by
Larry M.
Member since:
August 25, 2007
Please check out the following link.
http://www.nationofchange.org/america-s-10-largest-corporations-paid-9-percent-average-tax-rate-last-year-1344433945
It provides data on the top ten corporations and their effective corporate tax rate as opposed to the statutory tax rate. In other words this reflects what they actually pay as opposed to the tax rate in the law. Big money has its ways.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the
Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 69
I have to say, each of those companies also has significant overseas operations and at least some of those are entities wholly-owned in the countries in which they operate so none of that money is included in the reported tax numbers. It would be interesting to see what the national debt would look like if the actual posted tax rate were paid. I'd support dropping it some if the companies actually paid it.
I don't think that would be enough. :-)
Why would the major corporations allow the government to tax them?
Do you believe the companies should comply with the laws?
I believe that the companies should not dominate the making of the tax laws. I believe that such tax laws as currently exist with respect to those companies should be obeyed. I do not think that it is practical to expect (in the prediction sense) that those companies can be appropriately taxed. They are too powerful.
I would offer that it is the polticians that write the laws and it is their wisdom and ethics which should be the focus of attention for there are many who can stand against the temptations.
The problem we, the voters, have not made the effort to tell our representatives what we feel is important and then stick to supporting those charateristics rather then the images we gravitaate to.
Whenever I vote more times than not it is for the less tempted one, ones that are more open about it being their vote than say party loyalty.
As for what is appropriate in taxing, I am not sure, but until we have control on spending there will never be enough taxes, there will be tax loopholes to be used by the politicians to came that jobs and money are coming to their voters. Rather that the big companies that are corrupting our system it is the polticians themselves in their panding to their voters and ignoring what is best in the long-term for the sustainaibility of our country.
That's the point, which is missed or ignored, when corporatists claim such things as "they were complying with the tax laws."
See what I mean?
Wrong. I write my representatives all the time. The problem is that they don't represent me. They represent corporate interests.
The politicians who get elected are exposed to huge temptations. They are also threatened with opponents who will be very well funded. That combination of "carrot and stick" corrupts more than enough to give the corporations the influence they need.
Trying to improve politics by improving the quality of the voters is a hopeless cause. It's just not going to happen.
You can no more control government spending than you can control government taxing. The big money interests control both. (See the history of government deficits in all nations and the various devices used to spend more and tax the powerful less.)
"The politicians who get elected are exposed to huge temptations. They are also threatened with opponents who will be very well funded." So you don;t feel they should be able to resist temptation and we shouldn't hold them accountable?
"You can no more control government spending than you can control government taxing." then you have no hope and we should give up accepting our the fate of Greece?
Until we the voters are willing to start establishing an accountablity of our elected officials and having each law/program have an establish purpose, perfromance metrics, and performance expectations included in each law spending control is much more difficult. But if we don;t try then why should we expect things to change?
"See what I mean?" so you feel all politicians should get a pass on the actions they take. Like Larry, he doesn't expect anyone to resist tmeptation.
"I write my representatives all the time." Individual it is hard to change, but coming together as a group can change things. Whether you like the 'Tea Party' or not at least they are trying to change the politics in Washington. We will have to wait an see the sustainability of their efforts.
Sure I do. I don't vote for them. So what? They get re-elected anyhow.
...coming together as a group can change things. Whether you like the 'Tea Party' or not at least they are trying to change the politics in Washington.
Sure they are. That's why they are puppets for the Koch brothers.
You asked:
"So you don;t feel they should be able to resist temptation and we shouldn't hold them accountable?" with regard public officials.
They are human beings. Sometime we can resist temptation / pressures and sometimes we can't. We can hold them accountable and we do but what good does that do? The proportion who are detected, convicted, and punished is very small. Those actions don't solve the problem. It may make us feel good to be filled with moral superiority and indignation but that doesn't end the supply of corrupt officials.
