The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
04-05-2016, 01:32 PM
#5941
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
I suspect our jealous friend up there doesn't understand the tax code, and many of you are showing you don't know the difference between tax rates, effective tax rates, and the progressive tax scheme currently used.
Yet another argument for Pass the FAIRtax | FAIRtax.
Yet another argument for Pass the FAIRtax | FAIRtax.
Reply
0
0
04-05-2016, 04:13 PM
#5944
Indeed that was my mistake. It was in 09 when they paid 0. Last year they paid 11%
Some fun stuff.
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.o...port-Final.pdf
Bank of America runs its business through more than 300 offshore tax-haven subsidiaries. It reported $17.2 billion in accumulated offshore profits in 2012. It would owe $4.3 billion in US taxes if these funds were brought back to the US.
Citigroup had $42.6 billion in foreign profits parked offshore in 2012 on which it paid no US taxes. It reported that it would owe $11.5 billion if it brings these funds back to the US. A significant chunk is being held in tax-haven countries.
ExxonMobil had a three-year federal income tax rate of just 15 percent. This gave the company a tax subsidy worth $6.2 billion from 2010-2012. It had $43 billion in offshore profits at the end of 2012, on which it paid no US taxes.
FedEx made $6 billion over the last three years and didn’t pay a dime in federal income taxes, in part because the tax code subsidized its purchase of new planes. This gave FedEx a huge tax subsidy worth $2.1 billion.
General Electric received a tax subsidy of nearly $29 billion over the last 11 years. While dodging paying its fair share of federal income taxes, GE pocketed $21.8 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts from Uncle Sam between 2006 and 2012.
Honeywell had profits of $5 billion from 2009 to 2012. Yet it paid only $50 million in federal income taxes for the period. Its tax rate was just 1 percent over the last four years. This gave it a huge tax subsidy worth $1.7 billion.
Merck had profits of $13.6 billion and paid $2.5 billion in federal income taxes from 2009 to 2012. While dodging its fair share of federal income taxes, it pocketed $8.7 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts from Uncle Sam between 2006 and 2012.
Microsoft saved $4.5 billion in federal income taxes from 2009 to 2011 by transferring profits to a subsidiary in the tax haven of Puerto Rico. It had $60.8 billion in profits stashed offshore in 2012 on which it paid no US taxes.
Pfizer paid no US income taxes from 2010 to 2012 while earning $43 billion worldwide. It did this in part by performing accounting acrobatics to shift its US profits offshore. It received $2.2 billion in federal tax refunds.
Verizon made $19.3 billion in US pretax profits from 2008 to 2012, yet didn’t pay any federal income taxes during the period. Instead, it got $535 million in tax rebates. Verizon’s effective federal income tax rate was negative 2.8 percent from 2008 to 2012.
Some fun stuff.
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.o...port-Final.pdf
Bank of America runs its business through more than 300 offshore tax-haven subsidiaries. It reported $17.2 billion in accumulated offshore profits in 2012. It would owe $4.3 billion in US taxes if these funds were brought back to the US.
Citigroup had $42.6 billion in foreign profits parked offshore in 2012 on which it paid no US taxes. It reported that it would owe $11.5 billion if it brings these funds back to the US. A significant chunk is being held in tax-haven countries.
ExxonMobil had a three-year federal income tax rate of just 15 percent. This gave the company a tax subsidy worth $6.2 billion from 2010-2012. It had $43 billion in offshore profits at the end of 2012, on which it paid no US taxes.
FedEx made $6 billion over the last three years and didn’t pay a dime in federal income taxes, in part because the tax code subsidized its purchase of new planes. This gave FedEx a huge tax subsidy worth $2.1 billion.
General Electric received a tax subsidy of nearly $29 billion over the last 11 years. While dodging paying its fair share of federal income taxes, GE pocketed $21.8 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts from Uncle Sam between 2006 and 2012.
