30 large profitable corporations (including GE) pay no taxes

[Trench]

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

That statement makes no sense.

We'll allow you a mulligan if you'd like to try it again though, Mags.

 

[Mags]

That statement makes no sense.

We'll allow you a mulligan if you'd like to try it again though, Mags.

Sorry, trench, you have me confused.

Insurers are allowed to spend no more than 20% of their premiums on salaries, operating expenses, profit margin, etc.

Name another industry with these extreme requirements?

Think of GM - how much do you think they spend on those items, versus the cost of the steel they buy for the car?

I'm just sayin'......

I'm curious when profit/price controls will be placed on other industries. I'm sure it is coming. It is right from Obama's socialist playbook.

 

[Trench]

Sorry, trench, you have me confused.

Insurers are allowed to spend no more than 20% of their premiums on salaries, operating expenses, profit margin, etc.

It is right from Obama's socialist playbook.

From the NY Times: Health Insurers Making Record Profits as Many Postpone Care

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html

:shrug:

 

[Mags]

From the NY Times: Health Insurers Making Record Profits as Many Postpone Care

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html

:shrug:

Thanks Trench.

What I can't tell from the article is, what is "record" profits?

Is it in dollars, due to inflation?

Has profit margins gone from 3% to 4%, which is now a record?

"Record profits", without any concept or facts showing the numbers or how they are derived is just piss poor reporting and meant to be inflamatory. Oh yea, it is the NY Times, so I guess that explains it.

Sorry, Trench, this article is worthless.

FYI - One more thing trench - if people are postponing care this year, as the Times suggests, then the company has to refund that money at year end to policyholders as part of the law. Which, of course, the liberal Times never mentions.

Yea, I make "record" profits too each year, but then my income tax bill comes in April .....:shrug:

 

[Trench]

Thanks Trench.

What I can't tell from the article is, what is "record" profits?

Has profit margins gone from 3% to 4%, which is now a record?

Oh yea, it is the NY Times, so I guess that explains it.

Sorry, Trench, this article is worthless.

Mags... So the average profit margin for insurance companies is 4%? :shrug:

That's well above the 2.2% median profit margin for the 215 largest industries in the U.S.

So if you're trying to make the case that healthcare reform is killing the insurance industry, well, let's just say... your case is weak, counselor. :0008

 

[Duff Miver]

Thanks Trench.

What I can't tell from the article is, what is "record" profits?

Is it in dollars, due to inflation?

Has profit margins gone from 3% to 4%, which is now a record?

"Record profits", without any concept or facts showing the numbers or how they are derived is just piss poor reporting and meant to be inflamatory. Oh yea, it is the NY Times, so I guess that explains it.

Sorry, Trench, this article is worthless.

FYI - One more thing trench - if people are postponing care this year, as the Times suggests, then the company has to refund that money at year end to policyholders as part of the law. Which, of course, the liberal Times never mentions.

Yea, I make "record" profits too each year, but then my income tax bill comes in April .....:shrug:

Saying that a company makes 4% is meaningless. Your talking about 4% of the "handle", the total which passes through their hands.

The only percentage which means anything is % ROI.

Groceries have little capital invested as a % of sales, so a return on handle of 2-4% is very good.

Banks have an even smaller capital investment, and a return of 4% for a bank would be fantastic.

Insurance companies have virtually no up-front investment, so 3-4% is a very high profit.

Look at it his way, maggot. You give me $1,000,000. I invest that for a year, earning $10,000, then I give you back $990,000, pocketing another $10,000.

You'd claim that I was running a lousy business, making only 2%.

Well, that's exactly what insurance companies do. They operate on your money up front, invest it and make profits, then later return not quite all of your money in claims.

At no time has the insurance company had any skin in the game.

And those state "insurance regulators"? Being as dumb as you, they set rates to make certain insurance companies turn a profit on your money, while putting none of theirs at risk.

I've explained the difference between return of investment and return on sales to you before. Apparently it didn't sink in.

