How Big IS Our US Corporate Tax Burden

[Bob Campbell]

For those who whine about how high US taxes on business are;

From CNN

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Electric filed more than 7,000 income tax returns in hundreds of global jurisdictions last year, but when push came to shove, the company owed the U.S. government a whopping bill of $0.
How'd it pull off that trick? By losing lots of money.
GE had plenty of earnings last year -- just not in the United States. For tax purposes, the company's U.S. operations lost $408 million, while its international businesses netted a $10.8 billion profit.

Great deal, shift profits offshore, claim local loss, pay no tax. Wish I could do that.

[Tom Taggart]

They get taxed if they try to bring that money back on-shore.

[Bob Campbell]

They get taxed if they try to bring that money back on-shore.

And I'm sure there's no way to avoid that. I can only think of half a dozen off the top of my head.

[Lester]

All they need are tax tips from the 47% of Americans that don't pay any.

[DJSHOCKLEY]

They could always take a cue from Halliburton and take billions for an unnecessary war and then move the offices overseas so they can't find out where the money went..

[Bob Campbell]

All they need are tax tips from the 47% of Americans that don't pay any.

I think they're already part of that group.

[CoolBreeze]

What's the big deal? We all know that corporations don't pay tax anyway. Tax is built-in to the cost of doing business. In other words... YOU pay it when you purchase something.

[Lester]

I think they're already part of that group.

Well, we know they don't get taxed on money they make overseas. (Neither do Americans that work more than 283 days per year on foreign soil.)

However, you said that they find a loophole when the bring the money onshore... so the 47% of Americans that live in America and don't pay taxes appear to have found that loophole you're talking about... so maybe the corporations should ask them.

[DJSHOCKLEY]

I think they're already part of that group.

Well, we know they don't get taxed on money they make overseas. (Neither do Americans that work more than 283 days per year on foreign soil.)

However, you said that they find a loophole when the bring the money onshore... so the 47% of Americans that live in America and don't pay taxes appear to have found that loophole you're talking about... so maybe the corporations should ask them.

Nah.. They already got that memo when they got tax breaks for sending jobs over seas in the first place

[Bob Campbell]

I think they're already part of that group.

Well, we know they don't get taxed on money they make overseas. (Neither do Americans that work more than 283 days per year on foreign soil.)

However, you said that they find a loophole when the bring the money onshore... so the 47% of Americans that live in America and don't pay taxes appear to have found that loophole you're talking about... so maybe the corporations should ask them.

There's two types of people in that 47%, the ones who are too poor to have to pay taxes and the ones who are so rich they can avoid them.

[Lester]

Too poor? Definition please.

[lastone]

I was fired as Manager because the station owner had to pay tax on $2,000 proffit! I had brought the bastard up from being bankrupt to boot !!

The goal is always to 'loose' money on the books.

By the way; How soon will we be switching to the Euro since our nation's credit status has been down rated?

[Bob Campbell]

Too poor? Definition please.

I believe ( I haven't looked it up) the official definition of poverty in the US is a family of 4 making less than 30k. That's close if not exact.
Thus, those making less than that may not have to pay income tax, getting a refund for their entire withholding amount.

Then there are those who make large amounts and can, by various methods, avoid taxes. There have been a few years in my career when I was in that group. That's the best group to be in.

[AmpedNow]

So, we've learned that corporations and the rich will find loopholes in order to keep as much of their money as possible... No surprise here.

Who is to blame? the "greedy" rich? Or a convoluted tax code that allows for all of these loopholes?

How about we abolish the convoluted tax code, and replace it with some sort of personal and corporate flat tax rate that's fair, with virtually no loopholes?

This way, everybody pays something, but nobody is unfairly overburdened.

[Bob Campbell]

So, we've learned that corporations and the rich will find loopholes in order to keep as much of their money as possible... No surprise here.

Who is to blame? the "greedy" rich? Or a convoluted tax code that allows for all of these loopholes?

How about we abolish the convoluted tax code, and replace it with some sort of personal and corporate flat tax rate that's fair, with virtually no loopholes?

This way, everybody pays something, but nobody is unfairly overburdened.

Unfortunately, that's not the way the so-called "Fair Tax" would effect people.
Say the tax it 17%, the rate advocated by most fair tax people.
And say, for the sake of simplicity that I make 100,000 dollars a year and you make 10,000.
After 17%( because we all have to buy the same things, food, clothing, shelter), I have 83,000 dollars left. You have 8,300.