Honeywell had profits of $5 billion from 2009 to 2012. Yet it paid only $50 million in federal income taxes for the period. Its tax rate was just 1 percent over the last four years. This gave it a huge tax subsidy worth $1.7 billion.
Merck had profits of $13.6 billion and paid $2.5 billion in federal income taxes from 2009 to 2012. While dodging its fair share of federal income taxes, it pocketed $8.7 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts from Uncle Sam between 2006 and 2012.
Microsoft saved $4.5 billion in federal income taxes from 2009 to 2011 by transferring profits to a subsidiary in the tax haven of Puerto Rico. It had $60.8 billion in profits stashed offshore in 2012 on which it paid no US taxes.
Pfizer paid no US income taxes from 2010 to 2012 while earning $43 billion worldwide. It did this in part by performing accounting acrobatics to shift its US profits offshore. It received $2.2 billion in federal tax refunds.
Verizon made $19.3 billion in US pretax profits from 2008 to 2012, yet didn’t pay any federal income taxes during the period. Instead, it got $535 million in tax rebates. Verizon’s effective federal income tax rate was negative 2.8 percent from 2008 to 2012.
Last edited by triple88a; 04-05-2016 at 04:51 PM.
Reply
0
0
04-05-2016, 05:42 PM
#5945
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...7g2oZoHL22u6XA
In how many lifetimes will you donate $3 million dollars in a single year?
In how many lifetimes will you donate $3 million dollars in a single year?
Reply
0
0
04-05-2016, 07:19 PM
#5949
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Farmington Hills, MI
Posts: 460
Total Cats: 15
The 'problem' more than anything is that the ultra wealthy get a significant portion of income in capital gains which is taxed at 15% instead of the 39.6% they would normally pay in income tax on income over 415k (single filer, 467k for married).
I would argue that anything beyond 100k-200k in capital gains should be taxed as normal income? Does that seem "fair" to everyone?
Tax rate by income group. Notice it decreases for the top .1%
Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Reply
0
0
04-05-2016, 09:10 PM
#5952
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 145
Total Cats: 14
I did not do their taxes, but that has also been rated as 100% false by several 3rd party sources.
Bernie Sanders says ExxonMobil paid no taxes in 2009, but that's inaccurate | PolitiFact
Bernie Sanders says ExxonMobil paid no taxes in 2009, but that's inaccurate | PolitiFact
Reply
0
0
04-05-2016, 10:50 PM
#5955
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
So, we started out talking about individuals, and now you're shifting to companies.
So let's talk about companies.
I assume we're all intelligent enough here to understand that the whole "corporations are people" argument is reductio ad absurdum. A 19th century court ruling discussing the 14th amendment does not literally mean that a corporation is a person- that's just silly. So what is a corporation?
Well, it's a group of people organized in a certain way.
You feel, obviously, that corporations should be taxed in the same way as people. So let's explore that a bit.
What happens to the money which a corporation earns as revenue? Well, it gets allocated in four basic ways:
So what happens when you increase the tax burden on a corporation? Well, several things.
First, the company is going to decrease its spending on capital improvement, and look for ways to reduce its operating costs. This means less economic growth, but also less external spending on things like equipment and buildings. That directly decreases employment in sectors ranging from toolmaking to lawncare, and also means fewer jobs for carpenters, plumbers, electricians, roofers, concrete workers, architects, surveyors, civil engineers, and all the other people not building the new buildings that the company isn't investing in.
Second, it directly leads to a decrease in employee compensation. Fewer raises for workers, lower overall wages. Pretty sure we've all felt this one of late.
Third, it leads to increases in the cost of whatever product or service the company provides.
And fourth, it incentivizes the corporation to relocate its assets and operations to areas in which the tax environment is less hostile. On a domestic scale, this means companies relocating out of states like California and New York in favor of states like Texas and Ohio. And on an international scale, it means moving as much as possible out of the US altogether, in favor of countries with little to no corporate tax at all. So, again- fewer domestic jobs, less domestic spending.
