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!"
If you tax them, they move to India. Shareholders don't care.
Maybe the goverment should try spending less for a change.
These types of tricks should be unacceptable. Close the loops that allow this to happen, and let it be known that if you are going to do business in the US and benefit from our educated labor pool, infrastructure, markets, and resources you are going to pay taxes like everyone else. These shenanigans should demonstrate exactly why a corporation should not be treated as a legal person. They are immortal, and can skirt current law and tax codes by existing simultaneously in multiple places and jurisdictions at the same time.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Yeah, because Exxon would never benefit from an American war against Iraq.
Leo Gold: "Don’t believe me? It’s all in the numbers. For a hundred years, there’s been a conspiracy of plutocrats against ordinary people."
JC Denton: "Do you have a single fact to back that up?"
Leo Gold: "Number one: In 1945, corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes. Now they pay about 5 percent. Number two: in 1900, 90 percent of Americans were self-employed; now it’s about two percent."
JC Denton: "So?"
Leo Gold: "It’s called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time."
Fictional conspiracies aside - WTF?
Yes, it IS good for them. And bad for you. You're talking about one of the most powerful entities in the world - Exxon Mobil is larger than most countries - with no accountability to anyone. The government that you hate so much is being steadily dismantled BECAUSE private tyrannies (i.e. corporations) are using their vast coffers to break and twist it into the form they desire. Why, exactly, do you think the government gives money to banks or the MIC?
The more power corporations have, the more they can resist the controlling influence of democracy, the worse off we are. Observe Exxon's use of their power to confuse the debate on global warming for years, assuring that nothing gets done to compromise their profits and that the planet continues to choke on the waste gases their products emit.
As someone who's been an anarchist most of my adult life, I find it bizarre when so-called libertarians cheer the destruction of democratic government and the increasing devolution of power into the hands of the people who have, for the better part of this past century, been largely in control of our society. If you're REALLY in the favor of liberty, why are you such a fan of enabling so much power going into such few hands?
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.
This deserves to be modded "insightful". Nations have constitutions, laws, and face insurrection, mutiny, and revolt if/when they trample people's rights to much. Corporations? Damned thieves can tramply anyone, and everyone, with no repercussions.
Go ahead, people, cheer for the corporations. None of them are doing anything for you. Your government supplies your drinking water, builds your roads, responds in the event of disaster, and much, much more. You have a voice in government in most countries - you have zero voice in any corporation, no matter whether you work for it or not.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The rich get richer, the poor, well, stay poor.
Nothing has changed since the times of Pareto...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto
(Take a look - the original '80/20' was 80% of the land was owned by 20% of the people)
These days, it's more like 90% of the world's wealth belongs to 10% of its population.
If you've got the money to have to worry about these things, then you can pay smart people to avoid tax.
Note I said avoid, (legal), not evade, which is not.
It is the duty of corporate officers to (legally) minimise tax burden.
It is the duty of governments to ensure equitable distribution of wealth, without discouraging wealth creation.
Guess who's doing a better job...
If the artificial economic entity has rights, it should pay taxes too.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'm sorry, but hat's just idiotic. How about instead we:
(1) limit our granting of civil rights to actual, real people, and
(2) limit lobbying to actual, real people.
Caveat Utilitor
I hate it when this comes up. That "artificial entity" exists to provide the "limited liability" bit. An incredibly valuable perk. Even if we are the opinion that handing that out is worth it at all(since it is pretty much what allows people to treat shares in corporations as abstract economic widgets, to be bought and sold with limited risk), the idea that taxing the resultant artificial entity is "double taxation" is nonsense.
If an artificial legal construct can have income and profit, there seems to be no reason why it ought not to be taxed, the same way as natural constructs who have income and profits are. If taxation of corporations were more costly than limited liability is valuable, people whouldn't incorporate, they'd operate businesses as themselves. The fact that virtually nobody does so, other than the smallest, most ill or un-advised people, should tell you something about whether or not that is the case.
If you don't want your synthetic entity taxed, you don't have to set one up, you can just do business as you. However, if you fuck up, you are on the hook. Corporate taxes are a small price to pay for being able to cap your liability by assigning responsibility to a legal fiction from which you get to extract the wins but not the losses.
They use the government to ensure they actually own the 1,000 acres in the first place. Is a recognition of the exclusive use of land not a service that should be paid for?
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.
http://saveie6.com/
However, Ireland which is Europe's version of India due to its low 12% corporate income tax (lowest in world)
There are places with lower corporate income tax. Bermuda has no income tax, IIRC.
But if you think it's bad in Ireland now, try raising the corporate tax rate. How many of those companies will stay in Ireland?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Corporations have attained supercitizenship and are immune to many of the concerns of common citizens. What if the judicial system could find a company guilty of crimes to a degree that it could give the company the equivalent of a life sentence or a death sentence, or the equivalent of prison in general (with the government overseeing every aspect of the company's life)? That would keep them on their toes.