That's why the US has a graduated income tax, because those who make the most can afford to contribute the most. It is neither regressive (like the so-called fair tax) nor detrimental to the rich, as the history of the United States shows.
A better plan would be to close the many loopholes afforded corporations and the wealthy, but they are the ones who contribute the most to political candidates and thus have more sway with elected officials.

And while I'm at it may I toss in my fix for Social Security?
Remove the cap for contributions, currently about 106k. That would fix it immediately.

[AmpedNow]

Unfortunately, that's not the way the so-called "Fair Tax" would effect people.
Say the tax it 17%, the rate advocated by most fair tax people.
And say, for the sake of simplicity that I make 100,000 dollars a year and you make 10,000.
After 17%( because we all have to buy the same things, food, clothing, shelter), I have 83,000 dollars left. You have 8,300.

I think that everyone should pay something into the system, even if it is only a couple of dollars. This way, everyone can rightfully claim to be a "taxpayer".

I can agree that 17% is too high for the guy making $10k, and probably not so much for the guy making $100k. I don't know what the "fair" amount would be... I'm not an accountant. I just think the current system could be simplified and improved.

That's why the US has a graduated income tax, because those who make the most can afford to contribute the most. It is neither regressive (like the so-called fair tax) nor detrimental to the rich, as the history of the United States shows.
A better plan would be to close the many loopholes afforded corporations and the wealthy, but they are the ones who contribute the most to political candidates and thus have more sway with elected officials.

The problem with this is you end up with the "soak the rich" mob mentality that is so prevalent today. The rich get nailed for every bit of new funding Congress can think of. A few percent here and there over time adds up, until there are fewer rich people out there... And so the economic cookie begins to crumble.

Like smokers, the rich are a small minority of the population who are easy targets. And nobody feels sorry for them.

And while I'm at it may I toss in my fix for Social Security?
Remove the cap for contributions, currently about 106k. That would fix it immediately.

A good question is if this was done, yet we lowered the overall tax rates, would the government revenue increase, decrease, or stay about the same?

[Dave Loudin]

A couple of insidious features of the current system:

1) most credits and the ability to apply itemized deductions phase out above a certain income level. Granted that the income level is a pretty comfortable level, but a household with two people later in their professional careers will get no breaks whatsoever.

2) the Alternate Minimum Tax kicks in way before "rich" income levels.

3) the withholding tables were really screwed up last year. We always owe, because there's no point in giving Uncle Sam an interest-free loan, but this year we really owed.

[Lester]

So y'all believe in wealth redistribution? That's what I'm seeing.

17% is 17%. 15% is 15%. 10% is 10%. When you start getting wrapped around the axle about 10% of this guys salary is WAY TOOOO MUCH to take away, but 10% of this other guys salary isn't enough... you're redistributing wealth. Period.

Get a job that pays more, or accept that the job you have chosen doesn't pay enough.

That said, that's why I think income tax should be abolished for a national sales tax. Those who make more money consume more and will therefore pay more in taxes. Buy your mansion, buy your yacht, we'll get more taxes from you. Chose to live reasonably, and you keep more of your money.

[AmpedNow]

My point is that everyone should pay something, but I will leave it up to the accountants to decide how much. Having almost half of the population paying nothing in taxes is unsustainable.

I could go along with a national sales tax if the current system is abolished. It is more "fair" to tax people based on consumption rather than what they earn.

The IRS is by far the most feared and hated arm of government who literally has the power to confiscate everything you've worked for because of a discrepencey or they are a few dollars short. Instead of curbing all of this power they have, this administration wants to expand its power over the American people by enforcing this health care plan.

There are many other options to consider, though many of them would reduce the power of government.

[Jay Nunley]

you're redistributing wealth. Period.

Is it not more like we are pooling our money to buy things we can't afford as individuals? You know, stuff like roads, bridges, tanks, aircraft carriers, health care, feeding, clothing, and housing the poor, and etc. Don't get me wrong. There are a bunch of things we buy as a group that I wish we wouldn't, but that's part of "the cost of doing business." Also, I'm still not sure I understand the idea the government (local, state, federal) is an entity that exists seperately from the citizenry. The government is us. We are the government.