US Companies Only Pay 1/3 Corporate Tax Rate

countingbeans · November 4, 2013, 2:58pm

[quote]H factor wrote:
and it’s also got some people who are making over 200,000 but zeroing income tax bills.

[/quote]

Just lol. Out of the number of people filing returns this is the vast, vast minority.

Not to mention this can’t happen without money being spent in other ways, most of whom are much better for society and the economy than giving that money to the government.

I literally can’t explain in the itme I have right now how hard it is to “zero out” a “tax bill”. Jesus, even the language used by these reporters show just how little they understand the tax code. I wish they linked the actual “information from the IRS” they speak about, lol.

countingbeans · November 4, 2013, 3:00pm

My bad, in a link within the original story they do link the IRS info. 56 pages. I don’t have time to read it right now. .

H_factor · November 4, 2013, 3:03pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
My bad, in a link within the original story they do link the IRS info. 56 pages. I don’t have time to read it right now. . [/quote]

My point with linking it wasn’t to complain as much as to point out how stupid all the 47%, 43% type of talk is. That’s a nice little talking point and everything, but when you start factoring in some kids, soldiers, 90 year olds, etc. that aren’t paying income tax the number looks a lot different. Romney wasn’t about to say we need 90 year olds to pay income tax, but 47% was a nice dog whistle to the base about the vast amount of “takers” in the economy.

And don’t get me wrong we have WAY too many of those, but get the number correct, these are just scare tactics to make it seem as if the vast majority of people don’t pay.

countingbeans · November 4, 2013, 3:08pm

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
My bad, in a link within the original story they do link the IRS info. 56 pages. I don’t have time to read it right now. . [/quote]

My point with linking it wasn’t to complain as much as to point out how stupid all the 47%, 43% type of talk is. That’s a nice little talking point and everything, but when you start factoring in some kids, soldiers, 90 year olds, etc. that aren’t paying income tax the number looks a lot different. Romney wasn’t about to say we need 90 year olds to pay income tax, but 47% was a nice dog whistle to the base about the vast amount of “takers” in the economy.

And don’t get me wrong we have WAY too many of those, but get the number correct, these are just scare tactics to make it seem as if the vast majority of people don’t pay. [/quote]

We are on the same page here. I’m one of the few conservative minded people you will meet that is a proponent of the progressive tax system, and even our current IRC.

I just laugh at articles that the NBC one, because they often times are just stirring the “class warfare” pot. You know, basically doing for the lefty base what the 47% comments do for the righty base.

Aragorn · November 4, 2013, 5:15pm

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
My bad, in a link within the original story they do link the IRS info. 56 pages. I don’t have time to read it right now. . [/quote]

My point with linking it wasn’t to complain as much as to point out how stupid all the 47%, 43% type of talk is. That’s a nice little talking point and everything, but when you start factoring in some kids, soldiers, 90 year olds, etc. that aren’t paying income tax the number looks a lot different. Romney wasn’t about to say we need 90 year olds to pay income tax, but 47% was a nice dog whistle to the base about the vast amount of “takers” in the economy.

And don’t get me wrong we have WAY too many of those, but get the number correct, these are just scare tactics to make it seem as if the vast majority of people don’t pay. [/quote]

I agree with both your general sentiments here but it is next to impossible to make a concise argument with very specific figures in a newspaper or 3 minute time slot. You’d spend 4/5 of the time just setting up the data.

I don’t like incorrect stats but at some point general rounded stats have got to come into play, and I believe that when you’re trying to get across general ideas in a limited time span this is the time to allow that. Unfortunately that does leave a lot of room for improper manipulation or scare tactics, but nobody ever made a sound convincing argument to a lay audience with tons of qualifications because the central points get lost among the qualifiers to be very precise.

system · November 4, 2013, 5:29pm

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Multi-billion dollar corporations pay less taxes on their profits than a typical middle class families in taxes. Surprise!

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10393[/quote]

Who owns the companies? Do they pay tax at the next level?

You know, because no one has a 401K with a bunch of stock in it. No one.

/s

Maiden3_16 · November 4, 2013, 5:36pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Multi-billion dollar corporations pay less taxes on their profits than a typical middle class families in taxes. Surprise!

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10393[/quote]

Corporate profits are taxed at two levels, the company level and the shareholder level.

So, for example, Exxon earns $100. It’s taxed 35%, leaving $65. Then the shareholder is taxed at $39.5%, leaving $39.33.

