• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Democrats & Taxes

Mike

Well-known member
Democrats think we should pay more taxes.

I say they can send in all they want. Nobody is stopping them.

Go ahead libs, help balance this budget......................
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oh Come on you know Democrats want REPUBLICANS to pay more as if THEY wanted to pay more, Obama would not have had such a hard time finding tax PAYING Dems to serve in his Administration. :wink:

I just loved the story of Dem. Sen. Kerry wanting to increase taxes and wants everyone to buy American, when he was docking his foreign made yacht in a different state to avoid paying his own states higher tax rate.

Do As I Say Not As I Do :wink:
 

TSR

Well-known member
Can someone help/clarify what I just got through reading after I googled-Exxon Quarterly Taxes? This was from Forbes magazine (is this publication liberal or conservative in nature ?) 2 of 3 Corporations paid no taxes to the IRS in 2009 including Exxon Mobil and General Electric. :???:
 

Steve

Well-known member
I guess it depends on if it is a opinion piece that only looks at part of the picture or one that looks a bit deeper?

Mind you, not all global megacorps enjoy such low tax rates. Try to muster some pity for Big Oil. ExxonMobil ( XOM - news - people ) in its 2009 annual report to the SEC, recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year, some $17.6 billion, or 47% of pretax earnings.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_2.html

Exxon has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S.

Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a "substantial 2009 tax liability." How substantial? "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we."

as for GE
The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.

seems it's commercial finance division GE capital had a few bad years.. and it parks most of it's profitable divisions overseas..
 

TSR

Well-known member
I think your last two quotes say more than the first quote to the average taxpayer. The reason I even googled this was because the other day when the politicians on C-Span were arguing over tax reform, a democrat from somewhere said that Exxon/mobile contributed no taxes in 2010 to the treasury. I was surprised when no republicans offered a rebuttal.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Corporations shouldn't have to pay income taxes anyway.

The owners/stockholders already pay.

Corporate Income Tax is double taxing.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
Corporations shouldn't have to pay income taxes anyway.

The owners/stockholders already pay.

Corporate Income Tax is double taxing.

So then people who aren't invested in corporations (like most are not) should not complain about paying taxes? Now don;t post the tax rate of corporations because we have already determined they don't pay too much regardless of the rate. :shock:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Let's say four of us neighbors pool our money and buy some cows. Well things go good and we make 3000 dollars. So then the partnership pays taxes on the three grand. Let's say that leaves us two thousand total. Split four ways is 500 bucks left for each person. Now each one of us pays taxes on the 500 and we are left with 350 bucks.

Would our profits be double taxed?
 

Steve

Well-known member
TSR said:
I think your last two quotes say more than the first quote to the average taxpayer. The reason I even googled this was because the other day when the politicians on C-Span were arguing over tax reform, a democrat from somewhere said that Exxon/mobile contributed no taxes in 2010 to the treasury. I was surprised when no republicans offered a rebuttal.

the Democrat was wrong according to Forbes, the SEC and the IRS..
 

TSR

Well-known member
Steve said:
TSR said:
I think your last two quotes say more than the first quote to the average taxpayer. The reason I even googled this was because the other day when the politicians on C-Span were arguing over tax reform, a democrat from somewhere said that Exxon/mobile contributed no taxes in 2010 to the treasury. I was surprised when no republicans offered a rebuttal.

the Democrat was wrong according to Forbes, the SEC and the IRS..

So the republicans were illiterate with respect to corporate taxes? It would have been a great time to belittle democrats and their knowledge of taxes. :???: Doesn't say much for the republicans as debaters on national tv.
 