The reality is that 100% of corporate taxes all roll downhill. People earn less, and products cost more.
And if you seriously think that corporations in the US pay little to no tax, you couldn't be more wrong. The average corporate tax rate in the US (Federal plus state) is about 39%, which is the highest corporate tax rate in the entire industrialized world. And unlike you, I'll cite sources for that claim:
The U.S. Has the Highest Corporate Income Tax Rate in the OECD | Tax Foundation
List of Countries by Corporate Tax Rate
Corporate Tax Rates by Country 2015 | Global Finance Magazine
Countries With The Highest & Lowest Corporate Tax Rates | Investopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_tax_rates
So let's talk about companies.
I assume we're all intelligent enough here to understand that the whole "corporations are people" argument is reductio ad absurdum. A 19th century court ruling discussing the 14th amendment does not literally mean that a corporation is a person- that's just silly. So what is a corporation?
Well, it's a group of people organized in a certain way.
You feel, obviously, that corporations should be taxed in the same way as people. So let's explore that a bit.
What happens to the money which a corporation earns as revenue? Well, it gets allocated in four basic ways:
1: A large percentage of it is used to cover the cost of doing business. It pays the rent, the power bill, the cost of materials, and so on.
2: Another large percentage of it is paid as compensation to employees. Around 40% of the private-sector workforce in the US are employees of large corporations (those with 500 or more workers), so that's significant.
3: A moderate percentage of the money is re-invested into the company in the form of capital improvement; this pays for the acquisition of new tools and machinery, the construction of new factories, the opening of new retail outlets, etc.
4: And finally, a tiny portion* (more on this later) of the money is paid out to shareholders in the form of dividends.
2: Another large percentage of it is paid as compensation to employees. Around 40% of the private-sector workforce in the US are employees of large corporations (those with 500 or more workers), so that's significant.
3: A moderate percentage of the money is re-invested into the company in the form of capital improvement; this pays for the acquisition of new tools and machinery, the construction of new factories, the opening of new retail outlets, etc.
4: And finally, a tiny portion* (more on this later) of the money is paid out to shareholders in the form of dividends.
So what happens when you increase the tax burden on a corporation? Well, several things.
First, the company is going to decrease its spending on capital improvement, and look for ways to reduce its operating costs. This means less economic growth, but also less external spending on things like equipment and buildings. That directly decreases employment in sectors ranging from toolmaking to lawncare, and also means fewer jobs for carpenters, plumbers, electricians, roofers, concrete workers, architects, surveyors, civil engineers, and all the other people not building the new buildings that the company isn't investing in.
Second, it directly leads to a decrease in employee compensation. Fewer raises for workers, lower overall wages. Pretty sure we've all felt this one of late.
Third, it leads to increases in the cost of whatever product or service the company provides.
And fourth, it incentivizes the corporation to relocate its assets and operations to areas in which the tax environment is less hostile. On a domestic scale, this means companies relocating out of states like California and New York in favor of states like Texas and Ohio. And on an international scale, it means moving as much as possible out of the US altogether, in favor of countries with little to no corporate tax at all. So, again- fewer domestic jobs, less domestic spending.
The reality is that 100% of corporate taxes all roll downhill. People earn less, and products cost more.
And if you seriously think that corporations in the US pay little to no tax, you couldn't be more wrong. The average corporate tax rate in the US (Federal plus state) is about 39%, which is the highest corporate tax rate in the entire industrialized world. And unlike you, I'll cite sources for that claim:
The U.S. Has the Highest Corporate Income Tax Rate in the OECD | Tax Foundation
List of Countries by Corporate Tax Rate
Corporate Tax Rates by Country 2015 | Global Finance Magazine
Countries With The Highest & Lowest Corporate Tax Rates | Investopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_tax_rates
Last edited by Joe Perez; 04-05-2016 at 11:03 PM.
