, the company was the prime beneficiary of a section in the tax reform act of that year entitled "Exclusion From Subpart F of Certain Earnings of Insurance Companies."
Originally posted by Rockpuck
I did find that they get a few "tax breaks" for certain scientific research through a few different subsidiaries, mostly in the area of telecom R&R and environmental R&R. Pretty common practice though.
In fact through my own numbers there base rate is approx 35.6% before a number of breaks associate with research, as well as large expenditures associated with acquisitions.
Who ever said "they paid no taxes" is a dumbass.edit on 7/25/2012 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)
Similarly, during the 1950s, for every $1 billion that corporations paid out in interest on borrowed money, they allocated $710 million for research and development. By the 1980s, corporations spent only $220 million on research and development for every $1 billion in interest payments. Through the 1980s, corporations paid out $2.2 trillion in interest, more than double their interest payments through the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s—combined. It was enough money to create seven million manufacturing jobs, each paying $25,000 a year.
Originally posted by schuyler
Plus corporations are subject to inumerable governmental regulations on how they do business that costs them dearly. The US has one of the HIGHEST corporate taxes in the world. The government is there with its hand out every step of the way.
The so-called "civil service" enjoys higher salaries than their civilian counterparts. They have better benefits, better pensions, greater job security, and they have shown no particluar restraint in spending taxpayer confiscated money on themselves.edit on 7/24/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)
Interesting theory. Would have to consider it more thoroughly to take a position on this. However, let's say everyone wanted to do this - most people don't actually pay their taxes directly. They are withheld by the corporations and then remitted to the government. There is no individual leverage (in the macro) to do what you say.
For form and contents of such certificates, see 31.3402(f)(5)1. The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails to furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.
(a) On commencement of employment. On or before the date on which an individual commences employment with an employer, the individual shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to his marital status and the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which number shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled, or, if the statements described in 31.3402(n)1 are true with respect to an individual, he may furnish his employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate which contains such statements.
a) In general. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart (except to the extent a payment of wages is subject to withholding under § 31.3402(g)-1(a)(2) ), an employer shall not deduct and withhold any tax under chapter 24 upon a payment of wages made to an employee, if there is in effect with respect to the payment a withholding exemption certificate furnished to the employer by the employee which certifies that— (1) The employee incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code for his preceding taxable year; and
Originally posted by peck420
Wait...so a multinational corporation has to pay taxes on all of their profits all to the US?
Not, say, to the country they made the profits in?
I got news for you, these corporations funnel their profits outside of the US because the US has too high of a corporate tax rate.
Lower your tax rate to a point where these companies want to funnel the money through the US, and you make money. Jack up the tax rate, they move their money to a more favourable location...well, they keep funneling it through other countries.
Corporations are taxed differently than other business structures: A corporation is the only type of business that must pay its own income taxes on profits. In contrast, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and limited liability companies (LLCs) are not taxed on business profits; instead, the profits "pass through" the businesses to their owners, who report business income or losses on their personal tax returns.