Zmog: Baryogenesis: Lsherm: FishyFred: Not paying taxes on money you haven't brought back to the country yet might not be tax-dodging, but it's a goddamn lie to then say you're paying zillions in taxes when you aren't paying any taxes.

They still have to pay medicare and SS taxes for each of their employees. While those aren't income taxes on the company, they are still a tax. Progressives tend to forget that the company has to pay that for each employee and it has nothing to do with profit, but it has everything to do with where your employee is working. Overseas employees don't have that extra cost.

So while this company apparently paid less than zero on their income, they've paid plenty for their employees. Liberals don't consider this a "tax" when they write stories like this, which is bullshiat. It's lost money to the company for every employee they have on US soil.

Is today the day that these taxes aren't passed on to the consumer or employee in the form of higher prices or lower wages?

Today is also the day that all taxes are considered. As opposed to the days when the poorest 47% of Americans "have no skin in the game".

Unfortunately, the argument that subby and TFA are making is much like the man in the golden brick road below:

Corning's actual argument is that the tax laws are hurting them, not because they pay taxes but because they have to alter their business practices to make sure that some vulture investor who cares nothing for the actual health of the economy or even the health of the company demands to know why they spent $50 investing in their own company rather than pissing it away with a CEO bonus. Seriously.

From the IRS itself:

If your business manufactures products or purchases them for resale, you generally must value inventory at the beginning and end of each tax year to determine your cost of goods sold. Some of your expenses may be included in figuring the cost of goods sold. Cost of goods sold is deducted from your gross receipts to figure your gross profit for the year. If you include an expense in the cost of goods sold, you cannot deduct it again as a business expense.

The following are types of expenses that go into figuring the cost of goods sold.

The cost of products or raw materials, including freight
Storage
Direct labor costs (including contributions to pensions or annuity plans) for workers who produce the products
Factory overhead

[...]

You must capitalize, rather than deduct, some costs. These costs are a part of your investment in your business and are called capital expenses. Capital expenses are considered assets in your business. There are, in general, three types of costs you capitalize.

Business start-up cost (See the note below)
Business assets
Improvements

So in other words, the large, immediate tax loopholes include paying your employees and buying the glass for your glassware.

The smaller, less attractive tax loopholes are things like actually making your company better. Those capital expenses must be slowly recouped over 3, 7, or sometimes even up to 50 years (such as a railroad depreciated under ADS). Because you are depreciating these items, you will not be able to deduct the full amount of the investment.

So while it feels satisfying to have high corporate taxes, it actually doesn't change the amount that corporations pay all that much. What it actually means is that the corporations have more incentive to piss their money away with CEO bonuses rather than actually farking improving their own corporations.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I do find it an interesting thing to discuss.

/I do believe it is a bad thing, though.

Lsherm: FishyFred: Not paying taxes on money you haven't brought back to the country yet might not be tax-dodging, but it's a goddamn lie to then say you're paying zillions in taxes when you aren't paying any taxes.

They still have to pay medicare and SS taxes for each of their employees. While those aren't income taxes on the company, they are still a tax. Progressives tend to forget that the company has to pay that for each employee and it has nothing to do with profit, but it has everything to do with where your employee is working. Overseas employees don't have that extra cost.

So while this company apparently paid less than zero on their income, they've paid plenty for their employees. Liberals don't consider this a "tax" when they write stories like this, which is bullshiat. It's lost money to the company for every employee they have on US soil.

Interesting. "Overseas employees don't have that extra cost." By which you mean, I presume, that employees overseas don't burden their employers with payroll taxes.

And you found that on Wikipedia.

Hm.

So what's this I read about payroll taxes? Seems there's a whole section devoted to the payroll taxes overseas employers pay-- oops, I mean, the extra costs overseas employees have.

/wikipedia is hard

andrewagill: I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I do find it an interesting thing to discuss.

/I do believe it is a bad thing, though.

So, what you're saying is; "I'm not saying, I'm just saying..."?

edmo: shotglasss: Instead of being angry with the companies that are using the tax code to avoid paying taxes, how about changing the tax code itself and closing the loopholes. Is that too easy?

Well, some of us keep saying that to our elected officials. Then we hear, "class warfare!"