I say, tax for what people use. The government should be a service provider. Nothing more. Drive on roads? Pay for the roads. Don't drive? Don't pay. Simple as that.
Corporations as a whole should be taxed based on what they use. If their business required a new road to be put in, have them pay for that road. If the store needs extra police protection have them pay for that.
Corporations need the roads so that their employees, customers, and suppliers can actually reach them. Corporations need the court system to enforce contracts. Corporations need the police and fire systems to keep their workplaces safe and secure. Corporations need electric, garbage collection, and sewage treatment. Corporations need highly trained employees educated by public schools and universities.
Corporations use a lot of services without paying for them. Your proposal would result in corporations paying higher taxes than they are today. To me that sounds good.
I say no individual income taxes, because corporations can afford to hire a staff of full-time accountants.
The big downside to jacking up the corporate taxes is that the corporations can (and do!) flee. People are much more reluctant to emigrate, and it's not clear where they could go anyhow.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Here is all the text of the slides in a readable list.
No. 1: Wal-Mart Stores
Sales: $401 billion Pretax income: $20.9 billion Income taxes: $7.1 billion Tax rate: 34.2%
$1.2 billion of Wal-Mart Stores' taxes are international.
No. 2: ExxonMobil
Sales: $311 billion Pretax income: $35 billion Income taxes: $15 billion Tax rate: 47%
None of ExxonMobil's income taxes were paid in the U.S. In 2008 the company's income tax bill was $36 billion.
No. 3: Chevron
Sales: $172 billion Pretax income: $18.5 billion Income taxes: $8 billion Tax rate: 43%
Chevron paid $19 billion income tax in 2008. Of this year's taxes, just $200 million were paid in the U.S.
No. 4: General Electric
Sales: $157 billion
Pretax income: $10.3 billion
Income taxes: (-$1.1 billion)
Tax rate: N/A
GE's financial services unit, GE Capital, keeps the overall tax bill so low. Over the last two years, GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. and make lots of money overseas, where tax rates are lower.
No. 5: ConocoPhillips
Sales: $152 billion Pretax income: $10 billion Income taxes: $5 billion Tax rate: 51%
ConocoPhillips paid $13 billion in taxes in 2008.
No. 6: AT&T
Sales: $123 billion
Pretax income: $19 billion
Income taxes: $6.2 billion
Tax rate: 32.4%
AT&T's executive officers are eligible to bill the company $14,000 a year for their own income tax preparations.
No. 7: Bank of America
Sales: $120 billion
Pretax income: $4.4 billion
Income taxes: (-$1.9 billion)
Tax rate: N/A
How did Bank of America not pay any taxes on $4.4 billion in income? Because of deductions like $860 million in tax-exempt income, $670 million in low-income housing credits and a $600 million loss on shares of foreign subsidiaries. With a provision for credit losses of $49 billion, Bank of America probably won't be paying taxes for a long time.
No. 8: Ford Motor
Sales: $118 billion
Pretax income: $3 billion
Income taxes: $69 million
Tax rate: 2.3%
Ford's tax rate is so low because of past years' losses from U.S. operations.
No. 9: Hewlett-Packard
Sales: $115 billion
Pretax income: $9.4 billion
Income taxes: $1.75 billion
Tax rate: 18.6%
HP's low tax rate is due to lower tax rates in foreign countries. The company says in its annual report that President Obama's proposals to end tax deferrals on international operations would mean a big tax hike.
No. 10: Berkshire Hathaway
Sales: $112 billion
Pretax income: $11.5 billion
Income taxes: $3.5 billion
Tax rate: 30%
No. 11: JPMorgan Chase
Sales: $100 billion
Pretax income: $16 billion
Income taxes: $4.4 billion
Tax rate: 27.5%
Chief Executive Jamie Dimon has spoken out against an Obama proposal to levy a special tax on banks to recoup bailout costs. "Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea," said Dimon. "All businesses tend to pass costs on to customers."
No. 12: Verizon
Sales: $108 billion
Pretax income: $11.6 billion
Income taxes:
The only reason those fine 2000 acres of land you have aren't taken over within weeks is because the whole damn government is there to threaten anyone who would try. It has nothing to do with "civilisation" respecting "a fence". Hell, there are Western countries which operate rather well but have very lax notions of trespass compared to the US. We're not talking about, say, mindless violence, which is pathological in every species, but a sophisticated philosophical notion of property which goes way beyond the "territory" of high order primates.
The law exists as a pragmatic codification of the common good where elements of "common" are weighted according to the magnitude of your influence.
The problem with this logic is it doesn't take into account the indirect benefit of government services. If someone never drove a car, but bought products from local stores which were able to provide those products at a decent price, if at all, due to the government maintained road system, he is still benefiting. Likewise, building a bridge might not benefit you if you never traveled between the linked destination, but the economic growth it might cause in your town will. There are many more complex levels of indirect services people benefit from daily.