We have a choice. We can continue to blame and let it go at that or we can try to understand its root causes and change so as to eliminate or greatly reduce the problem. Blame is for our own emotional pleasure. It feels good. We don't have to share the guilt that way. We can also spend our rage toward someone weak who cannot strike back at us. Scapegoating has always been popular. But the problem continues unabated. We eliminate one organized crime figure and he's immediately replaced by another. We vote out one corrupt public official and elect another who is soon corrupted. We haven't changed the basic situation and circumstances which produce the corruption.
Your diagnosis of the Greek problem stops with blame. Don't describe its symptoms. Tell me the causes.
You wrote:
"Until we the voters are willing to start establishing an accountability of our elected officials..."
Just how do we "establish an accountability"? What is the mechanism? The words sound nice but I don't know how to bring it about (without using my solution). If that requires improving the quality of the voters I think the task impossible. What do we need to change?
"So what? They get re-elected anyhow." THat is the same rationale those who succome to the temptation, 'so what, everyone else is doing it.' I simply keep persist and point out thing they can do. And watch for others making a similar effort to me.
In my small town in west Michigan it doesn't seem the Koch brothers are that involved, though the Tea Party here is not that active on local issues.
I simply keep persist and point out thing they can do. And watch for others making a similar effort to me.
Highly unlikely. The tea party is nothing but a Koch brothers subsidiary. No thanks!
it doesn't seem the Koch brothers are that involved
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/26/us-usa-wisconsin-koch-idUSTRE71P28W20110226
"It may make us feel good to be filled with moral superiority and indignation but that doesn't end the supply of corrupt officials." It has nothing to do with 'moral superiority' it is about letting people know what is acceptable and what they are held accountable. If you simply accept that people are 'human' and will succumb to temptation is acceptable so you are condoning any and all their actions.
We taught our children that there were certain practices such as stealing (accepting bribery is stealing) are wrong and you must work at being trusted for once it is loss you may never rebuild it. If children can be held accountable why can't adults being accountable? You approach suggest everyone succumbs to temptation so we are all bad and no one should be held accountable. I would offer that the overwhelming portion of oour population doesn' cheat or steal and I wouldn't be surprised if they have all had the temptation. I would also say simply because people succumb to a temptation doesn't mean they are succumbing to temptatons that break the public trust. I would offer that a member of the legal system should not succumb to any temptations of breaking public trust and should have more severe consequences it they break it. A crook cop or judge should have twice the jail time as a common criminal.
To establish an accountablity of public official, you start by identifying what is important (what five or ten things do you think are most important for elected official to do), then you establish a rating system of how they are doing (1-5) and describe it so anyone and everyone can verify the rating. Once you have established this index then you create website and post it.
The means and mehtods are simple and stright forward the willingness to make the effort is what is lacking.
It has nothing to do with changing the voters, it is about giving them more infornmation that is easy access and clear and straight forward. Make it such that they can use it without help.
As for Greece then best I can tell is that they were more interested is not sacrificing for what they wanted so the government borrowed money to provide what the population wanted, they spent more then they had. It finally reached a level of borrowing that the lenders would no longer support.
"We can continue to blame and let it go at that or we can try to understand its root causes and change so as to eliminate or greatly reduce the problem." I don't look for blame, I only judge actions. Accepting bribes, breaking the law are actions that should be judged. We should be public and consistent what we expect.
Rather than talkning about blame is to consider how and why it happens
"Why ignore half of what I wrote?" I include a sufficient part of the quote so who I am commenting to will be able to check back to see what my comment is about.
Are you saying the Koch brothers started up the Tea Party? Or that they got on board because they like the direction the Tea Party was taking? Or that the Koch brothers are controlling even the local Tea Party group?
I mentioned the Tea Party because you didn't see how everyday citizens can have an impact, it seems that at least in 2010 that it changed some office holders and could so it in this election.
Yuo may not like what the Tea Party wants changed, but they are trying to change what they see happening. I am suprised you overlook 'Occupy Wallstreet'.
You wrote:
"it is about letting people know what is acceptable and what they are held accountable. If you simply accept that people are 'human' and will succumb to temptation is acceptable so you are condoning any and all their actions."
They already know that what they are doing is unacceptable. If we could "get the goods" on they we would hold them accountable. (We do nail one from time to time.) But that doesn't seem to prevent the rest from continuing to be corrupt.