Tam

Well-known member
TSR said:
Can someone help/clarify what I just got through reading after I googled-Exxon Quarterly Taxes? This was from Forbes magazine (is this publication liberal or conservative in nature ?) 2 of 3 Corporations paid no taxes to the IRS in 2009 including Exxon Mobil and General Electric. :???:

Do you mean the General Electic that is run by Jeffery Immelt who is the same Jeffery Immelt that is sitting in the top chair at the White House Job creation board. Advising Obama on how to get the US back on track by creating jobs. The same Jeffery Immelt that outsourced 20,000 GE jobs to overseas. Maybe Obama's buddy could do his part to help by bringing a few GE jobs back to the US and paying a few taxes. :wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
“Corporatio­ns shouldn't pay income taxes because it is simply another tax on individual­s. Depending on the elasticity of demand, the taxes are passed on to consumers (individua­ls). Also, individual­s own the corporatio­n and are therefore double taxed. That is, they pay their portion of the corporate income tax (depending on how many shares they own) and they pay taxes on the dividends the company provides.

For example, if a person owns stock in a company and that stock amounts to $100 of the profit of the company, they would pay $34 in corporate income tax (alternati­ve minimum tax). They would also pay personal income tax on the remaining $66 or about $20. Therefore, they are paying $54 on the $100 of corporate income or 54%.

What's worse is that the main shareholde­rs in the country are pension funds. Therefore regular people (people who get pensions), not "rich" people are paying corporate income taxes.”
 

Steve

Well-known member
TSR said:
Steve said:
TSR said:
I think your last two quotes say more than the first quote to the average taxpayer. The reason I even googled this was because the other day when the politicians on C-Span were arguing over tax reform, a democrat from somewhere said that Exxon/mobile contributed no taxes in 2010 to the treasury. I was surprised when no republicans offered a rebuttal.

the Democrat was wrong according to Forbes, the SEC and the IRS..

So the republicans were illiterate with respect to corporate taxes? It would have been a great time to belittle democrats and their knowledge of taxes. :???: Doesn't say much for the republicans as debaters on national tv.

Maybe they realized it was such a ludicrous claim, and thought no one would be stupid enough to actually believe that the corporation that "recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year" didn't pay any taxes..



is that a belittling enough comment?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Steve said:
TSR said:
Steve said:
the Democrat was wrong according to Forbes, the SEC and the IRS..

So the republicans were illiterate with respect to corporate taxes? It would have been a great time to belittle democrats and their knowledge of taxes. :???: Doesn't say much for the republicans as debaters on national tv.

Maybe they realized it was such a ludicrous claim, and thought no one would be stupid enough to actually believe that the corporation that "recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year" didn't pay any taxes..



is that a belittling enough comment?

And of course, on the other side of the coin I guess its entirely possible the Republicans either had no defense or just weren't as knowledgeable as they should have been about the situation.

Aside from all that, lets get down to kindergarten level for everyone reading these posts by answering this question-How much federal income taxes did Exxon Mobil pay to the treasury in 2010 Not as a percentage but a $ amount. I have no idea myself but I do believe a congressman on national tv regardless of party, would have done a little research before making such a statement,especially knowing who he was facing on the other side.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Was there a set agenda so that ANY issue that was brought up was known about PRIOR to any statements??
If not I can see not doing any research, wopuld be impossible to know about evey little claim someone brought up>
Can you honestly say that you would research everything if faced with being asked questions so you could have an answer.
For instance if I asked your opinion about some bull you would have the knowledge to answer????
Or what was the lifetime batting average of a ball player.
Or even what was your wifes grades like in high school?????
Or even your grade average in biology in high school your freshman yr??
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
TSR said:
Steve said:
TSR said:
So the republicans were illiterate with respect to corporate taxes? It would have been a great time to belittle democrats and their knowledge of taxes. :???: Doesn't say much for the republicans as debaters on national tv.

Maybe they realized it was such a ludicrous claim, and thought no one would be stupid enough to actually believe that the corporation that "recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year" didn't pay any taxes..



is that a belittling enough comment?

And of course, on the other side of the coin I guess its entirely possible the Republicans either had no defense or just weren't as knowledgeable as they should have been about the situation.

Aside from all that, lets get down to kindergarten level for everyone reading these posts by answering this question-How much federal income taxes did Exxon Mobil pay to the treasury in 2010 Not as a percentage but a $ amount. I have no idea myself but I do believe a congressman on national tv regardless of party, would have done a little research before making such a statement,especially knowing who he was facing on the other side.


supposedly Exxon did not pay any Federal Income Tax in the US. They did in other Countries to the tune of $17 B.

Corporations set up their profits in lower taxed countries and their expenses in the higher taxed countries.

Oil companies are somewhat limited in where they set up, the oil dictates where they operate.

Drilling in the US might help to increase inc. taxes paid in the US, as would lowering the rate on those profits.

I'd rather get 2% of $1 billion, compared to 35% of $0
 

Steve

Well-known member
you both (TSR and hypo) are looking at an article/blog that was written using the company’s annual 10-k filing with the SEC. a blog written with the intent to make it look as if they failed to pay taxes based on past 10K filings, and would owe nothing this year..

the source for all these rampant articles is a blog? is that what journalism has came down to? (a retracted blog at that)

ExxonMobil reports in its annual consolidated financial statements is just accounting, that the numbers reflect expenses or credits recorded throughout the year and “do not represent our tax bill,” which has not yet been filed,

My mistake was in thinking that these figures somehow reflected actual tax benefits and liabilities. So what we should have written was that ExxonMobil “recorded” no U.S. income taxes for 2009 instead of “paid.”

And for all you commenters outraged that Exxon isn’t paying taxes in the U.S., don’t worry, it is. Our article only focused on income taxes, but it’s worth noting that the 10-k also records $7.7 billion in other taxes in the U.S.
http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes/

even the author of the piece had to "retract" some of his statements..

you could get it from the horses mouth... so to speak..

ExxonMobil is a leading U.S. taxpayer
December 14, 2010

Claims that ExxonMobil did not pay taxes in 2009 are just plain incorrect. The myth started with a misreading of our 2009 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and it’s now being perpetuated for all kinds of reasons.

So, let me set the record straight.

ExxonMobil is one of the country’s largest taxpayers, having incurred a total U.S. tax expense of $60 billion over the past five years – a tax cost that exceeded our U.S. earnings in that same period by $19 billion. Simply stated, for every dollar of net earnings in the U.S. between 2005 and 2009, we paid almost $1.50 in taxes to federal, state and local governments.

Furthermore, one only has to look at ExxonMobil’s previous tax bills to realize that any claim we don’t pay taxes is absurd

as the 2010 data has not yet been released it would only be speculation at how much in US taxes they paid.. speculation says. 19.6 billion if the past write downs are calculated in..

with all that said.. maybe the republicans in the room were smart not to comment before researching the FACTS.
 

Mike

Well-known member
February 09, 2007
When You Tax Profits, You Tax People
By Lawrence Kudlow

ExxonMobil just reported the largest annual profit ever by a U.S. company -- a staggering $39.5 billion.

I say congratulations, although Hillary Clinton begs to differ.

At the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee, the senator from New York said, "The oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them in an alternative energy fund."

Take? Isn't that a confiscation of private property? Author P.J. O'Rourke framed it perfectly on a recent edition of CNBC's "Kudlow & Co.": She's "Hugo Chavez in a pants suit."

And what exactly would Mrs. Clinton be taking? ExxonMobil's profits are outsized, but they come on sales of $377.5 billion, making for a profit margin of just over 10 cents on the dollar. This remains well below the profit margins of many industries, including banking and biotech, where the margins nearly double those in the energy sector. The numbers are big, but the returns are middling.

And since sales and profits in the energy sector depend on the world price of oil, it's feast or famine for these businesses. In the last decade, oil prices have fluctuated from about $10 a barrel to nearly $80. Talk about volatile pricing.

Indeed, the energy business isn't easy. Still, ExxonMobil remains one of the best-run companies in America. Many professional investors believe it's the best-run company. In his recent book, "The Future for Investors," Jeremy Siegel of the University of Pennsylvania reveals that Exxon has been one of the top three stocks in terms of return on investment over the past 50-odd years. John D. Rockefeller Sr., looking down from on high, must be pleased.

But it's also a tax-burdened company. While ExxonMobil recorded record profits last year, it also paid $100.7 billion in taxes -- two-and-half times its net profits, according to the Tax Foundation. In fact, over the past 25 years, federal and state governments took $397 billion from the largest oil companies and an additional $1.1 trillion in taxes at the pump. In today's dollars, that's $2.2 trillion.

This isn't an isolated problem. The prevailing 35 percent corporate tax rate takes a monster bite from all U.S. businesses. Moreover, our business taxes are far too high in relation to the rest of the world. Believe it or not, the corporate tax rate is lower in France than it is in the United States.

Along with slow-growing Japan, the United States has the highest marginal tax rate on corporate profits of any of the developed countries. Think of this: Germany is cutting its corporate tax rate to 15 percent from 25 percent. And if frontrunner Nicolas Sarkozy wins the French presidential election this spring, he plans to slash France's corporate tax burden. Meanwhile, we'll still be taking our best companies behind the barn and shooting them.

The bottom line here is that our economic system is all about free-market capitalism, and at the core of that system is profit. Profit isn't a dirty word. From profits spring the abundance of this great country. Profits are the mother's milk of stocks and the economy. Expanding profits provide businesses the resources to enlarge production operations and hire additional workers. This, in turn, is how incomes are created -- wages that are then spent by American families.

Why can't liberals grasp this?

When the government meddles in the market and taxes companies more -- when it sticks its nose where it doesn't belong -- it ends up hurting not just businesses, but all individuals. Taxing profits more means taxing families more. Taxing profits more leads to smaller wage gains for middle-income workers. When you tax American companies more, the American workforce is paid less. And when you tax American energy companies more, they produce less energy. That means higher prices for gas at the pump and heating fuel at home. This may enrich Uncle Sam, but it comes at the expense of ordinary folks.

Washington economist Kevin Hassett has shown that the U.S. workforce bears a full 70 percent of the cost of corporate taxes. So, if folks are indeed worried about wage inequality, they should be lobbying their congressional representatives to cut corporate taxes in order to increase worker wages.

The truth is, when you tax profits more you undermine the American work ethic and the incentive structure that goes along with it. In fact, you demoralize the very system that has made this country great. It's the people who ultimately pay the corporate profits tax -- and that includes shareholders, pensioners and other retirees. Business taxes should be headed down, not up.

Punish ExxonMobil for turning a healthy profit? Take those profits? Do that, and you punish the American worker and the entire economy, too.

Lawrence Kudlow is a former Reagan economic advisor, a syndicated columnist, and the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company. Visit his blog, Kudlow's Money Politics.
 

TSR

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
TSR said:
Steve said:
Maybe they realized it was such a ludicrous claim, and thought no one would be stupid enough to actually believe that the corporation that "recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year" didn't pay any taxes..



is that a belittling enough comment?

And of course, on the other side of the coin I guess its entirely possible the Republicans either had no defense or just weren't as knowledgeable as they should have been about the situation.

Aside from all that, lets get down to kindergarten level for everyone reading these posts by answering this question-How much federal income taxes did Exxon Mobil pay to the treasury in 2010 Not as a percentage but a $ amount. I have no idea myself but I do believe a congressman on national tv regardless of party, would have done a little research before making such a statement,especially knowing who he was facing on the other side.


supposedly Exxon did not pay any Federal Income Tax in the US. They did in other Countries to the tune of $17 B.

Corporations set up their profits in lower taxed countries and their expenses in the higher taxed countries.

Oil companies are somewhat limited in where they set up, the oil dictates where they operate.

Drilling in the US might help to increase inc. taxes paid in the US, as would lowering the rate on those profits.

I'd rather get 2% of $1 billion, compared to 35% of $0

Hypo, although you and I disagree a lot, Ibelieve you to be an honest person. Would you post where you obtained your information please?
 
Top