The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Other then Lose forwarding which didn't occur since none of these companies posted a lose what did you pwn? ?
Did you check the prior years for losses? I didn't but then again I never claimed that a loss carryforward or carryback actually applied. I merely contend that this mechanism makes a comparison of profit to tax paid in a given year to be a USELESS EXERCISE.
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
Site? I haven't looked up any of these profit statements but the report says each of them reported at least a 1 billion profit to share holders. We'd have to see if 2002 or 2001 were lose years. I tend to believe Aggie and the Mac bridgade would have been gloating if IBM was losing money while Asher would have been running around trying to explain it.
Or 2000 or 1999, 1998 etc etc-- Is there a limit on the carryforward of regular ( ie non-capital) losses in the US system
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
That article is just spewing garbage numbers as well as taking 2003 in isolation. Consider Pfizer. Here's what the article says...
Viagra maker Pfizer took home the 'Taxpaying Dysfunction (TD)' award. Despite $14 billion in profits between 2001 and 2003, Pfizer couldn't get excited enough about paying taxes to perform  sending just $1.2 billion to the federal treasury, a miserly effective tax rate of just 8.2%. In contrast, Pfizer's industry competitor Merck paid 32.5% of its $12.7 billion in three-year profits in federal taxes.
Here were the profits and income taxes paid for 2001 through 2003...
Income before taxes (income taxes paid)
2001: $10.0 billion profit before taxes ($2.4 billion in income taxes)
2002: $11.8 billion profit before taxes ($2.6 billion in income taxes)
2003: $3.2 billion profit before taxes ($1.6 billion in income taxes)
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Originally posted by DanS
That article is just spewing garbage numbers as well. Consider Pfizer. Here's what the article says...
Here were the profits and income taxes paid for 2001 through 2003...
Income before taxes (income taxes paid)
2001: $10.0 billion profit before taxes ($2.4 billion in income taxes)
2002: $11.8 billion profit before taxes ($2.6 billion in income taxes)
2003: $3.2 billion profit before taxes ($1.6 billion in income taxes)
OMG OMG -- Corporations are OVERTAXED.... OVERTAXED I say-- look in 2003 Pfizer paid FIFTY PERCENT ofits profits in taxes.
Seriously though-- assuming your numbers are correct DanS, it still shows what a garbage number the ratio of tax to profit is. In those 3 years Pfizer went from 24% to 50% and I assume that they just didn't get dumber about what they can deduct. Corporate tax has a lot of complexity not reflected in such a silly ratio.
------------------------------------------------
Also wow-- so the article writer was just making numbers up ??? I was willing to argue that the article was crap even assuming the figures were real
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
Originally posted by Flubber
Points 2,3 and 4 of my original post.
#2 we dealt with by showing those were transactions from one legally independent party to another so that's the share holder paying a tax not the company. You even got stuck up and said you knew that but here you are claiming this is a tax paid by the corporation. That's a bit dishonest.
#3 You once again get it wrong; did you read the pdf file? The author pointed out that in the 1940's 50% of Federal revenue came from corporate taxes, in the 1970's corporations paid only 20%, and now days they pay only 7%. This is a long term shift of the tax burden off of companies and onto individuals. The author would like to see corporations pay more while individuals pay less and he wants to see fewer subsidies going to corporations. Further more he pointed out ten free loaders which either didn't pay taxes or recieved such large subsidies that they netted more subsidies then they paid in taxes.
Once again a reasonable person can't conclude that any pwnage has been dealt and we just have a cheering squad which hasn't dealt with any of the basic facts. These companies are very profitable and have remained profitable in the forwarding window so forwarding is not an issue here. This is just corporations briding officials with donations and getting special loopholes and subsidies while cheating the average American taxpayer.
If you're going to critisize people's work at least get their argument correct.
#4 I don't know if the profits were earned in the US or not but the US treasury says they have to pay taxes on the money they remite to the US. If they are remitting it to share holders then it must be declared and taxed in the US. It's talking about profits those companies declare to share holders vs taxs they declare to the US government.
The very fact that DanS and Imran can oppose social services for citizens but then support this kind of corporate welfare just exposes a basic hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Flubber
OMG OMG -- Corporations are OVERTAXED.... OVERTAXED I say-- look in 2003 Pfizer paid FIFTY PERCENT ofits profits in taxes.
Except you forgot to deduct the subsidies and tax rebats!
Originally posted by Oerdin
The very fact that DanS and Imran can oppose social services for citizens but then support this kind of corporate welfare just exposes a basic hypocrisy.
I know -- it's sad that they can support such unfair hypocrisy.
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
GOD DAMN IT! READ THE PDF! It has tons of cites for its numbers and information yet you bad mouth it without ever even reading any of it. What does that say about you?
I read the PDF and checked it against the 10-Ks. The numbers don't correspond.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Originally posted by Oerdin
Boeing paid $1 billionin taxes then worked out a way to get rebates of %1.7 billion from the government giving it an effective tax rate of -159%!
IBM made profits of $14 billion between 2001-2003 yet they only paid only $260 million in net taxes. That's a 1.3% tax rate. Money didn't seem to be a problem for executive pay since it was more then double the average given in Businessweek's survey.
Time-Warner is another corporate cheat that has an effective tax rate of -7.3% with the CEO getting paid among the highest in the world.
Prudential sucks up an amazingly huge subsidy from the government with their effective tax rate of -43%!
Pfizer has worked themselves out a sweet deal where they only pay an 8% tax rate instead of the 32.5% everyone else must pay.
Saks 5th Avenue worked it out so they only pay 2.2% tax compared to Walmarts 33% tax.
DanS is at least partly right - you can't reliably take one tax year or a range of tax years, and derive any conclusions regarding abuse or evasion without examining the tax returns and books and considering the effects from all prior years. Loss carryforwards from prior years are a huge issue, and there are other issues (depreciation, amortization, etc.) which can create differences between book and taxable income.
It's nice to cite one year's book and tax numbers and come up with a jerkoff tax rate, but it's meaningless. WalMart's taxes are higher because they have no losses to carry forward, no significant acquisition costs to digest, and they're in an industry that doesn't lend itself to high D&A costs or deferrals.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Originally posted by MrFun
What makes corporate welfare justifiable and welfare for individual, impoverished citizens unjustifiable??
Corporations provide employment and create products and services which create additional economic opportunity for other businesses which in turn buy, sell, trade, fix, etc. those products and services.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."
Tweet
Comment