You are mistaken about my condoning corruption. I predict it. I expect it. I know it has been a part of politics for all of recorded history. But I do not condone it nor accept it. Why do you think I have gone to so much trouble (18 months writing a book, for example) and suffered so much abuse from people who refused to learn about my ideas before condemning them? The idea is to stop such things forever.
My approach states that many people will succumb to money temptations. It does not say or suggest that everyone succumbs to every temptation. For my argument to be valid that big money interests will always control government it is not necessary that every politician be corrupted, only a substantial minority.
Most people steal, cheat on their taxes, and do other illegal / immoral things with respect to money. That's what the studies show. That's human nature. Not everyone yields every opportunity but almost everyone yields at one time or another under the just right circumstances.
Also, when it is to our economic profit for something to be true, human beings are very good at rationalizing a belief in that something. Thus, a politician who's financial supporters ask for legislative favors, it's really easy for that politician to convince himself that it's really best for the nation to grant those favors.
I emotionally agree that "a member of the legal system should not succumb to any temptations of breaking public trust and should have more severe consequences it they break it. A crook cop or judge should have twice the jail time as a common criminal."
----------
I like your rating system for public officials. Let's do that.
How do we get the information about those officials? They try to hide such information.
You wrote:
" they were more interested is not sacrificing for what they wanted so the government borrowed money to provide what the population wanted, they spent more then they had."
This matches my analysis. It is also the same thing than many other nations have done. (See the last 30 years in the U.S.)
I contend that the corruption is the symptom of the root cause (the nature of our money) and that because those same symptoms have been obvious in every nation in history that there is probably no solution other than changing the nature of our money.
No - you included only enough so that you could change my meaning. Then you responded to a meaning I never intended. That's why I repeated my entire quote.
Are you saying the Koch brothers....
Actually, I think the Koch brothers co-opted the tea party. Your support for the tea party changes nothing. It just give political control to one set of corporations as opposed to another set. That's all.
I am suprised you overlook 'Occupy Wallstreet'.
I don't think much about occupy wall st. Why should I?
"They already know that what they are doing is unacceptable." No they don;t, just because it is said does mean anything if there isn't some actual consequences. Look Congressman Rangl, he wrote the tax laws, claimed ignorance when he was caught violating them and he is still a power force in Congress. What was his consequences? Look at all the campaign promises President Obama made and failed to do anything about, and he will be reelected. President Clinton violate both the voter trust, is families trust, he lied under oath, and he is heralded as a Democratic hero. What is his conseqeunces? For those who watch the politics see these lack of ethics and the reward they get and the lesson is; better to not get caught but yuo can flourish even after getting caught.
Think of it, how many think the actions of these people are simply embarassments, and they move on. If nothing else about the Republican, when a politician is caught in an illicit sexual affair they loose their political position.
"I contend that the corruption is the symptom of the root cause (the nature of our money) and that because those same symptoms have been obvious in every nation in history that there is probably no solution other than changing the nature of our money." NO, a root cause is when there is nothing else that will be cause the same results. People may do corrupt things for money, but they will also do them for sex, for revenge, for ego. If money were the only cause then there would be an amount that would no longer tempt them, law of diminishing returns. If anything could be a root cause it would be power, because without it nothing else will happen.
"Then you responded to a meaning I never intended. That's why I repeated my entire quote." It is not what you intended that matters is, it is what you say and how you say it. For those are what infleunce what people hear. You notice I never complain about how you interepret what I say, because I take responsibility of how I presented what I meant. If it is misinterpreted then I need to say it in a different way that better presents my message.
President Obama said how the people how own businesses didn;t build them others did. He and others say it was take out of context, it wasn't what he meant and yet it is what he said. Why should he be blaming others when it is a direct quote. Why is it after he people responded that he became concerned, didn't he listen to himself, didn't he have others on his staff lstneing or was it that those who were listening didn't hear.
I watched a clip another post had about a billionaire saying it wasn't the business owners that created jobs but the customers. As best I can tell the business owner took all the risk in hiring the people, in providing the product services customers bought. As best I can tell that billionaire did listen to what he was saying for he gave no credit to what it takes to employe someone while he gave all the creidt to those who take no risk, they siply pay their money and get the service.