In short, for every $100 in profits Exxon distributes, the Obama Regime takes $60.68, for a total tax rate of 60.61%.[/quote]
Here is another theoretical falsehood. 35% is the nominal tax rate, not the effective rate. A big difference![/quote]

So, what is a “fair” rate?[/quote]
Not the point. The poster tried to pretend that corporations pay 35% and they do not. Fed tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a much better rate than today. So you tell me…[/quote]

I wasn’t addressing your point. You brought up what wasn’t fair, I was asking you a direct question. What is? What is fair to take from a company? At what minimum rate is it unfair to allow a company to keep from its’ earnings?[/quote]
Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

So, your stance it that it is unfair for a corporation to be allowed to keep more than 10% of the wealth it creates?[/quote]
Is it your stance that multi-billion dollar corporations should be able to pay less taxes than their average worker?

The tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy did better than today. Just pointing that out.[/quote]

Do I need to re-ask the question? If you think you have the right to take the vast majority of their earnings by threat of violence and at the end of a gun, then just state it. The sniveling dodging and hiding doesn’t become you.

I think that what is right or wrong is not defined by the relative status of others. If your definition of fair requires you to compare one thing or person to another, then you approach the concept like a child. “but Timmy down the street gets to stay up until 10, it’s not fair that I have to go to bed at 9.”

And because I believe in non-violence, I think all taxation is unfair.[/quote]

No one is asking some one to do anything violent , by the CJS own words if people want services then they have to pay for them . If they wish not to live in a society that offers services , by all means leave America and find a nice little country that has no infrastructure or services , I guarantee lower tax rates
[/quote]

I hope you feel the same about illegal immigrants that pay 0 taxes.

H_factor · November 4, 2013, 8:52pm

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
My bad, in a link within the original story they do link the IRS info. 56 pages. I don’t have time to read it right now. . [/quote]

My point with linking it wasn’t to complain as much as to point out how stupid all the 47%, 43% type of talk is. That’s a nice little talking point and everything, but when you start factoring in some kids, soldiers, 90 year olds, etc. that aren’t paying income tax the number looks a lot different. Romney wasn’t about to say we need 90 year olds to pay income tax, but 47% was a nice dog whistle to the base about the vast amount of “takers” in the economy.

And don’t get me wrong we have WAY too many of those, but get the number correct, these are just scare tactics to make it seem as if the vast majority of people don’t pay. [/quote]

I agree with both your general sentiments here but it is next to impossible to make a concise argument with very specific figures in a newspaper or 3 minute time slot. You’d spend 4/5 of the time just setting up the data.

I don’t like incorrect stats but at some point general rounded stats have got to come into play, and I believe that when you’re trying to get across general ideas in a limited time span this is the time to allow that. Unfortunately that does leave a lot of room for improper manipulation or scare tactics, but nobody ever made a sound convincing argument to a lay audience with tons of qualifications because the central points get lost among the qualifiers to be very precise.
[/quote]

The issue is both sides use misleading statistics to elicit responses from the people who lap up talking points left and right. It’s not that I need everything to be accurate to the nth degree, but it’s highly disingenuous to use statistics in a manner that deliberately paints opposition as poorly as possible. You can argue Obama is a big spender or a small spender based on how you want to setup the data. If you throw in a bunch of elderly people, soldiers, and children you can get to 47% don’t pay income taxes. Both big parties use statistics in a highly misleading manner so the base can get to mouth frothing over the other side. Both sides have their little lemmings constantly searching for the statistics that prove the other side is the root of all evil. Screw em both.

tedro · November 5, 2013, 3:10pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Multi-billion dollar corporations pay less taxes on their profits than a typical middle class families in taxes. Surprise!

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10393[/quote]

Double taxation, pay on corporate income and then on capital gains and/or dividends tax. Goes way higher than middle class families. My capital gains

Corporate is around 15-35% and then capital gains is around 10-39.6%. [/quote]

I know what your intentions are here, but for all the reasons H Factor listed you have to be careful when you just discuss marginal rates.

I pay 0% on most of my capital gains, and I’m not talking about gains in retirements accounts. My effective rate on all my income will be around 4% for last year and this year. The point is always about statutory rates and how they affect personal and corporate financial decisions.

When you just throw around the high marginal and statutory rates and even the double taxation you miss this point. Our tax code is so mind-blowingly complex that it hinders business. Nobody is paying 35% on all of their profit, but they may have to pay 35% on each additional dollar of profit. Apple alone has over $100 billion dollars overseas that they will not spend in the US because it would all be taxed at that 35% rate. My employer has about $1 billion and won’t move it for the same reason.

Close the loopholes, lower and flatten the rates, and we won’t need the Fed injecting money into the US economy; we’ll have every US company with overseas operations doing it for us. But of course, that wouldn’t be “fair”.

pittbulll · November 5, 2013, 6:38pm

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote: