America's Corporate Benedict Arnolds

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS


I read the PDF and checked it against the 10-Ks. The numbers don't correspond.

Now take the taxes paid and subtract the subsidies recieved in order to arrive at the net taxes paid. This isn't rocket science.

[DanS]

He didn't even get Pfizer's '03 profits right, Oerdin. He said they were $6 billion or whatever. I challenge you to find that number in Pfizer's 10-K.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
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.

I'm fine with lowering tax rates but I am 100% against giving politically connected businesses subsidies because they have friends in high places or paid off the right people. Unfortunately this type of corporate welfare is strong entrenched in America.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
He didn't even get Pfizer's '03 profits right, Oerdin. He said they were $6 billion or whatever. I challenge you to find that number in Pfizer's 10-K.

I believe he is using adjusted numbers; that is he's adding or subtracting rebates and/or subsidies in order to use corrected numbers.

[DanS]

I believe he is using adjusted numbers

I believe his numbers are FOS. Prove me wrong.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Oerdin


#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.
.

Nope-- you obviously can't read and have never read any taxation theory . As for stuck up, I just stated a fact that I have been working as a corporate lawyer for 11 years so I don't need a lesson in the legal person that is a corporation. None of this changes the fact that you have to consider both transactions to tax correctlyand accurately

Originally posted by Oerdin




#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.

I think your terminology is off but I think I understand your meaning. Corps do not declare profits to shareholders in any different way than they declare them publicly etc. What they do is declare and pay dividends on shares. Those dividends are taxable in the hands of the recipient.

None of this changes the fact that a US corp that earns 2 billion, 1 billion in the US and 1 billion in Canada will not pay tax on 2 billion in the US. Tha Canadian taxman will have its hand out first for the tax on one of those billions . . . US tax on that billion will be much less or non-existent ( I don't know the details). A US corp with significant overseas operations could pay very little US tax if their US operations were not profitable but overseas operations were.

Originally posted by Oerdin


#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.

I never disputed most of this. The exception is I still find a simple ratio of tax to profit to be a useless , simplistic and idiotic number

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Flubber
I haven't researched the companies involved but a couple of points

1. You folks do realize that there are such things as carrryovers and carrybacks of losses.

That's crap. I don't get this priveledge, why should they?

You do get that priviledge, there are various loss carryoversbacks avalable to individual 1040 filers. Of you have to file the right forms to claim them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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 love it! Loss carryover is horrible 'corporate welfare'! You know when the argument has been lost and the article's methodology ripped to shreds by DanS, Flubber, and MtG, Oerdin has to resort to false name calling.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I believe he is using adjusted numbers; that is he's adding or subtracting rebates and/or subsidies in order to use corrected numbers.

Let's not count profits when discussing corporate taxes, no, because that wouldn't make them seem so bad! Let's make up how much their profits would be if we could count subsidies as profits!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Except you forgot to deduct the subsidies and tax rebats!

We're talking net taxes paid here!

I love it when you get pwnd!

Nope try again

I thought my sarcasm was so dripping to penetrate even the densest reader. I have consistently and REPEATEDLY criticized the use of a tax to profit ratio as a good measure of anything and my over the top "OMG OMG OVERTAXED" was a very obvious swipe at the article author and other posters such as yourself who seem to think it can be used for something.


The number is GARBAGE no matter what conclusion it supports.


Do you get it now ??


Edit-- I thought that my usage of THREE smilies after the statements PLUS the next words being "seriously though" would have HINTED that the prior things were not a serious assertion. Next time I'll put a big label "THIS IS SARCASM" just so everyone can understand.

Note to all: If I ever say "Communism is fabulous", its a joke or sarcasm-- no other notifiers required.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It was part of the tax cuts in '93. Dividends are no longer "double taxed."

Oh, I guess you're right about carrying losses forward on business taxes. I forget about those. Still, it would be nice to be able to do that on personal income taxes.

You can, although without a schedule C or similar loss, it's rather hard to have negative personal income in order to be able to have losses to carry forward.

[DanS]

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%.

Realize that the federal government could confiscate all corporate profits, and the corporate income taxes still wouldn't pay for anything near 50% of federal revenue.

This is the kind of retarded argument that just makes you shake your head.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


You can, although without a schedule C or similar loss, it's rather hard to have negative personal income in order to be able to have losses to carry forward.

I said the same thing only wordier-- Outside of business or capital losses, its hard to make negative personal income, unless the system was ridiculous and allowed decuctions for everyday living expenses

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS


Realize that the federal government could confiscate all corporate profits, and the corporate income taxes still wouldn't pay for anything near 50% of federal revenue.

.

As well, A sad statement on government that they gobble up that much revenue.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


As well, A sad statement on government that they gobble up that much revenue.

Yes, Mr. Welfare State.