"I don't think much about occupy wall st. Why should I?" That was people banding together to get something they wanted that wasn't being provided. They were trying to change the polticians actions. They may have been ineffective but they tried.
If the government cannot spend money and deals only with international affairs, what is the motivation to bribe a Congressman? Yes, Congress does things besides spend money but if you remove all the spending the motivations to influence Congress are drastically reduced.
If you cannot give money to a Congressman, how are you going to bribe him? If you cannot give more than your time to a Congressman, how much influence can you have with that Congressman? Yes there are more ways than money to influence people but if you remove all the money ways, the incidence of undue influence is drastically reduced.
So in my system the motivations and the means to tempt Congressmen into corruption are hugely reduced. That's a great improvement it seems to me. Perfection is not attainable by human beings so if you insist on perfection you will have a long wait.
Money is a convenience, peoples' personal perception and desires are what drive them. If you give them everything there will still be many that want and will be suspetable to other temptations. Why would a man sitting in the White House risk everything with a few moments of distraction of as aid (it was money, it wasn't power)?
People are given Food Stamps and they use them for other than health food choices, why it isn't for money?
TO simply think that it is money that corrupts the system losses sight of the people who chose to be corrupted. THe vast majority of the government employees go to work each day doing what they think is expected of them, no desire to corrupt the system, and are not tempted by money. Simply saying it is money that corrupts is trying to simplify placing blame it is not trying to understand the root causes of corruption.
People steal and cheat simply because they can, people kill simply because they can, people do many things not because of money but because they can. Money is a convenient way to keep score or to do what you want, but crime and commerce existed before money and would exist if we went to the barter system.
Did you not read my comment of 7:49 this morning? Your comment of 8:37 seems to ignore it.
-------------
Money is not the only motive for people. People are motivated by many other things as well. But in the economy and in politics / government money is supreme and dominates all the other motives. (Note that "dominates" does not mean it is the only motive, just by far the greatest.)
-----------
Crime and commerce existed before money. But crime was rare and trade, though important, was of far less importance than today. The division of labor was far simpler before money. Crime (serious violations of the moral code) was rare because people knew each other very well and were very aware of being interdependent. (Of course there was no government before money and thus no formal legislation (law) as we know it today. Common law is much more similar to the social norms before money.)
"because people knew each other very well and were very aware of being interdependent." Simply because there were fewer people doesn't mean we should drastically reduce the number of people so those who are still around will know each other. People have and do do unehtical things to people they know.
People will do things that society deems unehtical. immoral, and illegal for personal desire.
I wrote what I intended, and it was clear. You chopped it up to change my intended meaning. That's why I repeated my entire sentence.
Why should he be blaming others when it is a direct quote.
Now I see how you justify dishonesty. You think it's ok to chop up what others say. Obama was partially quoted, and you know it. Just like you partially quoted me.
I watched a clip another post had about a billionaire saying it wasn't the business owners that created jobs but the customers.
I'm glad you watched it. It's too bad you didn't learn anything. The more you swallow the Koch brothers' propaganda, the more you cut your own throat - and mine as well. Don't think you're immune. It will rebound on you eventually.
They may have been ineffective but they tried.
They were ineffective for a reason. It's not that they didn't have a worthy message. Their strategies sucked. So I couldn't take seriously, what I knew would fall on its face.
How am I justifying dishonesty when I read what you ssay an respond in a way different to what you expect?
What were the Presidents words? What did he mean? What did I miss?
If you watch the video closely, he doesn't deny that owners take risks. He simply states that hiring people occurs in response to demand. He also says that it's the last thing that an owner will do. Maybe he's just not saying it clearly enough for you - right? You can always chop it up, so you can criticize what he's not saying.
Did the President sasy that owners take risks? Did he say that owners have to take those rsiks before their is a demand? did he that if there isn;t a reward for taking that risk people are less likely to take it and customers will go un satisified? Was there demand first of did Apple create the iPad hoping and risking there would be a market did the President mention that? Did the President say how the family that built the corner market to a risk investing their whole family savings and borrowing to open that market and after years of sacrifice that market is now a success employeing many people and paying taxes?
Did the President say anyhting about what it takes to create a business, the jobs associated with that business, the wants and needs of the customers being met?
What did the President say about the business owners and what they do?
If it is so easy to create a business because their is so much pent up demand, you tell me why so many businesses go out of business. What is you preception of a business owner they simply set back and let their empolyees do all the work. I wonder is you have ever met a business owner and asked them about the after hours they work (without pay), the worries they have to deal with (without pay), they time they must spend away from their family, the fiinancial risk they take. When has the President ever even alluded to that aspect of operating a business?
Tell me what the President was talking about what small business didn't build. Tell me about what the President has told the public the businesses do do.
Are you sure you are listening to what is being said or are you for expect to hear?
This is a dishonest question. You changed what I wrote by partially quoting me. It has nothing to do with "respond(ing) in a way different to what (I) expect". You didn't respond to what I wrote, because you changed what I wrote.
What were the Presidents words? What did he mean? What did I miss?
President's words: Can be found at
http://factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-uncut-and-unedited/
You apparently think it's ok to partially use quotes, and call them "direct quotes". That's the dishonesty.
I'm not saying Obama and democrats don't do it, also. It's still dishonest, and it does nothing toward solving this nation's most pressing problems.
Obama put individual effort in context: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
But to allay any confusion here, when I wrote, "If you watch the video closely, he doesn't deny that owners take risks. He simply states that hiring people occurs in response to demand," I was responding to your statement,
As best I can tell the business owner took all the risk in hiring the people, in providing the product services customers bought.
which refers to a billionaire's assertions about what does and does not create jobs. I wasn't referring to Obama in that statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IQi6xJ3-7l4
Do you seriously think that business owners "create jobs" for the sake of "creating jobs"? Or do they hire in response to demand for their products and services?
Did you not read my comment of 7:49 this morning? Your comment of 8:37 seems to ignore it.
Looks like a pattern. It's no wonder that you (Duane) don't "get" what the billionaire says in the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IQi6xJ3-7l4
His perspective is systemic, wholistic. He sees the whole gestalt at once. You, on the other hand, have a fragmented perspective. You quote people partially and ignore other things that are being said. The billionaire doesn't deny, in the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IQi6xJ3-7l4
that business owners don't initially hire people and take risks. What he says is that without sufficient demand, those businesses and jobs go away. Are you seriously going to argue with that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IQi6xJ3-7l4
is saying.
I readily admit that no man is an island, that without customer, with staff, without the structure government provides the success of business would have a much more difficult time.
I also notice that neither you nor the President give speak to the value that the businessonwers provide, that you never acknowledge the imporatance of their sacrifice or risk taking.
I shouldn't be surprised that if you believe demand leads businesses that you ignore how new products and businesses are created where there was no demand. What was the deamnd for the electric light, the auatomobile, the iPad, the electric car. Oh I should scratch the last their is no demand only what the governement is trying to force.
What people avoid or ignore speaks as strongly as what they say. Never giving credit to those who do take the risk of creating jobs and only saying that it is the customers that create those jobs tells a lot about the lack of understanding of what is involved in the creation of a job.
I am glad for you that you are so comfortable in your world. I offer that the world you like will disappear if the businesses continue to be seen by the President as soley a place to take money from and to abuse for being different from their employees.
I hope some day you look into what it takes to create a job and the risks associated with it.
It really takes all of it, for an economy to grow. You should stop listening to people, who emphasize only owners - like the Koch brothers.
I own what I say, take for responsibilty for what I say and the subsequent consequences. I am willing to expalin why and how I think that way. I do not blame others for anything I do or say. I have learned to listen to what is said and to think about it rather then have concerns about who said it.
I notice that you can't even acknowledge that business owners take risks and make sacrifices that employees and customer never have to take to create jobs and meet demands.
You seem preoccupied by the Koch brothers and yet seem to not see the same concerns with the President and his party.
I repeat: It really takes all of it, for an economy to grow.
