Corporations not paying taxes!

What about the ones that do?

These are the companies paying the most in taxes:

1. ExxonMobil
• Income tax expense: $31.05 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $78.73 billion
• Revenue: $428.38 billion
•1-year share price change: 6.56%
• Industry: Oil and gas

***

Or don't they?

Exxon Mobil: Made by far the largest profits in the group, but paid less than 1% in U.S. taxes, and yet received oil subsidies along with their tax breaks. Unabashedly reports a 2012 "theoretical tax" of over $27 billion, almost 90% of its total income tax expense. The company was also near the top in contractor misconduct.

***

This is the problem with partisan think-tanks which churn out all the information online. The data is completely spun in all different directions depending on who is processing it and writing about it.

Why can't we just have a simple system that laid everything out in plain English? (Because making things confusing is how they get away with something)

Ah yes!

It's like those MLM pyramid schemes explaining how residual profits work, or how hedge fund traders explain complicated derivatives or investing instruments created by top MIT graduates.

They are supposed to make no sense to the average person to confuse and conceal their actual intent and purpose.

In any case, one article says Exxon pays a boatload of taxes, another says their boats are full of cash from skirting their fair share.



I'm starting to wonder if it's even worth caring about the issue. I will say simply, I don't believe or take into account the opinion of either side...

I ran across an interesting article about the corporate tax. It may be worth your while. It isn't very academic, but I found it instructive.
www.econlib.org...
Here are a couple of the summary statements;

The corporate income tax is the most poorly understood of all the major methods by which the U.S. government collects money. Most economists concluded long ago that it is among the least efficient and least defensible taxes.

From an economic point of view, the central problem with the corporate income tax is that, ultimately, only people can pay taxes. Economists have had great difficulty in assessing the incidence of the corporate tax—that is, determining on which groups of people the burden falls.

Anyone curious as to where this type of thing might lead should
read up on Honduras, look into their utility companies and
the current political climate there, a great way to see how this
could all turn out in the long run, granted it wouldn't be exactly
the same but corruption can and does bring entire countries to
their knees.

The corruption there is so bad that the power company which
is state run can barely afford to stay open, all of the big companies
have ins with politicians so they do not pay their power bills,
what happens then is the bulk falls onto the shoulders of the
regular person and since the companies do everything in their
power to underpay folks well then you see how that doesn't
work out at all, read about it in depth and you start to see
just how sad things can get.

Originally posted by charles1952
I ran across an interesting article about the corporate tax. It may be worth your while. It isn't very academic, but I found it instructive.
www.econlib.org...
Here are a couple of the summary statements;

The corporate income tax is the most poorly understood of all the major methods by which the U.S. government collects money. Most economists concluded long ago that it is among the least efficient and least defensible taxes.

From an economic point of view, the central problem with the corporate income tax is that, ultimately, only people can pay taxes. Economists have had great difficulty in assessing the incidence of the corporate tax—that is, determining on which groups of people the burden falls.

Ridiculous. Corporations are in essence a form of shared property owned by shareholders who appoint and hire others to manage said property. Taxing revenue generated by for profit corporations, is no different then taxing the for profit usage of land(or any material object). Economists, like most academics, are blinded by their own petty biases and echo chambers.

reply to post by korathin

Dear korathin,

You've got me a little confused. I assume that your judgment of "ridiculous" is based on one of the two general paragraphs I posted, but I'm not sure which. Perhaps it's the second.

From an economic point of view, the central problem with the corporate income tax is that, ultimately, only people can pay taxes. Economists have had great difficulty in assessing the incidence of the corporate tax—that is, determining on which groups of people the burden falls.

May I post another paragraph from the article?

Modern economic opinion is divided on the incidence of the corporate income tax, but few economists today believe its burden falls entirely on the owners of capital. The latest thinking is that, since capital is mobile, it will flow to investments that produce the highest after-tax returns. The corporate income tax raises the cost of capital and reduces after-tax returns in the corporate sector, and thus leads to a migration of capital into noncorporate or taxexempt sectors of the economy. This migration has two effects: it lowers the supply of capital available to corporations, and it causes a reduction in rates of return in the noncorporate sector as capital becomes more plentiful there. The ultimate effect, therefore, is to lower returns for all owners of capital across the economy.

One important result of this capital migration is that the burden of the corporate income tax, over time, shifts to workers: with a smaller capital stock to employ, workers are less productive and earn lower real wages. In a 1996 survey, public finance economists were asked to estimate what percentage of the corporate income tax in the United States was ultimately borne by owners of capital. While their answers varied, the average response was 41 percent, meaning that the professional consensus is that more than half the burden is eventually shifted from owners of capital to workers or other groups.

If you find you have the time, the entire article might be worth your while.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by korathin

 

Dear korathin,

You've got me a little confused. I assume that your judgment of "ridiculous" is based on one of the two general paragraphs I posted, but I'm not sure which. Perhaps it's the second.

From an economic point of view, the central problem with the corporate income tax is that, ultimately, only people can pay taxes. Economists have had great difficulty in assessing the incidence of the corporate tax—that is, determining on which groups of people the burden falls.

May I post another paragraph from the article?

Modern economic opinion is divided on the incidence of the corporate income tax, but few economists today believe its burden falls entirely on the owners of capital. The latest thinking is that, since capital is mobile, it will flow to investments that produce the highest after-tax returns. The corporate income tax raises the cost of capital and reduces after-tax returns in the corporate sector, and thus leads to a migration of capital into noncorporate or taxexempt sectors of the economy. This migration has two effects: it lowers the supply of capital available to corporations, and it causes a reduction in rates of return in the noncorporate sector as capital becomes more plentiful there. The ultimate effect, therefore, is to lower returns for all owners of capital across the economy.

One important result of this capital migration is that the burden of the corporate income tax, over time, shifts to workers: with a smaller capital stock to employ, workers are less productive and earn lower real wages. In a 1996 survey, public finance economists were asked to estimate what percentage of the corporate income tax in the United States was ultimately borne by owners of capital. While their answers varied, the average response was 41 percent, meaning that the professional consensus is that more than half the burden is eventually shifted from owners of capital to workers or other groups.

If you find you have the time, the entire article might be worth your while.

With respect,
Charles1952

It is one thing to use links to back up a summarized statement/opinion, but to use it as the only piece of your statement is ridiculous. If your not going to take the time to summarize something in your own words, then why should your words matter to me if they don't matter to you?

Personally I don't care what economists have to say about corporations because I have a historical perspective on the matter and view the current mindset as idiotic and deceitful. Corporations only exist for the public good. The fact that shareholders profit from corporations is a necessary evil. That was the opinion of the USA for almost a hundred years. The opinion of the very people who wrote our Constitution. And it was how Corporate law was applied. Fast forward to a few years after the 13th Amendment was passed the argument that corporations are people was created.

I will explain why: prior to this period in time, if a corporation was found to be against the public good, it's assets where seized and sold to corporations that would act in such a manner. Shareholders and corrupt politicians tried floating the argument that this was now illegal as it was a form of slavery. Sadly, judicial activists agreed.

reply to post by korathin

Dear korathin,

You're completely correct, my words shouldn't matter to you. I was not intending to get into a serious discussion on the topic. I wanted to post a link that I thought might have been useful for expanding the discussion. That was all.

Some day we might discuss corporate tax policy, but, selfishly, I just didn't feel like it today.

With respect,
Charles1952