Speaking of tax cheats

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

They do say the average fortune 500 company pays over 30%.

Pete

Who is "they", Fox? So far my research has shown that in '02-'04 the average tax rate for the profitable Fortune 500 companies was 17.2%.

Regards,

D-Ray

[flacaltenn]

I knew it.. I just knew it.. You are a famous character Pete..

Did you get into copyright problems with the Lincoln/Mercury cat?

[piece-itpete]

Yes and no. They didn't care about the copyright, but the new and improved Ford Company of Fine Cars, worried about the 50+% of car buyers now female, thought a howling cougar sent the wrong message. They wanted me to change it to Mary T Moores' little kitten but not being a man of the new millennium I refused.

Then I heard the black helecopters.... that's when I realised my gerbil had ratted me out.

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Sorry D, I wasn't clear. From the linked article:

"Companies that pay relatively high rates tend to be those that are not expanding rapidly and that are not as ingenious as G.E., at least on taxes. The average total tax rate for the 500 companies over the last five years — again, including federal, state, local and foreign corporate taxes — was 32.8 percent. Among those paying more than the average were Exxon Mobil, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Starbucks, Wal-Mart and Walt Disney."

Ah and I see that it includes foreign taxes. Wonder what that was, average?

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Sorry D, I wasn't clear. From the linked article:

"Companies that pay relatively high rates tend to be those that are not expanding rapidly and that are not as ingenious as G.E., at least on taxes. The average total tax rate for the 500 companies over the last five years — again, including federal, state, local and foreign corporate taxes — was 32.8 percent. Among those paying more than the average were Exxon Mobil, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Starbucks, Wal-Mart and Walt Disney."

Ah and I see that it includes foreign taxes. Wonder what that was, average?

Pete

Interestingly, While Exxon claimed in 2007 that it paid a 47% tax rate on before tax profits, none of that was paid to the IRS. That's right. Exxon's federal tax rate was a big zero.

For one thing, Exxon was counting the taxes that customers paid at the pump as part of their taxes, when they didn't pay a dime of them.

"Exxon Mobil's accounting methods mask its relatively low effective tax rate. According to CNN Money the $3.1 billion in taxes the company claims to have paid since January 2011 includes both federal and state gasoline taxes—that are really paid by drivers—as well as employee payroll taxes."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...5/tax_man.html

Regards,

D-Ray

[flacaltenn]

C'Mon MerryLander:

Flack maybe if GE had not shut down every operation in Ohio and shipped all the work to China I might just manage a tear or two on their behalf.

We BOTH want to do something about this.. Should the govt rescind all those Green Tax Credits so that G.E. pays more of its taxes? Should Obama have appointed their CEO as a special consultant?

No tears required.. In fact, I own a HUGE chunk of GE stock.. And I'm embarrassed about the phoney baloney Green Giant act..

[merrylander]

You know this is really funny as hell, the same bunch who piss and moan about some individuals not paying INCOME taxes (becsuae they don't earn enough). Get their knickers in an almighty twist if anyone suggest that corporate America is f**king the dog and selling the pups.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

You know this is really funny as hell, the same bunch who piss and moan about some individuals not paying INCOME taxes (becsuae they don't earn enough). Get their knickers in an almighty twist if anyone suggest that corporate America is f**king the dog and selling the pups.

You got that right. Food stamps going to a single mother with three kids is a bloody outrage. An oil executive jacking up gas prices, then retiring six months later with a 1/2 billion dollar pension package is just peachy. (Is that WWJD?)

Dave

[flacaltenn]

I bristle at these repeated claims that those of us who care about the environment actually have a secret agenda to funnel money to this or that entity. If GE truly made significant advancements in technologies that will reduce the environmental harm of human activities, then I'd say they earned their tax breaks. I've no idea what they actually did. Hopefully they really did accomplish something meaningful.

I don't want to drag the thread off-topic, but I really don't understand why environmentalism has become such a polarizing political issue. Perhaps it's simply a reflection of our times, where EVERYTHING has to be black or white, for or against, and a tool with which to bash one's opponent.

JonL et al:

Let me make this simple and clear. I started an entire thread about corporate subsidies going to GE and made perfectly clear that I OPPOSE all those Green credits that resulted in no taxes.. What I see you trying to do here is to have it both ways. To support those Green tax credits to GE, but chastise GE for not paying "it's fair share".. At least that's the clear hypocrisy of the lefty leadership who crafted those credits and then pretend to be shocked at the result.

so when some others on the board say:

You know this is really funny as hell, the same bunch who piss and moan about some individuals not paying INCOME taxes (becsuae they don't earn enough). Get their knickers in an almighty twist if anyone suggest that corporate America is f**king the dog and selling the pups.

... I surely hope they're not talking me, because I've been entirely clear and consistent on where I stand.

And yes I've spent hundreds of hours debating energy/enviroment issues on the boards with some of the most dedicated eco-leftists you'll ever meet. That is actually my favorite topic. And I know that MOST of these folks sincerely believed that eco subsidies handed out by Washington would go to yet to be founded new progressive companies that operated like perfect little non-profits. Not an ounce of realism in ANY of their expectations about where those subsidies would end up..

Black or White --- For or Against??? Yep.. Something like corporate welfare can't be good in some cases and bad in others IF ---- you believe it corrupts the system. I believe it corrupts the system. Furthermore I believe it's beyond the expertise and even the charter of the Feds to picking technology or market winners..

Social welfare however, can be more of a good in some cases, bad in others if you're honest about human nature.

[JonL]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

JonL et al:

Let me make this simple and clear. I started an entire thread about corporate subsidies going to GE and made perfectly clear that I OPPOSE all those Green credits that resulted in no taxes.. What I see you trying to do here is to have it both ways. To support those Green tax credits to GE, but chastise GE for not paying "it's fair share".. At least that's the clear hypocrisy of the lefty leadership who crafted those credits and then pretend to be shocked at the result.

I doubt that GE avoided paying taxes solely - or even largely - due to "Green credits." I'm not going to do the research. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

If GE's tax burden was reduced somewhat as an incentive to actually introduce products that actually made a commensurate improvement in environmental impact, I don't think that's a bad thing. If GE's tax burden was reduced to zero because they invented some impractical technology that will never exist outside the laboratory, that's a bad thing.

I don't think it's "corporate welfare" to use tax policy to impel a company to do things that are in the public interest that they would not otherwise do because it is not in their near-term financial interest.

Maybe I'm not the lockstep lefty you fantasize about. We've all got opinions of our own. I'm not trying to have it both ways. I am able to see shades of gray and nuance in life. I think that's a trait the right in general tends to lack.