Two Thirds of US Companies Paid NO Federal Income Taxes

[StrangeSox]

In theory. It's got some gaping holes in it though. Plus they talk about setting it at 17% which I just don't think is realistic, especially considering the massive dropoff in revenue from the top.

 

Give it a few years and Cook County will be at 17%!

[Chet Lemon]

The U.S. companies that dodge paying federal income taxes are guilty of treason in my view.

[lostfan]

Give it a few years and Cook County will be at 17%!

Haha, no s***.

[lostfan]

The U.S. companies that dodge paying federal income taxes are guilty of treason in my view.

That's a pretty BearSox-esque statement there.

[kapkomet]

The U.S. companies that dodge paying federal income taxes are guilty of treason in my view.

International tax law and international accounting standards exist for a reason. I hope you like your job (painting a broad brush as you just painted), because if you do then you'll welcome some of the advantages companies look for in the tax compliance and tax structure.

 

My company transfers money over to another country and they pay the rax rate in that country, and it's all legally done. As a matter of fact, we just went through a tax audit from the IRS, and they were impressed at how well we kept things to show the way we do business (and that's saying a lot). What do we do with that savings? We go and double the size of our employment pool with some of the best benefits any company can offer. I guess that's "treasonous", huh?

 

 

[Balta1701]

For some comparison statistics...from the OECD:

 

[Texsox]

We go and double the size of our employment pool with some of the best benefits any company can offer.

 

How are you able to do that an stay competitive? Other industries have killed themselves with great benefits.

[kapkomet]

How are you able to do that an stay competitive? Other industries have killed themselves with great benefits.

That's a longer story and more complex then I can post here, but I've been there 15 months now and our headcount has gone up (nearly) +100 since I've been there across all departments. Part of that is an acquisition. I was watching the news the other day and they were saying that our business is nearly "recession proof", and I believe it after seeing some of the demand information.

 

Our transfer pricing model is a large part in it; and that lowers the effective tax rate as a whole through worldwide initiatives. The whole point is that "savings", if you will, is reinvested in the largest market in the world (and others), but allows us in the U.S. and we are still able to maintain what is a very healthly bottom line for the US market. Of course, individuals pay taxes on their take home pay - so we as a corporation (well not technically but the point is the same) are still flowing money into the US treasury because we are able to hire more people then we otherwise would.

 

As a matter of fact, the taxes paid by the company on a payroll and individual level exceeds what they would get out of the "profits" by the time you factor in FICA, income tax, etc. And that to me, is the main point.

[southsider2k5]

The U.S. companies that dodge paying federal income taxes are guilty of treason in my view.

 

No offense, but this statement is a loaded bowl of crap. Unless you can back it up, you probably should walk away.

[southsider2k5]

Do you see ana cross the board drop in wages and benefits, or will it be stratisfied? I keep thinking we're going to see a "coming to the middle".

 

I'd love to see where I said anything like that. I gave the effect of rising costs on business with very clear real world examples. I'd love to see how you gave raises and hired more people in the face of higher taxes/costs in your business though.

[Chet Lemon]

International tax law and international accounting standards exist for a reason. I hope you like your job (painting a broad brush as you just painted), because if you do then you'll welcome some of the advantages companies look for in the tax compliance and tax structure.

 

My company transfers money over to another country and they pay the rax rate in that country, and it's all legally done. As a matter of fact, we just went through a tax audit from the IRS, and they were impressed at how well we kept things to show the way we do business (and that's saying a lot). What do we do with that savings? We go and double the size of our employment pool with some of the best benefits any company can offer. I guess that's "treasonous", huh?

 

 

No offense, but this statement is a loaded bowl of crap. Unless you can back it up, you probably should walk away.

 

Who pays the people who defend your freedom? Who pays the service men and women in our communities to recruit civilians in order to provide for the common defense? The Federal Government.

 

Article I of the Constitution vests Congress with the power to “raise and support” military forces to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

 

Where does Congress get the power to “raise and support” our military? Federal dollars.

 

Unless compulsatory service becomes policy, dodging these necessary payments weakens the ability of of the armed forces to attract men and women who have the skills needed for the Nation’s defense.

 

No, I probably won't walk away from my belief that it is treasonous not to pay one's share over an eight-year period as alleged in the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Who pays the people who defend your freedom? Who pays the service men and women in our communities to recruit civilians in order to provide for the common defense? The Federal Government.

 

Article I of the Constitution vests Congress with the power to �raise and support� military forces to �provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

 

Where does Congress get the power to �raise and support� our military? Federal dollars.

 

Unless compulsatory service becomes policy, dodging these necessary payments weakens the ability of of the armed forces to attract men and women who have the skills needed for the Nation�s defense.

 

No, I probably won't walk away from my belief that it is treasonous not to pay one's share over an eight-year period as alleged in the report.

 

Companies create more revenues for the US tax base than anyone or anything else in the country. They must be the greatest patriots ever! By the way dodging taxes has a connotation of being illegal. If there is an illegal activity here, that is very different than following existing laws. If you have a problem with the laws, you need to start calling the Congress traitors, because they are the ones who wrote the tax code.

[NorthSideSox72]

Companies create more revenues for the US tax base than anyone or anything else in the country. They must be the greatest patriots ever! By the way dodging taxes has a connotation of being illegal. If there is an illegal activity here, that is very different than following existing laws. If you have a problem with the laws, you need to start calling the Congress traitors, because they are the ones who wrote the tax code.

Exactly. Treason is a crime - no crime was committed here.

 

[StrangeSox]

Who pays the people who defend your freedom? Who pays the service men and women in our communities to recruit civilians in order to provide for the common defense? The Federal Government.

