Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Businesses Taxed Too Much? Not Really…
- This topic has 140 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 21, 2011 at 11:26 PM #670539February 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM #669497
EconProf
ParticipantSeldom have I seen such faulty conclusions based on such incomplete information.
Reuters says that 42% of companies paid no taxes in at least two out of seven years, despite trillions of dollars in revenues.
So what?
Corporate income taxes are based on profits, not sales. In years when companies make no profits but still have sales, should they pay a corporate income tax?
Profits vary over the years. Maybe they mak
de big profits in the other five years and paid big taxes. Who knows?
The article, and the politicians quoted, really tell us very little. Both senators are class-warrior types who love to misinform. But here their conclusions are clearly not warranted.
There are many ways our tax laws are wrong, and maybe should come down harder on companies in certain ways. But this article does nothing to help. It inflames, but does not inform.February 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM #669559ParticipantSeldom have I seen such faulty conclusions based on such incomplete information.
Reuters says that 42% of companies paid no taxes in at least two out of seven years, despite trillions of dollars in revenues.
So what?
Corporate income taxes are based on profits, not sales. In years when companies make no profits but still have sales, should they pay a corporate income tax?
Profits vary over the years. Maybe they mak
de big profits in the other five years and paid big taxes. Who knows?
The article, and the politicians quoted, really tell us very little. Both senators are class-warrior types who love to misinform. But here their conclusions are clearly not warranted.
There are many ways our tax laws are wrong, and maybe should come down harder on companies in certain ways. But this article does nothing to help. It inflames, but does not inform.February 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM #670166ParticipantSeldom have I seen such faulty conclusions based on such incomplete information.
Reuters says that 42% of companies paid no taxes in at least two out of seven years, despite trillions of dollars in revenues.
So what?
Corporate income taxes are based on profits, not sales. In years when companies make no profits but still have sales, should they pay a corporate income tax?
Profits vary over the years. Maybe they mak
de big profits in the other five years and paid big taxes. Who knows?
The article, and the politicians quoted, really tell us very little. Both senators are class-warrior types who love to misinform. But here their conclusions are clearly not warranted.
There are many ways our tax laws are wrong, and maybe should come down harder on companies in certain ways. But this article does nothing to help. It inflames, but does not inform.February 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM #670305ParticipantSeldom have I seen such faulty conclusions based on such incomplete information.
Reuters says that 42% of companies paid no taxes in at least two out of seven years, despite trillions of dollars in revenues.
So what?
Corporate income taxes are based on profits, not sales. In years when companies make no profits but still have sales, should they pay a corporate income tax?
Profits vary over the years. Maybe they mak
de big profits in the other five years and paid big taxes. Who knows?
The article, and the politicians quoted, really tell us very little. Both senators are class-warrior types who love to misinform. But here their conclusions are clearly not warranted.
There are many ways our tax laws are wrong, and maybe should come down harder on companies in certain ways. But this article does nothing to help. It inflames, but does not inform.February 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM #670649ParticipantSeldom have I seen such faulty conclusions based on such incomplete information.
Reuters says that 42% of companies paid no taxes in at least two out of seven years, despite trillions of dollars in revenues.
So what?
Corporate income taxes are based on profits, not sales. In years when companies make no profits but still have sales, should they pay a corporate income tax?
Profits vary over the years. Maybe they mak
de big profits in the other five years and paid big taxes. Who knows?
The article, and the politicians quoted, really tell us very little. Both senators are class-warrior types who love to misinform. But here their conclusions are clearly not warranted.
There are many ways our tax laws are wrong, and maybe should come down harder on companies in certain ways. But this article does nothing to help. It inflames, but does not inform.February 22, 2011 at 2:58 PM #669697surveyor
Participant[quote=gandalf]We could argue about tax rates…
But that isn’t the issue.
They don’t pay any tax.
That’s the issue.[/quote]
Hmmm by your logic, we should also go after the 50% of Americans who don’t any income tax either.
February 22, 2011 at 2:58 PM #669759Participant[quote=gandalf]We could argue about tax rates…
But that isn’t the issue.
They don’t pay any tax.
That’s the issue.[/quote]
Hmmm by your logic, we should also go after the 50% of Americans who don’t any income tax either.
February 22, 2011 at 2:58 PM #670366Participant[quote=gandalf]We could argue about tax rates…
But that isn’t the issue.
They don’t pay any tax.
That’s the issue.[/quote]
Hmmm by your logic, we should also go after the 50% of Americans who don’t any income tax either.
February 22, 2011 at 2:58 PM #670506Participant[quote=gandalf]We could argue about tax rates…
But that isn’t the issue.
They don’t pay any tax.
That’s the issue.[/quote]
Hmmm by your logic, we should also go after the 50% of Americans who don’t any income tax either.
February 22, 2011 at 2:58 PM #670849Participant[quote=gandalf]We could argue about tax rates…
But that isn’t the issue.
They don’t pay any tax.
That’s the issue.[/quote]
Hmmm by your logic, we should also go after the 50% of Americans who don’t any income tax either.
February 22, 2011 at 6:24 PM #669737gandalf
ParticipantNo.
Actually, these are household names like GE, Exxon, Goldman Sachs, etc. with enormous net sales in U.S. markets sitting on about $2 Trillion in cash in offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands.
The money is not there because they do business in the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands has no market share of consequence. Why is the money there?
More importantly, how did it get there? The $2T in cash didn’t materialize out of thin air. The money is profit by any measure that was shifted into offshore subsidiaries and reclassified as something other than profit for the purpose of EVADING TAXES.
Who here thinks Cayman Islands tax shelters are okay? Really, I’d like to know.
Surveyor?
EconProf?
I run a business. We are profitable. We pay taxes. We don’t use Cayman Islands tax havens.
Close out the tax loopholes for big corporate multinationals.
Not sure how anybody with even half a brain could argue otherwise.
February 22, 2011 at 6:24 PM #669799ParticipantNo.
Actually, these are household names like GE, Exxon, Goldman Sachs, etc. with enormous net sales in U.S. markets sitting on about $2 Trillion in cash in offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands.
The money is not there because they do business in the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands has no market share of consequence. Why is the money there?
More importantly, how did it get there? The $2T in cash didn’t materialize out of thin air. The money is profit by any measure that was shifted into offshore subsidiaries and reclassified as something other than profit for the purpose of EVADING TAXES.
Who here thinks Cayman Islands tax shelters are okay? Really, I’d like to know.
Surveyor?
EconProf?
I run a business. We are profitable. We pay taxes. We don’t use Cayman Islands tax havens.
Close out the tax loopholes for big corporate multinationals.
Not sure how anybody with even half a brain could argue otherwise.
February 22, 2011 at 6:24 PM #670406ParticipantNo.
Actually, these are household names like GE, Exxon, Goldman Sachs, etc. with enormous net sales in U.S. markets sitting on about $2 Trillion in cash in offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands.
The money is not there because they do business in the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands has no market share of consequence. Why is the money there?
More importantly, how did it get there? The $2T in cash didn’t materialize out of thin air. The money is profit by any measure that was shifted into offshore subsidiaries and reclassified as something other than profit for the purpose of EVADING TAXES.
Who here thinks Cayman Islands tax shelters are okay? Really, I’d like to know.
Surveyor?
EconProf?
I run a business. We are profitable. We pay taxes. We don’t use Cayman Islands tax havens.
Close out the tax loopholes for big corporate multinationals.
Not sure how anybody with even half a brain could argue otherwise.
February 22, 2011 at 6:24 PM #670546ParticipantNo.
Actually, these are household names like GE, Exxon, Goldman Sachs, etc. with enormous net sales in U.S. markets sitting on about $2 Trillion in cash in offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands.
The money is not there because they do business in the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands has no market share of consequence. Why is the money there?
More importantly, how did it get there? The $2T in cash didn’t materialize out of thin air. The money is profit by any measure that was shifted into offshore subsidiaries and reclassified as something other than profit for the purpose of EVADING TAXES.
Who here thinks Cayman Islands tax shelters are okay? Really, I’d like to know.
Surveyor?
EconProf?
I run a business. We are profitable. We pay taxes. We don’t use Cayman Islands tax havens.
Close out the tax loopholes for big corporate multinationals.
Not sure how anybody with even half a brain could argue otherwise.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.