The honeymoon is ALREADY over? Shocking numbers

#251
#251
droski said:
sweet jesus. how is this showing the tax rate is 10%? are you really this dumb? don't you realize that corporations lost billions in 09? ya think that might have something to do with tax receipts dropping.
Click to expand...

You're right.

I misspoke. My grief was corporations account for so little of the tax revenue.
 
#252
#252
utgibbs said:
It is what it is, BPV.
Click to expand...

It had nothing to do with what he was saying. Moreover, that was a corporate receipts disaster year.

You do know that there are millions of individual investors and owners who don't file corporate taxes, right?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#253
#253
droski said:
it's really mindblowing. i did feasibility studies for 3 years when i first came out of college. the tax rates or incentives between different locations REGURALLY were what made the decision.
Click to expand...

If you aren't factoring taxes to your end game return you aren't doing a good service for your client or yourself. Taxes can take the same net return and change it drastically.
 
#255
#255
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
Sole props make up a huge % of business owners.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The LLC construct essentially rolls hordes of business returns, even multi partner, onto personal income taxes. Allows people to avoid the idiotic double taxation that used to happen with Inc.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#256
#256
Of course, I was WAY off the effective tax rate of corporations as well:

Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes.

But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.

In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.

Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003.
Click to expand...


•In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes. These 46 companies told their shareholders they earned U.S. pretax profits in 2003 of $42.6 billion, yet they received tax rebates totaling $5.4 billion. Almost as many companies, 42, paid no tax in 2002, reporting $43.5 billion in pretax profits, yet receiving $4.9 billion in tax rebates. From 2001 to 2003, the number of no-tax companies jumped from 33 to 46, an increase of 40 percent.
Click to expand...

The fact is, back in 1940s, corporations accounted for 40% of the tax revenues. The push has been to make the individual fit the bill.

:hi:
 
#257
#257
utgibbs said:
I'm not.

But Reagan and Thatcher and Milton Friedman wanted it that way.

And, yes, Clinton signed NAFTA.

I am not your enemy here. There were easy fixes. China fixed it, and that's why they have leapt upwards since the Asian crisis.
Click to expand...

I don't think your my enemy. Sorry if it came across that I felt that. I do disagree with your taxing part though. The game has changed. You can have your business in Chicago. Your tech support in Ireland. Your customer service in India. And your in house support in the Phillipines. This could not be done under Truman. The stock market and investors have changed the game along with internet and VOIP. If you are not making a net profit and the stock is not growing you have to cut somewhere or you go backwards. The business climate is brutal today. MY industry alone has changed drastically. It's only getting worse.
 
#259
#259
utgibbs said:
The fact is, back in 1940s, corporations accounted for 40% of the tax revenues. The push has been to make the individual fit the bill.

:hi:
Click to expand...
No it hasn't. Your info, in a vacuum, doesn't help. Don't forget the 03 returns would have still been loaded with 9/11 carryforwards. Loaded.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#260
#260
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
I don't think your my enemy. Sorry if it came across that I felt that. I do disagree with your taxing part though. The game has changed. You can have your business in Chicago. Your tech support in Ireland. And your customer service in India. And your in house support in the Phillipines. This could not be done under Truman. The stock market and investors have changed the game along with internet and VOIP. If you are not making a net profit and the stock is not growing you have to cut somewhere or you go backwards. The business climate is brutal today. MY industry alone has changed drastically. It's only getting worse.
Click to expand...

The "your enemy" statement was simply to state we seem to share sentiments on the phenomenon of Capital Flight.
 
#262
#262
But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.

The sad part is the primary reason why this is true is because they are taking their business to low tax countries and generating the revenue there. i.e. you just proved my point.
 
#263
#263
BigPapaVol said:
No it hasn't. Your info, in a vacuum, doesn't help. Don't forget the 03 returns would have still been loaded with 9/11 carryforwards. Loaded.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yes it has:

reccon11.jpg


Can't argue that curve.
 
#265
#265
droski said:
But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.

The sad part is the primary reason why this is true is because they are taking their business to low tax countries and generating the revenue there. i.e. you just proved my point.
Click to expand...

See chart above. When corporations were 50% of the tax revenues - during a crushing round of tax burden inflicted on us by Truman and NSA-64 - no capital flight.

It's not just a "level playing field" now either. There were specific rules in place to prevent it.

You want neoliberalism, droski. Capital flight is a fundamental canon of neoliberalism. It is embarassing (and somewhat sad) to see you do this. However, I understand, believe me. I've watched people vote against their economic interests with no iota of an inkling what is happening in the real world.

It's called "neoliberalism" because its not about liberating people anymore, it's about liberating Capital.
 
Last edited:
#266
#266
BigPapaVol said:
Wonder what makes that graph tick? The seismic shift was in...1945-1947.

I assure you that a huge pile of that personal income is business income.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That's fine.

Show me that explains the gap. I'm interested.
 
#267
#267
utgibbs said:
See chart above. When corporations were 50% of the tax revenues - during a crushing round of tax burden inflicted on us by Truman and NSA-64 - no capital flight.

It's not just a "level playing field" now either. There were specific rules in place to prevent it.

You want neoliberalism, droski. Capital flight is a fundamental canon of neoliberalism. It is embarassing (and somewhat sad) to see you do this. However, I understand, believe me. I've watched people vote against their economic interests with no iota of an inkling what is happening in the real world.
Click to expand...

so in your opinion if taxes were higher it would not drive more businesses to move overseas? and the lack of international competition in the 40s combined with virtually zero buying and manufacturing competition in war ravaged europe had nothing to do with this?
 
Last edited:
#268
#268
droski said:
so in your opinion if taxes were higher it would not drive more businesses to move overseas?
Click to expand...

It would be a lot more difficult under pre-neoliberalism rules.

What drives manufacturing overseas now? Give us the top two reasons to keep it simple, and back it up with some data.

It wasn't just the 1940s either. The 1940s would have been a PERFECT time to relocate to Europe for American businesses! A PERFECT time to build new factories!

So, while you're at it, give us some data on manufacturing flight from the US since WWII.
 
Last edited:
#272
#272
droski said:
with 47% of the country not paying taxes i'd argue that the "we wont eat if we pay taxes" group is a pretty small minority of people getting a free ride.
Click to expand...

C'mon, dude. If you're not going to be honest, what's the point of having a debate?

40-something percent of the country doesn't pay INCOME taxes this year. They still pay payroll taxes, property taxes, sales, gas, and wheel taxes.
 
#273
#273
StepCross said:
C'mon, dude. If you're not going to be honest, what's the point of having a debate?

40-something percent of the country doesn't pay INCOME taxes this year. They still pay payroll taxes, property taxes, sales, gas, and wheel taxes.
Click to expand...

Well played.
 
#275
#275
utgibbs said:
Of course. :hi:

Why does it take me no time to find the information I need? :question:
Click to expand...

Maybe you can reason through the boom in private business and the amount of that income reflected in private income. Latter portion is heavily cap gains and broadening access to investment vehicles. That's all business income reflected on personal returns.

Nomenclature is a big problem here.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top