Reply
0
0
04-05-2016, 10:50 PM
#5956
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
And now, Part 2, in which we look at shareholder dividends.
I’m going to pick a couple of large corporations somewhat at random out of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, across a broad spectrum of industries, and look at their 2015 shareholder dividends as a percentage of stock price, which shows you their real value to investors.
A bit of background, for those not well-versed in the subject matter. Traditionally, corporations pay a dividend four times per year, with each shareholder receiving a certain amount of money for every share held. So if a dividend is $0.50, paid quarterly, then a person who owns 100 shares of stock will receive $200.
Ok, we’ll start with Apple, which has been hugely successful and profitable in recent years. In 2015, Apple paid out $0.47 per share in the first quarter, and increased this to $0.52 in the final three quarters. The average price of Apple stock across 2015 was about $120 per share. So if you invested $100,000 in Apple, netting 833 shares, you’d have earned $1,691 in dividends. That’s an average return of 1.7%, which is less than you’d earn (per year) on a 5 year bank Certificate of Deposit.
Next, let’s look at Visa, which is a company that’s easy to hate. In 2015, Visa paid $0.48 in Q1, $0.12 in Q2 & Q3, and $0.14 in Q4. Total of 86 cents per share. Average share price was about $70, so figure a $1,228 dividend payout on the 1,428 shares you bought with your $100. That’s 1.2%, which is about what you can earn on a good savings account if you shop around.
Wal-Mart! Easily one of the most vilified names in commerce in the 21st century. Dividend payouts were 49 cents a share for all four quarters, total of $1.96 per share. And with an average share price of $74, you get a “relatively” good return of about $2,649 on your 1,351 shares valued at $100,000- about 2.6%. Still less than the average inflation rate, but the least bad of the lot so far.
It goes on and on like this. The point is that dividends, the portion of corporate revenues paid out to those greedy Wall Street fat cats, are a miniscule drop in the bucket. The real money in stock trading comes from capital gains, but that money has almost nothing at all to do with the company itself. It’s just the difference between buying a share of stock from one person, and then selling it to another person at a later date for a different price. The company itself doesn’t see a nickel of that money, nor is it directly tied to their profitability. Remember all the money being made back during the dot-com boom by buying and selling shares in companies which made absolutely no profit whatsoever, and in many cases had no actual revenue?
Yeah. I know you hate capitals gains, but the reality is that corporate taxation has nothing at all to do with it. And if you want to join the fun, you can do so for the price of a single share of stock. If you’ve got the nerve for it, and the knowledge to make good investments, don’t complain about us, join us!
I’m going to pick a couple of large corporations somewhat at random out of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, across a broad spectrum of industries, and look at their 2015 shareholder dividends as a percentage of stock price, which shows you their real value to investors.
A bit of background, for those not well-versed in the subject matter. Traditionally, corporations pay a dividend four times per year, with each shareholder receiving a certain amount of money for every share held. So if a dividend is $0.50, paid quarterly, then a person who owns 100 shares of stock will receive $200.
Ok, we’ll start with Apple, which has been hugely successful and profitable in recent years. In 2015, Apple paid out $0.47 per share in the first quarter, and increased this to $0.52 in the final three quarters. The average price of Apple stock across 2015 was about $120 per share. So if you invested $100,000 in Apple, netting 833 shares, you’d have earned $1,691 in dividends. That’s an average return of 1.7%, which is less than you’d earn (per year) on a 5 year bank Certificate of Deposit.
Next, let’s look at Visa, which is a company that’s easy to hate. In 2015, Visa paid $0.48 in Q1, $0.12 in Q2 & Q3, and $0.14 in Q4. Total of 86 cents per share. Average share price was about $70, so figure a $1,228 dividend payout on the 1,428 shares you bought with your $100. That’s 1.2%, which is about what you can earn on a good savings account if you shop around.