Isn't there some sort of school nearby where you could get some remedial education?

 

[Mags]

Saying that a company makes 4% is meaningless. Your talking about 4% of the "handle", the total which passes through their hands.

The only percentage which means anything is % ROI.

Groceries have little capital invested as a % of sales, so a return on handle of 2-4% is very good.

Banks have an even smaller capital investment, and a return of 4% for a bank would be fantastic.

Insurance companies have virtually no up-front investment, so 3-4% is a very high profit.

Look at it his way, maggot. You give me $1,000,000. I invest that for a year, earning $10,000, then I give you back $990,000, pocketing another $10,000.

You'd claim that I was running a lousy business, making only 2%.

Well, that's exactly what insurance companies do. They operate on your money up front, invest it and make profits, then later return not quite all of your money in claims.

At no time has the insurance company had any skin in the game.

And those state "insurance regulators"? Being as dumb as you, they set rates to make certain insurance companies turn a profit on your money, while putting none of theirs at risk.

I've explained the difference between return of investment and return on sales to you before. Apparently it didn't sink in.

Isn't there some sort of school nearby where you could get some remedial education?

yes, Duff, those investment returns made by insurance companies are awesome... averaging less than 0.5% annually.... awesome!

Of course, you are assuming that actuaries can exactly predict claims, and there is no risk....

never mind the fact that costs can rise more quickly than estimated, or utilization is higher than projected. it is not unusual to see insurance companies lose money in a given year. But of course, you can't understand that.

 

[Duff Miver]

yes, Duff, those investment returns made by insurance companies are awesome... averaging less than 0.5% annually.... awesome!

Of course, you are assuming that actuaries can exactly predict claims, and there is no risk....

never mind the fact that costs can rise more quickly than estimated, or utilization is higher than projected. it is not unusual to see insurance companies lose money in a given year. But of course, you can't understand that.

I'll take 0.5% paid on someone else's money all day long. Gimme a $billion of your money, on my promise that I'll honor your policy, I'll put $5 million in my pocket, and worry about paying you later.

If an insurance company make gross errors actuarialy, they still don't have any skin in the game. They just declare bankruptcy, fuck their policy holders, and open up next week as a brand new Delaware registered company.

 

[smurphy]

I'll take 0.5% paid on someone else's money all day long. Gimme a $billion of your money, on my promise that I'll honor your policy, I'll put $5 million in my pocket, and worry about paying you later.

If an insurance company make gross errors actuarialy, they still don't have any skin in the game. They just declare bankruptcy, fuck their policy holders, and open up next week as a brand new Delaware registered company.

well said

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

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

Lets compromise

i'll take every corp including those that don't pay taxes in my state--and you take all the people in U.S. that pay no taxes in yours.

at least the corps -even if they pay no taxes are employing people who do generate tax revenue.

Your non tax payors -produce nothing except--more non tax payors.

Would be wonderful if we could have each side live and be confined to area supportiing their convictions --and have giant bug zapper - zapping those trying to cross state lines when they come to the obvious conclusion.


Amazing how those that contribute the least to society are always the ones wanting more from those that contribute the most.

They never saw a tax or entitlement they didn't like nor a corp or successful person they did.

Zaaaap :lol:

 

[Mags]

Your non tax payors -produce nothing except--more non tax payors.

Now THAT is funny! :00hour

 

[Skulnik]

Lets compromise

i'll take every corp including those that don't pay taxes in my state--and you take all the people in U.S. that pay no taxes in yours.

at least the corps -even if they pay no taxes are employing people who do generate tax revenue.

Your non tax payors -produce nothing except--more non tax payors.

Would be wonderful if we could have each side live and be confined to area supportiing their convictions --and have giant bug zapper - zapping those trying to cross state lines when they come to the obvious conclusion.


Amazing how those that contribute the least to society are always the ones wanting more from those that contribute the most.

They never saw a tax or entitlement they didn't like nor a corp or successful person they did.

Zaaaap :lol:

Excellent Post DTB.

:0074

JMO