30 large profitable corporations (including GE) pay no taxes

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
Thirty companies paid no income tax 2008-2010: report

(Reuters) - Thirty large and profitable U.S. corporations paid no income taxes in 2008 through 2010, said a study on Thursday that arrives as Congress faces rising demands for tax reform, but seems unable or unwilling to act.
Pepco Holdings, a Washington, D.C.-area power company, had the lowest effective tax rate, at negative 57.6 percent, among the 280 Fortune 500 companies studied.
The statutory U.S. corporate income tax rate is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, but over the 2008-2010 period, very few of the companies studied paid it, said the report.
The average effective tax rate for the companies over the period was 18.5 percent, said Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, both think tanks.
Their report also listed General Electric Co, Paccar Inc, PG&E Corp, Computer Sciences Corp and NiSource Inc as among the 30 that paid no taxes. All 280 corporations examined were profitable over the period.
Corporations will say rightly that the loopholes that let them slash their taxes were perfectly legal, the report said.
"But that does not mean that low-tax corporations bear no responsibility ... The laws were not enacted in a vacuum; they were adopted in response to relentless corporate lobbying, threats and campaign support," the report said.
As Congress and the Obama administration struggle with a sluggish economy and high deficits, corporations are pressing Capitol Hill for more tax breaks, including one that would let them bring home overseas profits at a reduced tax rate.
The congressional "super committee" tasked with finding at least $1.2 trillion in additional budget savings by November 23 is so far deadlocked across a familiar divide -- Republicans refusing any tax hikes, Democrats defending social programs.
On Tuesday, a panel of budget experts warned super committee members that they would fail the country if they do not meet their goal. Financial markets have been waiting for many months for signs that Washington can get its financial house in order, but few have been forthcoming.
LOOKING BACK AT REAGAN
The report referred back to the 1986 tax reform pushed through by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, who approved the largest corporate tax increase in U.S. history, largely by ending tax breaks, while cutting individual tax rates.
"Reagan solved the problem by sweeping away corporate tax loopholes," said the report, which was co-authored by Citizens for Tax Justice chief Robert McIntyre. His research 25 years ago played a key role in convincing Reagan reform was needed.
The industrial machinery business enjoyed the lowest effective tax rate during the study period, while the highest rate was paid by healthcare companies, the report said.
What are the tax breaks that corporations enjoy? One big one is accelerated depreciation that lets them write off equipment faster than it actually wears out. Deductions on executive stock options help. So do tax breaks for research and development and for making products in the United States instead of overseas. Offshore tax shelters play a role, too.
The average effective corporate tax rate, as calculated by McIntyre's group, was about 14 percent before the Reagan reforms; afterward it shot up to 26.5 percent in 1988.
As companies found their way around the reforms, the effective rate fell back to about 17 percent by 2002-2003.
Unlike in Reagan's time, taming corporate tax breaks alone will not solve today's deficit problem. Such breaks cost the government about $102 billion in lost revenues in 2011, a year when the federal deficit was an estimated $1.3 trillion.
Corporate loopholes are dwarfed by tax breaks that benefit individuals, such as the mortgage interest tax deduction -- a middle class sacred cow -- on its own worth $104 billion.
Still, said the report, "If we are going to get our nation's fiscal house in order, increasing corporate income taxes should play an important role."
(Reporting by Kevin Drawbaugh; editing by Carol Bishopric)

http://news.yahoo.com/thirty-companies-paid-no-income-tax-2008-2010-042531293.html
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
I think this is something Obama is proud of.

Why else would he have appointed Jeffrey Immelt, head of GE - who is one of the examples listed above - to be head of economic advisory board?

Nothing like leading by example, Mr. Obama.

While Obama is at it, he needs to pass regulation to rein in all these companies with high profit margins, like he did healthcare companies.

Healthcare companies made 4% profit before the healthcare bill.

For example, Microsoft makes 35% profit margin. Everyone needs a computer.

Time to rein in ALL industries and not allow profit margins above 4%. It will reduce prices considerably for us working folk.

Fair is fair.
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
Uhhhh...Maggot - Microsoft doesn't make computers. Duh.:facepalm:

OK, dumb ass... just about everyone has windows on their computer....

Better for you (I know you are a bit slow, and can't put 2 and 2 together)
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
So your new hero is Karl Marx?:shrug:

No, it is Obama. He is the champion of limiting profit margins in companies.

Do it for one industry, do it for all.

The consumer will be better off - and that is what it is all about, right?
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
But, I thought if we lowered the corporate tax rate the job creators would create jobs. But now I see they pay no tax and they still outsource the work.:shrug: Do the Republicans see anything wrong with their position?
:0corn
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
and that is what it is all about, right?

Wrong again, as usual. Cripes, this is like talking to a first grader.

What is good is healthy corporate profits so they can employ people and pay good wages and benefits. The more profit they make, the more tax they can pay and still retain enough earnings to expand business.

I'd like to see MSFT pay good wages and bennies, make 100 billion on profit, pay 40 billion in taxes, and have 60 billion left to reward stockholders and invest in the business.

If Bill Gates pays himself a billion, pays half of that in income tax, he can live like a king.

Hell, he'd be almost as successful as you. :142smilie
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Do the Republicans see anything wrong with their position?
:0corn

Nope. They're still corporate whores; they just get paid better than the gal on the corner who rents her pussy by the hour. She and her customers both know what the deal is - she gets what she needs and the John gets what he wants.

However the whore on the corner provides some real mutual benefit, while republicans (and plenty of democrats too) fuck the public without even a kiss.
 
Last edited:

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
But, I thought if we lowered the corporate tax rate the job creators would create jobs. But now I see they pay no tax and they still outsource the work.:shrug: Do the Republicans see anything wrong with their position?
:0corn

I do think we need to lower the Corp Tax Rate AND eliminate many of the deductions that cause the lack of tax payment.

However, these numbers are always skewed. Think of your personal return, and the amount you make gross, then view your final tax after you deduct personal/child exemptions, mortgage interest, etc....

For 50% of the folks in the country they owe no tax, or get free money back from the government. I guess it is the same way for corporations.

I think there should be no exemptions - corporations OR people. Everyone pays a flat tax rate, no exemptions.

They nobody could bitch. And it would put a lot of lobbyists out of work - which would be a good thing.....
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
20,922
125
0
Jefferson City, Missouri
I do think we need to lower the Corp Tax Rate AND eliminate many of the deductions that cause the lack of tax payment.

However, these numbers are always skewed. Think of your personal return, and the amount you make gross, then view your final tax after you deduct personal/child exemptions, mortgage interest, etc....

For 50% of the folks in the country they owe no tax, or get free money back from the government. I guess it is the same way for corporations.

I think there should be no exemptions - corporations OR people. Everyone pays a flat tax rate, no exemptions.

They nobody could bitch. And it would put a lot of lobbyists out of work - which would be a good thing.....

:0074
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
Wrong again, as usual. Cripes, this is like talking to a first grader.

What is good is healthy corporate profits so they can employ people and pay good wages and benefits. The more profit they make, the more tax they can pay and still retain enough earnings to expand business.

I'd like to see MSFT pay good wages and bennies, make 100 billion on profit, pay 40 billion in taxes, and have 60 billion left to reward stockholders and invest in the business.

If Bill Gates pays himself a billion, pays half of that in income tax, he can live like a king.

Hell, he'd be almost as successful as you. :142smilie

So, why do you think it is so wrong that health insurers want to make a profit too? They, as an industry, were making 4% before Obama pounded on them.

Yet, Obama gave a free pass to the pharma industry, although they were making 27% return.

If we are going to start regulating profits for private business, we should do it for all or for none. With the exception of monopolies, of course.
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
49
Fort Worth, TX
Wrong again, as usual. Cripes, this is like talking to a first grader.

What is good is healthy corporate profits so they can employ people and pay good wages and benefits.

When you learn more about business and move on from the 1st grade you'll learn that salaries are not paid out from the profits and have very little correlation to each other.

Salary is an expense to the business, just like electricity and water and rent.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
But if they are paying zero tax now and not hiring what makes you think these greedy pigs will start hiring if we lower the tax rate?

I say we have to put a tariff on all out of country goods coming in and force the job creators to hire Americans.

It has been proven with a zero tax rate they still are not happy.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
So, why do you think it is so wrong that health insurers want to make a profit too? They, as an industry, were making 4% before Obama pounded on them.

I do not consider insurance to be an industry. Industries create and provide, all insurers do is take and then fight and withhold. It's a ponzi scheme, light version. The fact that a large insurance company makes ANY profit - after executive pay, massive marketing expenses, and lawsuits - means they are fucking over a lot of people for a lot money.

To compare them to a company like Microsoft, who actually designs and produces new and inventive software that improves the world, is ridiculous.
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
I do not consider insurance to be an industry. Industries create and provide, all insurers do is take and then fight and withhold. It's a ponzi scheme, light version. The fact that a large insurance company makes ANY profit - after executive pay, massive marketing expenses, and lawsuits - means they are fucking over a lot of people for a lot money.

To compare them to a company like Microsoft, who actually designs and produces new and inventive software that improves the world, is ridiculous.

Right on smurph :0074
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
I do not consider insurance to be an industry. Industries create and provide, all insurers do is take and then fight and withhold. It's a ponzi scheme, light version. The fact that a large insurance company makes ANY profit - after executive pay, massive marketing expenses, and lawsuits - means they are fucking over a lot of people for a lot money.

To compare them to a company like Microsoft, who actually designs and produces new and inventive software that improves the world, is ridiculous.
I agree with your larger point here, Smurph.

The only point I would have to disagree with is that Microsoft produces new and inventive software. ;)
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
I do not consider insurance to be an industry. Industries create and provide, all insurers do is take and then fight and withhold. It's a ponzi scheme, light version. The fact that a large insurance company makes ANY profit - after executive pay, massive marketing expenses, and lawsuits - means they are fucking over a lot of people for a lot money.

To compare them to a company like Microsoft, who actually designs and produces new and inventive software that improves the world, is ridiculous.

Smurphy - curious, but name another industry that spends 20% or less of their revenue on salaries, marketing, all operating expenses, and profit.

There may be one, but I doubt it.

Any large company makes a lot of money. It just that a lot of them do it with ridiculously high profit margins. The fact that Apple makes a 30% profit margin is obscene, and they should be limited to no more than 5%.

No business has a right to those obscene types of profit margins.

If you are gonna legislate some, to be fair, you gotta legislate them all.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top