The final nail in the supply side coffin
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) publishes precise reports on the effective taxes paid by corporations that make an utter mockery of the 35 percent statutory tax rate for corporations (see CTJ.org).
On June 1, 2011, CTJ released a preview of its forthcoming study of Fortune 500 companies and “the taxes they paid–or failed to pay–over the 2008-2010 period.”
Judging by the preview, this report should silence those who say that the U.S. taxes corporations more than other industrialized nations.
What do you think the following profitable corporations paid in actual total federal income taxes in that period: American Electric Power, Boeing, Dupont, Exxon Mobil, FedEx, General Electric, Honeywell, International, IBM, United Technologies, Verizon Communications, Wells Fargo, and Yahoo?
Nothing!
CTJ reports that “from 2008 through 2010, these 12 companies reported $171 billion in pretax U.S. profits.
But as a group, their federal income taxes were negative: $2.5 billion.”
CTJ documents that “not a single one of the companies paid anything close to the 35 percent statutory tax rate.
In fact, the ‘highest tax’ company on our list, ExxonMobil, paid an effective three-year tax rate of only 14.2 percent…and over the past two years, Exxon Mobil’s net tax on its $9.9 billion in U.S. pretax profits was a minuscule $39 million, an effective tax rate of 0.4 percent.”
Next time you hear Republicans like Eric Cantor, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell repeat their statement that corporations are overtaxed and need a break, you can tell them that “had these 12 companies paid the full 35 percent corporate tax, their federal income taxes over the three years would have totaled $59.9 billion.”
CTJ director, Bob McIntyre noted that these 12 companies are “just the tip of an iceberg of widespread corporate tax avoidance.”
http://www.eurasiareview.com/ralph-nader-corporate-tax-escapees-and-you-oped-13072011/
On June 1, 2011, CTJ released a preview of its forthcoming study of Fortune 500 companies and “the taxes they paid–or failed to pay–over the 2008-2010 period.”
Judging by the preview, this report should silence those who say that the U.S. taxes corporations more than other industrialized nations.
What do you think the following profitable corporations paid in actual total federal income taxes in that period: American Electric Power, Boeing, Dupont, Exxon Mobil, FedEx, General Electric, Honeywell, International, IBM, United Technologies, Verizon Communications, Wells Fargo, and Yahoo?
Nothing!
CTJ reports that “from 2008 through 2010, these 12 companies reported $171 billion in pretax U.S. profits.
But as a group, their federal income taxes were negative: $2.5 billion.”
CTJ documents that “not a single one of the companies paid anything close to the 35 percent statutory tax rate.
In fact, the ‘highest tax’ company on our list, ExxonMobil, paid an effective three-year tax rate of only 14.2 percent…and over the past two years, Exxon Mobil’s net tax on its $9.9 billion in U.S. pretax profits was a minuscule $39 million, an effective tax rate of 0.4 percent.”
Next time you hear Republicans like Eric Cantor, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell repeat their statement that corporations are overtaxed and need a break, you can tell them that “had these 12 companies paid the full 35 percent corporate tax, their federal income taxes over the three years would have totaled $59.9 billion.”
CTJ director, Bob McIntyre noted that these 12 companies are “just the tip of an iceberg of widespread corporate tax avoidance.”
http://www.eurasiareview.com/ralph-nader-corporate-tax-escapees-and-you-oped-13072011/
Bfgrn
New member
I guess TURD U. never taught Economics 101:
A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans.
Being 'schooled' again DUD
Bfgrn
New member
No, Bush's tax cuts were supply side. Do they allow retards through college doors or did you sneak in? You probably had to have a drool rag to hide your affliction.
The White House 2002 - per Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill
"It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there," says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.
He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.
"He asks, 'Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again,'" says Suskind.
"He says, 'Didn't we already, why are we doing it again?' Now, his advisers, they say, 'Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.' And the president kind of goes, 'OK.' That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again. 'Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, 'You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?'"
But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.
"Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. 'Stick to principle. Stick to principle.' He says it over and over again," says Suskind. "Don't waver."
In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.
With the deficit now climbing towards $400 billion, O'Neill maintains he was in the right.