I suppose "all" really does include the owners, the chief executive officers, the top executives and such. It's odd how unless one emphasizes their role, others believe we are unaware of their contribution.
You wrote:
"I own what I say, take for responsibility for what I say and the subsequent consequences. I am willing to explain why and how I think that way. I do not blame others for anything I do or say. I have learned to listen to what is said and to think about it rather then have concerns about who said it."
That is why I have great respect for you even when we differ in viewpoint or conclusions. I always take what you say seriously and try to understand your position. It is people like yourself that attract me to Gather.
Thank you.
Let me describe how I see the value of government, as example I see the value of laws and regulations. However, the current approach of prescriptive laws and regulations is causing barriers to change because they are based on history and enforcement by less than knowledgeable people. Laws/regulations that re performance based would encourage an exchange of knowledge and allow for innovation (even encourage it). Comformance would be verified by those knowledgeable in the field being regulated providing the training of governemnt Compliance Officers.
That is a simple way for government to be supportive of business and encourage their risk taking for it would help them focus their creativity. I offer this because the current approach to regulations is to force employers to be more about doing what the government says and less about perfromance and growing their businesses.
If you are so sensitive to the risks and sacrifices of business owners how would you help them succeed and encourage new businesses.
The vast majority of corporations are small and have little money or power. The big corporations like a high tax on their small competitors.
How do we persuade the rich to allow themselves to be taxed?
But, to answer, it would take a critical mass (x millions) of informed people.
If we lower everyone's taxes do we just borrow a lot more or eliminate services / programs?
If the latter, which programs do we eliminate?
There are practically an infinite number of ways to do this, some smarter than others. I think one thing we would like to see is cuts where they hurt the least come first, such as spending on the rich (e.g. subsidies and militarism) and spending on useless/destructive items (e.g. drug war, regulations). Of course welfare and entitlements would need to be dealt with quickly too. But we can make some progress without even touching them. Ron Paul's budget proposal was something that did this.
If I recall correctly, the deficit is over $1 trillion. Are we talking about gradually reducing the spending or cutting it over a 2-3 year period or immediately cutting?
-----------
What constitutes dealing with welfare and entitlements? We know for sure that cutting welfare will harm children, the disabled, the elderly. We know for sure that many of the poor are already doing without basic necessities (like food and housing). Do you suggest cutting support for the poor?
You see, I would like to understand what you would retain as necessary and what you would eliminate as "we can do without." It seems to me that we really cannot do without welfare. The wealthy simply have not taken care of the poor at any time in the past so we can hardly expect it in the present. We wouldn't have millions of hungry children today with the wealthy sitting on over a trillion in cash or equivalents if the wealthy would care for them. So I say that cutting welfare means people dying needlessly.
You will find that the big corporations don't mind that high tax rate since they don't pay it but their small competitors do have to pay that rate. It keeps their competitors' prices high and their profits low thus making them less able to compete.
I don't think those small businesses who are dealing with both government and competitors think it's very free. :-(
Gross. Net before dividends, Net after Dividend distributions (which remember go to the hundreds of millions of shareholders, and are then taxed at the individual tax rates)?
Plus, look at Individual rates.
A family of 4 (filing joint), using JUST the standard deduction, and not claiming any credits (EIC, Child credit, AND additional child credit), pays 6444 in taxes .........an effective rate of 8.6%.
Much ado about nothing.
Actually Larry, they don't pay any taxes! The people who buy their products and services pay those taxes.
I thought you were of the "corporations are people" position.
The money that is used to pay taxes by corporations does come from the people. But if corporate taxes are reduced, the money doesn't go back to the consumer, it goes to the corporate stockholders and leadership. So a reduction in corporate taxes doesn't help the rest of us at all.
It lowers the costs of the company doing business resulting in lower costs to the consumer.
If you read the tax law carefully, you will discover that corporations are taxed only on profits. Profits are calculated as gross income minus expenses. Therefore, taxes are not a cost of doing business. Taxes are a part of the profit a business generates (if any). They have nothing to do with the cost to the consumer nor the prices the business charges for their products.
Where was it you went to school?