Slashdot Mirror


What the Top US Companies Pay In Taxes

theodp writes "If you've ever wondered how it's possible that you pay more to the IRS than General Electric, Forbes has an explanation. You, my friend, do not have the tax benefit of overseas operations. Microsoft, for example, has its overseas subsidiaries license software to its US parent company in return for handsome royalties that get taxed at lower overseas rates. Exxon limits its tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands that shelter cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan, and Abu Dhabi. As a result, of the $15B it paid in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84B in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the US. Now quit your carping and get back to filling out that 1040!"

8 of 658 comments (clear)

  1. Transaction Tax would fix this by ForexCoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We need to switch to a transaction tax like http://www.apttax.com/ This would make sure that corporations like those paid their fair share of the taxs.

  2. Re:So, what now? by ThreeGigs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Aside from my reluctance to take financial wisdom seriously from someone who uses "payed" instead of "paid", (sank / sunk notwithstanding) you seem to be forgetting the huge number of corporations who _aren't_ listed on the stock exchange, and who don't pay dividends. Lowering corporate tax rates would take a huge chunk of income away from the US, and do little to encourage companies to move back from... say.. Ireland, with its 12.5% rate.

    Oh, and the way most companies avoid paying taxes? They expand. Got 10 million in profit you don't want to pay taxes on? Open some new locations. Do R&D. Hire some more people. Basically incur expenses. That 40% tax rate you disparage so offhandedly is responsible for influencing decisions that generally lead to more jobs.

  3. An economic principle... by meburke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ..."What you tax, you get less of." According to legend, The Zhou Emperor (China, about 1100 B.C.E) laid a heavy tax on salt. Enterprising traders found they could dissolve 20 times the volume of salt in fermented soy. Since there was no tax on liquids, people became more accustomed to salting and preserving their foods in soy. Should the peasants have been "patriotic" and insisted on paying higher prices for the salt?

    Lay a tax on items and services, and you will get less of those items and services; lay a tax on businesses and you will get less of those businesses. Yup, they will move to friendlier shores. (For those of you thinking about this, what are the implications for Health Care? Arithmetically, price controls are form of taxation, and the new Health Care Reform imposes both controls and taxes.)

    At the present time, Americans in the USA have very favorable prices for petroleum products compared to the rest of the world. What would the cost of gasoline be in the USA if we had to pay taxes on all the oil revenues including the taxes on where the oil is produced? (My estimate is around 9.44 per gallon, YMMV.) Then consider the implications for the Chemical Industry and consumer products.

    You want jobs? Jobs are provided by profitable businesses. The more profitable businesses there are, the more jobs available. The more jobs available, the more competition for qualified employees. The more competition for qualified employees, the better the wages, conditions and benefits. There are equilibrium points with in the system, but when non-productivity costs (like taxes) get too burdensome, it makes it profitable for business to put up with the hassles and expense of moving to those friendlier shores.

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
  4. Re:If I could do it, I would! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Abolishing the corporate income tax sounds great in theory. ... especially if your a conservative economist.

    However, Ireland which is Europe's version of India due to its low 12% corporate income tax (lowest in world) is about to join Greece in going bankrupt. We are already under suffocating debt. Cutting spending wont get the income needed to pay for a basic government.

  5. Re:Value Added Tax by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People should only pay for the government they use. VAT is unfair in that respect. What did the government do to deserve 20% of what I buy? Income taxes also make no sense. What we need is a tax that people pay when they use government services. Received $3,000 worth in welfare? Once you get a steady job you are taxed until you can pay back that $3K you "borrowed" from the government. Drive on government roads? Pay a fee when you get your first care licensed*. Add in a town tax for fire/police.

    Governments should follow the same basic economic rules like businesses do, if I don't have an Xbox does it make sense for me to pay for Xbox live which I will never use? No, of course not. Yet that is effectively what VAT and income taxes do.

    *One person isn't going to drive multiple cars at the same time, so it makes little sense to tax someone more if they own 3 cars compared to 1 because the wear on the road is going to be about the same

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  6. Corporate, Capital Gains, Income Tax by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To me, this screams for a simplification of tax law. Here's a thought:

    Step 1: Eliminate corporate taxes. (and as another commenter opined, eliminate the ludicrous notion of corporate person-hood while you're at it)

    Now, once you've done step 1, guess what? The argument about capital gains being double-taxation disappears. So:

    Step 2: Eliminate any distinction between capital gains and any other form of income in terms of taxation. Treat all income as just income.

    The big corporations aren't paying corporate taxes anyway, and all it really does is incentivize them to dump their profits into advertising to increase their market cap.

  7. Patriotism? by Chowderbags · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Given how so many people get riled up over patriotism and the like, why don't we point out that these companies not paying their fair share to help America through what amounts to a shell game undermines all the rest of us. If you've got a group of friends ordering pizza and one guy tells the group that he'd totally be good for it but he doesn't have any money, all his money is being held by an offshore company operated by a wholly owned subsidiary that's completely owned by him, you'd tell him to fuck off and go get his own pizza and stop mooching off everyone else.

  8. Incentives drive behavior by sjbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lower it to 0% and they'll come running. No reason to tax corporate income at all.

    Naively optimistic.

    For that matter, no reason to tax income at all.

    There are alternatives to be sure but ANY tax scheme you come up with will have trade offs. There is no perfect tax system.

    Tax something that can't run to another country like real estate. That'll become a lot more valuable with 0% taxes on income.

    Your argument is that we should inflate the price of and tax burden on real estate instead of having an income tax? It would solve some problems but create many more.

    Some places do most of their taxation based on real estate. Hong Kong for instance which manages to do it because of their somewhat unique circumstances but not without problems. Problem is you are basically tying your nation's ability to tax to a single cyclical industry (real estate) instead of the entire economy. Works great when the real estate market is hot and tax revenues crater massively when the real estate market cools off. Asset price bubbles become a HUGE problem. Our current fiscal crisis would be FAR worse if the US relied solely on tax revenues from real estate. There is a reason you diversify your stock portfolio and the same thing applies to sources of government revenue. Do you really want to eliminate that much diversification in sources of tax revenues? I think you haven't really thought this through.

    Another problem is that it is very easy these days to locate facilities elsewhere. There is a reason not a lot of manufacturing takes place in Hong Kong or Manhattan any more. Price of land is too expensive. Admittedly those are extreme examples but companies will make decisions about where to locate because of a single dollar per square foot in cost. Drive up the price of real estate and companies will locate where real estate is cheap. Companies will decentralize massively if there is enough tax savings to do so. Remember that labor in the US isn't especially cheap either.