Bfgrn
New member
Were the extension of the Bush tax cuts the only tax cuts enacted since Obama took office?
WHY did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts?
Are you allowed to cross the street without adult supervision?
Bfgrn
New member
Is that what I asked you?
"First, we'll have your tax cut," President Kennedy told Heller; "then we'll have my expenditures program."
W
WinterBorn
Guest
The way you phrase this is very telling.
"Government puts money in people's hands..."
"Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest..."
When the gov't "puts money in people's hands", where did they get that money? They took it from other people and gave it to those people. Those people did not work for it. The people the gov't takes it from did.
And then the gov't "gives money to businesses"? No, the gov't lets them keep more of what they earned. The gov't doesn't give them a damned thing. They just take less.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
So you are saying that companies that got subsidies, grants, federally-guaranteed loans etc. are just "keeping more of what they earned"?
Bfgrn
New member
No, tax cuts whether supply side or demand side are still tax cuts. It is who they are targeting and for what purpose. Supply side economics has been the biggest failure in American history. Trickle down never happened. Job creation for the 2000's was ZERO. Wealth went to the top and stayed there. It has created an aristocracy and eviscerated the middle class.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ROFLMAO.... you are a fiscal conservative? Please, stop. That is such an outrageous lie. Nothing you spout off about on a daily basis lends ANY support to you being fiscally conservative.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
They're keeping more of what they earned.
How can it be that you pay more to the IRS than General Electric?
Topping out at 35 percent, America’s official corporate income tax rate trails that of only Japan, at 39.5 percent, which has said it plans to lower its rate.
It is nearly triple Ireland’s and 10 percentage points higher than in Denmark, Austria or China.
To help companies here stay competitive, many executives say, Congress should lower it.
But by taking advantage of myriad breaks and loopholes that other countries generally do not offer, United States corporations pay only slightly more on average than their counterparts in other industrial countries.
And some American corporations use aggressive strategies to pay less... far less..
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
How can it be that you pay more to the IRS than General Electric?
Topping out at 35 percent, America’s official corporate income tax rate trails that of only Japan, at 39.5 percent, which has said it plans to lower its rate.
It is nearly triple Ireland’s and 10 percentage points higher than in Denmark, Austria or China.
To help companies here stay competitive, many executives say, Congress should lower it.
But by taking advantage of myriad breaks and loopholes that other countries generally do not offer, United States corporations pay only slightly more on average than their counterparts in other industrial countries.
And some American corporations use aggressive strategies to pay less... far less..
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
W
WinterBorn
Guest
You claim you are a fiscal conservative?
Bfoon, you are as much a fiscal conservative as Stalin was a humanitarian, or as Jeffery Dahmer was a gourmet, or as Ghandi was a prize fighter.
Thanks though, this was my laugh for the day.
Bfgrn
New member
You mean I don't fit YOUR definition of fiscal conservative? The dogma driven religion of Reaganomics, free market worship and hands off invisible hand of the market that has failed miserably?
Freak
Conservatives are not about 'big business' or 'small business', we are about a FREE market. Which means whomever survives is fine. Because normally it will be the fittest/strongest/most efficient companies that survive.
THAT is not 'conservatism'...that is Reagan dogma. Reagan and his economic advisors were not conservatives, they were radicals who trashed everything that generations had built, and replaced it with ideology.
So, what is conservatism? In my opinion, it is respect for the past and the wisdom of our ancestors. Their lives were built on their ancestors and so it goes, from one generation to the next. You ultimately respect the lives and toil of our ancestors not by paying lip service or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing their lessons learned; respecting the policies, regulations and programs they crafted that increased the benefits and lessened the losses in our communities and our society we reap the benefits of.
How did our ancestors craft them, were they based on some 'ideology'? I believe they were based on common sense, common decency, experience, trial and error, community activism, elections and community involvement.
So...In a very real way I AM truly a conservative.
Are ANY of the people that now call themselves conservatives today looking for common sense, common decency solutions to benefit their families and their community, or are they ideologues, that want to dismantle any shred of COMMunity and replace it with SELF interest?
That is not 'conservatism', that is narcissism.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Thank you for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt EXACTLY what Good Luck was referring to.
You are a delusional moron.