Wal-Mart! Easily one of the most vilified names in commerce in the 21st century. Dividend payouts were 49 cents a share for all four quarters, total of $1.96 per share. And with an average share price of $74, you get a “relatively” good return of about $2,649 on your 1,351 shares valued at $100,000- about 2.6%. Still less than the average inflation rate, but the least bad of the lot so far.
It goes on and on like this. The point is that dividends, the portion of corporate revenues paid out to those greedy Wall Street fat cats, are a miniscule drop in the bucket. The real money in stock trading comes from capital gains, but that money has almost nothing at all to do with the company itself. It’s just the difference between buying a share of stock from one person, and then selling it to another person at a later date for a different price. The company itself doesn’t see a nickel of that money, nor is it directly tied to their profitability. Remember all the money being made back during the dot-com boom by buying and selling shares in companies which made absolutely no profit whatsoever, and in many cases had no actual revenue?
Yeah. I know you hate capitals gains, but the reality is that corporate taxation has nothing at all to do with it. And if you want to join the fun, you can do so for the price of a single share of stock. If you’ve got the nerve for it, and the knowledge to make good investments, don’t complain about us, join us!
Reply
0
0
04-06-2016, 12:11 AM
#5957
And while this happens mom and pops have a small savings that sits at 0% return, and the government spends more and gives the bills to our children.
Can you imagine? Our kids are being saddled with debt because they can't vote to say NO, and the adults in the room can't seem to say NO to more spending.
Who do you hear talking about cutting the size of government, balancing the budget, removing all the rules and regulations. Instead of pointing fingers and blaming every other group--which has been the norm for 7 years--find out who is willing to KILL the size and spending of Washington. Hint--it ain't Bernie.
Reply
0
0
04-06-2016, 12:17 AM
#5958
And now, Part 2, in which we look at shareholder dividends.
I’m going to pick a couple of large corporations somewhat at random out of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, across a broad spectrum of industries, and look at their 2015 shareholder dividends as a percentage of stock price, which shows you their real value to investors.
A bit of background, for those not well-versed in the subject matter. Traditionally, corporations pay a dividend four times per year, with each shareholder receiving a certain amount of money for every share held. So if a dividend is $0.50, paid quarterly, then a person who owns 100 shares of stock will receive $200.
Ok, we’ll start with Apple, which has been hugely successful and profitable in recent years. In 2015, Apple paid out $0.47 per share in the first quarter, and increased this to $0.52 in the final three quarters. The average price of Apple stock across 2015 was about $120 per share. So if you invested $100,000 in Apple, netting 833 shares, you’d have earned $1,691 in dividends. That’s an average return of 1.7%, which is less than you’d earn (per year) on a 5 year bank Certificate of Deposit.
Next, let’s look at Visa, which is a company that’s easy to hate. In 2015, Visa paid $0.48 in Q1, $0.12 in Q2 & Q3, and $0.14 in Q4. Total of 86 cents per share. Average share price was about $70, so figure a $1,228 dividend payout on the 1,428 shares you bought with your $100. That’s 1.2%, which is about what you can earn on a good savings account if you shop around.
Wal-Mart! Easily one of the most vilified names in commerce in the 21st century. Dividend payouts were 49 cents a share for all four quarters, total of $1.96 per share. And with an average share price of $74, you get a “relatively” good return of about $2,649 on your 1,351 shares valued at $100,000- about 2.6%. Still less than the average inflation rate, but the least bad of the lot so far.
It goes on and on like this. The point is that dividends, the portion of corporate revenues paid out to those greedy Wall Street fat cats, are a miniscule drop in the bucket. The real money in stock trading comes from capital gains, but that money has almost nothing at all to do with the company itself. It’s just the difference between buying a share of stock from one person, and then selling it to another person at a later date for a different price. The company itself doesn’t see a nickel of that money, nor is it directly tied to their profitability. Remember all the money being made back during the dot-com boom by buying and selling shares in companies which made absolutely no profit whatsoever, and in many cases had no actual revenue?