This is not to imply, however that most government services are not useless, if not legal ways to blatantly embezzle funds, and should not exist, just that direct accounting is far too simple to work.
(1) limit our granting of civil rights to actual, real people, and
Are you sure you want to do this? There are a lot of important civil rights ruling regarding corporations. Just off the top of my head.
Dartmouth College v. Woodward -- asserting that the College has the right to a binding charter that the government cannot alter at will
New York Times v. United States -- asserting the first amendment right to publish the Pentagon Papers
New York Times v. Sullivan -- asserting that defamation/libel has to be for willful or deliberate falsehood
Near v. Minnesota -- "Morally scandalous" not a good reason to shut down a newspaper
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell -- parodies of public figures which could not reasonably be taken as true are protected by the First Amendment
In all those cases, it would be pretty laughable if the government asserted that because the plaintiff is not an 'actual real person' they don't have constitutional rights.
If people don't like the actions of a corporation they have the right not to fucking buy that corporations products
So if a heavy machinery company opened a factory next door to you and dumped their waste hydraulic fluid in your garden you'll stop buying their bulldozers?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
but think of all the accountants and lawyers who would lose there jobs as an effect ... wont some one please think of the lawyers
why don't we hear it from the right?
corporations are:
completely unpatriotic. in fact, as this tax situation shows, they are basically anti-patriotic: their actions actively undermine the country
corporaitons work against individual rights, liberties, privacy, and freedoms
they threaten to hollow out the country into a corporatocracy, they actively turn your representatives into shills for corporate interests, not interests of the citizens
we have been hearing these howls on the left for decades
but how come we don't hear it from the right?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You've missed the blatantly obvious point "None of them are doing anything for you" means what it says - they are doing it for themselves whether it has a positive or negative impact on you. A single outsider can't change anything either way, which is why a lot of people band together and you get things like governments. You should be seeing a few reports of what uncontrolled local corporations were getting up to in China if you don't want to look back at your own history.
The important point is they don't care either way because it's not their job to be a public charity. It's not good or evil - it just is.
Here's the problem- can you tell me, straight up, the value of the governmental services that you use? You've got your simple direct ones ones- roads/public transit, local schools and whatnot. Then you've got the slightly harder to count ones- fire and police, though we can count these as insurance-type costs. Now we get to the ones that are impossible to enumerate. What's the price of having the armed forces protect our country? What's the value of providing student loans to people, thus giving us an educated workforce? What's the cost of having someone tell us what the weather is going to be like, or predicting the next hurricane or earthquake?
You say that governments should follow the same basic economic rules businesses do, but would this really help or hinder private business? By this token Google, Cisco, and just about every major company should be paying the US government obscene royalties for using the internet. DARPA did, after all, invent it, so it's only fair to license it for what it's worth. How about medical research, or the stuff that's come out of NASA? The government has given so much away, whereas any private corporation would have patented and licensed the crap out of it. Let's be honest- how many private companies are financing risky research nowadays?
There are many reasons to be against the taxation proposed here. I think that any money made overseas shouldn't be taxable in the US because, quite honestly, the money wasn't made here. I'd be fine with companies bringing cash back to the US tax-free because that'd be more money that can be spent in our borders. Your argument, however, is silly. You can't tabulate how much government you use because it's everywhere. Hell, I think throwing 30+% of your profits to taxes is a pretty fair deal considering we live in a pretty stable society. There's also an issue of fairness- if you get rich because of a underpaid populous that's denied basic benefits (and the government steps in to provide them), it's only fair that you actually pay for the benefits needed for the workers that are used. As broken as the system is, the gov't does provide a basic safety net that corporations don't, and this is something we indeed need.
Wait a moment, now. I'll remind you that I drove truck for years. I delivered many loads of building materials to the devastated areas in Louisiana and Mississippi after Katrina. I'll give Walmart some credit for doing what you say - but Walmart trucks were NOT moving in the most devastated areas. They simply were not. The materials I moved were moved under various contracts, some of which were government contracts. I think it safe to say that ALL of those infamous mobile homes were moved under government contracts. Probably 80% of the early stage building materials were moved under government contract, and that was reduced over time to near zero percent. Medical and other real emergency supplies, as well as water and food started out near 100% government, and tapered off over time.
Wal-mart didn't deliver ANY of the mountains of bottled water that I saw stockpiled around New Orleans soon after Katrina. The National Guard delivered most of it. I can't say where the NG acquired the water - I can only say for certain that the NG unloaded it from their trucks, and from private OTR trucks. Not Walmart trucks.
Be careful that you don't buy into that Walmart corporate propaganda. A few photo ops, and an unlimited marketing budget don't make Walmart the saviours of any disaster. Walmart people were being rescued during and after Katrina, more than they were rescuing.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br