 

Article I of the Constitution vests Congress with the power to “raise and support” military forces to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

 

Where does Congress get the power to “raise and support” our military? Federal dollars.

 

Unless compulsatory service becomes policy, dodging these necessary payments weakens the ability of of the armed forces to attract men and women who have the skills needed for the Nation’s defense.

 

No, I probably won't walk away from my belief that it is treasonous not to pay one's share over an eight-year period as alleged in the report.

 

Your share is determined by the extremely complicated tax code (my dad just started working for the IRS, and you should see the several-hundred page manual they have just for filing inter-office paperwork!) These companies weren't doing anything illegal. They didn't pay taxes because they either didn't make money (when was the last time GM was profitable?) or had enough tax credits. How about the many small businesses that barely turn any profit or turn zero profit once the employee salaries are paid? Is it treason to run your business in the most efficient economic manner?

 

And if there's one budget that isn't hurting, its the Armed Forces.

Edited August 13, 2008 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

Who pays the people who defend your freedom? Who pays the service men and women in our communities to recruit civilians in order to provide for the common defense? The Federal Government.

 

Article I of the Constitution vests Congress with the power to “raise and support” military forces to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

 

Where does Congress get the power to “raise and support” our military? Federal dollars.

 

Unless compulsatory service becomes policy, dodging these necessary payments weakens the ability of of the armed forces to attract men and women who have the skills needed for the Nation’s defense.

 

No, I probably won't walk away from my belief that it is treasonous not to pay one's share over an eight-year period as alleged in the report.

 

 

Companies create more revenues for the US tax base than anyone or anything else in the country. They must be the greatest patriots ever! By the way dodging taxes has a connotation of being illegal. If there is an illegal activity here, that is very different than following existing laws. If you have a problem with the laws, you need to start calling the Congress traitors, because they are the ones who wrote the tax code.

 

Thank you.

 

Maybe you ought to think a little before you type... because everyone works for some type of structure that is by your definition, a traitor. There's a difference between tax avoidance (within the law) and tax dodging (not within the law).

 

[EvilMonkey]

Who pays the people who defend your freedom? Who pays the service men and women in our communities to recruit civilians in order to provide for the common defense? The Federal Government.

 

Article I of the Constitution vests Congress with the power to “raise and support” military forces to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

 

Where does Congress get the power to “raise and support” our military? Federal dollars.

 

Unless compulsatory service becomes policy, dodging these necessary payments weakens the ability of of the armed forces to attract men and women who have the skills needed for the Nation’s defense.

 

No, I probably won't walk away from my belief that it is treasonous not to pay one's share over an eight-year period as alleged in the report.

My business has shown a loss for the last 4 years, mostly due to depreciation. That means I paid no taxes on the business. I did, however, pay taxes on my personal income, plus the taxes on my 3 employees, not to mention the various taxes I paid when purchasing things. Am I a traitor?

[Chet Lemon]

Your share is determined by the extremely complicated tax code (my dad just started working for the IRS, and you should see the several-hundred page manual they have just for filing inter-office paperwork!) These companies weren't doing anything illegal. They didn't pay taxes because they either didn't make money (when was the last time GM was profitable?) or had enough tax credits. How about the many small businesses that barely turn any profit or turn zero profit once the employee salaries are paid?

 

I was speaking to corporations that "reported trillions of dollars in sales" per GAO's estimate, while making these sales over the last eight years, and then paying NO Federal Income Taxes. That, which was described by the article.

 

Companies escaping the payment of taxes specifically due to depreciation, operating losses, or because of tax credits were not in the wrong.

 

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I was speaking to corporations that "reported trillions of dollars in sales" per GAO's estimate, while making these sales over the last eight years, and then paying NO Federal Income Taxes. That, which was described by the article.

 

Companies escaping the payment of taxes specifically due to depreciation, operating losses, or because of tax credits were not in the wrong.

 

Sales are not profit.

[southsider2k5]

I was speaking to corporations that "reported trillions of dollars in sales" per GAO's estimate, while making these sales over the last eight years, and then paying NO Federal Income Taxes. That, which was described by the article.

 

Companies escaping the payment of taxes specifically due to depreciation, operating losses, or because of tax credits were not in the wrong.

 

You do realize that you can have huge numbers in sales and still lose money, right? For example GM had something like $43 billion dollars in sales last quarter alone. They didn't pay a dime in taxes. The line about "trillions of dollars" in sales is a garbage statement because all that does it take an aggregate of everyone who didn't have to pay taxes to make the article look more impressive. Its bad reporting.

[EvilMonkey]

Sales are not profit.

I know that all too well.

[Texsox]

Look at Ford and GM's cost models versus Toyota and Honda. Their R&D has been non-existant because they have been saddled with the ginormus legacy costs of health care and pensions, not to mention wages that are WAY higher than their Japanese competion. Now they are stuck behind and firing tens of thousands of people as well.

 

 

I'd love to see where I said anything like that. I gave the effect of rising costs on business with very clear real world examples. I'd love to see how you gave raises and hired more people in the face of higher taxes/costs in your business though.

 

I did not say you said it, I thought we agreed that American wages and benefits placed some industries at a serious disadvantage against rest of the world competition. I see wages and benefits dropping to stay competitive.

 

I have thought we'd see a "coming to the middle". That wages at the very bottom would continue to rise, with minimum wage pressures, etc. and the top executives would drop as well, with the middle kind of holding dsteady, which is losing against inflation. So I asked how you saw American companies solving the too high of labor cost to be competitive issue?

[Balta1701]

I have thought we'd see a "coming to the middle". That wages at the very bottom would continue to rise, with minimum wage pressures, etc. and the top executives would drop as well, with the middle kind of holding dsteady, which is losing against inflation. So I asked how you saw American companies solving the too high of labor cost to be competitive issue?

WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.