Yeah. I know you hate capitals gains, but the reality is that corporate taxation has nothing at all to do with it. And if you want to join the fun, you can do so for the price of a single share of stock. If you’ve got the nerve for it, and the knowledge to make good investments, don’t complain about us, join us!
I’m going to pick a couple of large corporations somewhat at random out of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, across a broad spectrum of industries, and look at their 2015 shareholder dividends as a percentage of stock price, which shows you their real value to investors.
A bit of background, for those not well-versed in the subject matter. Traditionally, corporations pay a dividend four times per year, with each shareholder receiving a certain amount of money for every share held. So if a dividend is $0.50, paid quarterly, then a person who owns 100 shares of stock will receive $200.
Ok, we’ll start with Apple, which has been hugely successful and profitable in recent years. In 2015, Apple paid out $0.47 per share in the first quarter, and increased this to $0.52 in the final three quarters. The average price of Apple stock across 2015 was about $120 per share. So if you invested $100,000 in Apple, netting 833 shares, you’d have earned $1,691 in dividends. That’s an average return of 1.7%, which is less than you’d earn (per year) on a 5 year bank Certificate of Deposit.
Next, let’s look at Visa, which is a company that’s easy to hate. In 2015, Visa paid $0.48 in Q1, $0.12 in Q2 & Q3, and $0.14 in Q4. Total of 86 cents per share. Average share price was about $70, so figure a $1,228 dividend payout on the 1,428 shares you bought with your $100. That’s 1.2%, which is about what you can earn on a good savings account if you shop around.
Wal-Mart! Easily one of the most vilified names in commerce in the 21st century. Dividend payouts were 49 cents a share for all four quarters, total of $1.96 per share. And with an average share price of $74, you get a “relatively” good return of about $2,649 on your 1,351 shares valued at $100,000- about 2.6%. Still less than the average inflation rate, but the least bad of the lot so far.
It goes on and on like this. The point is that dividends, the portion of corporate revenues paid out to those greedy Wall Street fat cats, are a miniscule drop in the bucket. The real money in stock trading comes from capital gains, but that money has almost nothing at all to do with the company itself. It’s just the difference between buying a share of stock from one person, and then selling it to another person at a later date for a different price. The company itself doesn’t see a nickel of that money, nor is it directly tied to their profitability. Remember all the money being made back during the dot-com boom by buying and selling shares in companies which made absolutely no profit whatsoever, and in many cases had no actual revenue?
Yeah. I know you hate capitals gains, but the reality is that corporate taxation has nothing at all to do with it. And if you want to join the fun, you can do so for the price of a single share of stock. If you’ve got the nerve for it, and the knowledge to make good investments, don’t complain about us, join us!
So if you're adding $42 BILLION to the money supply monthly, for years, that would be the text book definition of inflation. It would mean that the value of the dollar would go down, and yet the stock value in dollars could actually go up! So how much stock market value is just the illusory pumping of FED money into the system?
Reply
0
0
04-06-2016, 12:31 AM
#5959
Umm not at all. This has nothing to do with republicans vs democrats. It has everything to do with loopholes in the tax system that most candidates dont want to eliminate since we have that top 1% in office. Note i said both Hillary and Trump dont want to remove the loopholes.
Reply
0
0
04-06-2016, 12:46 AM
#5960
Umm not at all. This has nothing to do with republicans vs democrats. It has everything to do with loopholes in the tax system that most candidates dont want to eliminate since we have that top 1% in office. Note i said both Hillary and Trump dont want to remove the loopholes.
And Bernie? His loophole just happens to be logic. He uses none. The CBO scored his budget and found that it would double our debt. So do you want a bigger Washington with more loopholes guaranteed, or do you want someone who cuts DOWN the size of Washington power and regulations, and pushes the power back down to the citizens?
Reply
0
0