John the Magnificent: This welfare queen isn't compaining about a lack of equity in SS or Medicare payments (of which they only pay half and can use that as a deduction against income) she was complaining about CORPORATE TAX RATES.

I'm tired of the rich complaining about thier tax rates. Mitt Romney is screwed because he is in a 35% tax bracket? Waaaha. He ACTUALLY PAID far less, an effective tax rate right next to mine, a guy making less that six figures. We supposedly have a progressive tax system, so this is fair and just?

Whine all you want about rates but rates don't matter if you don't actually pay them.

Rates actually do matter. The smaller business pay more since they can not take advantage of all the loopholes in the code nor are they rich enough to bribe for specific loopholes to help their business. And since the media are tame lap dogs this is never brought up when talking about the tax rate.

F*ck that stupid biatch. I am dropping my 5 shares of Corning stock this morning.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "You know, I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms..."

[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x404]

I've seen that picture a few times. This is what I see every time:

Lost Thought 00: Klopfer: every developed country also has some form of social security system

Which is why companies have no desire to work in the first world.

That's not entirely true.

More_Like_A_Stain: andrewagill: I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I do find it an interesting thing to discuss.

/I do believe it is a bad thing, though.

So, what you're saying is; "I'm not saying, I'm just saying..."?

What I am saying is that I would hope you don't discount the entire discussion just because you disagree with my opinions on policy. I was attempting to separate the explanation (which I hope should be objective) from my personal opinions. Hence the slashies.

Lsherm: They still have to pay medicare and SS taxes for each of their employees.

Yeah, it's totally the 6.2% social security tax that is forcing companies to move operations overseas, not the 500%+ difference in required salary between an American worker and a third-world worker.

Klopfer: Lsherm: They still have to pay medicare and SS taxes for each of their employees. While those aren't income taxes on the company, they are still a tax. Progressives tend to forget that the company has to pay that for each employee and it has nothing to do with profit, but it has everything to do with where your employee is working. Overseas employees don't have that extra cost.

As almost every developed country also has some form of social security system in place, they have to pay that, too. Doesn't matter though, as far as the company is concerned, all this is part of the salary costs. (Company doesn't care if all the money goes to the employee or not.)

exactly. Lsherm knows this. anything the company has to pay out is taken out of the employee's compensation. Not the shareholder's.

Arkanaut: Lsherm: They still have to pay medicare and SS taxes for each of their employees.

Yeah, it's totally the 6.2% social security tax that is forcing companies to move operations overseas, not the 500%+ difference in required salary between an American worker and a third-world worker.

Lsherm is just wishing for a return to the old days when slavery was legal.

Hobodeluxe: Klopfer: Lsherm: They still have to pay medicare and SS taxes for each of their employees. While those aren't income taxes on the company, they are still a tax. Progressives tend to forget that the company has to pay that for each employee and it has nothing to do with profit, but it has everything to do with where your employee is working. Overseas employees don't have that extra cost.

As almost every developed country also has some form of social security system in place, they have to pay that, too. Doesn't matter though, as far as the company is concerned, all this is part of the salary costs. (Company doesn't care if all the money goes to the employee or not.)

exactly. Lsherm knows this. anything the company has to pay out is taken out of the employee's compensation. Not the shareholder's.

I'm amazed the class warriors are out this early. It's Sunday morning!

Mercedes driving welfare queens, and unstrapping old bucks eating couette du boeuf on the taxpayers with their welfare checks.

Clearly, the solution is to raise tax rates on the bottom half of people who don't pay taxes so that we can give that money to companies like Corning to pay them for the horrible trouble it must be to make three billion a year in this country.

Lsherm: FishyFred: Not paying taxes on money you haven't brought back to the country yet might not be tax-dodging, but it's a goddamn lie to then say you're paying zillions in taxes when you aren't paying any taxes.

They still have to pay medicare and SS taxes for each of their employees. While those aren't income taxes on the company, they are still a tax. Progressives tend to forget that the company has to pay that for each employee and it has nothing to do with profit, but it has everything to do with where your employee is working. Overseas employees don't have that extra cost.

So while this company apparently paid less than zero on their income, they've paid plenty for their employees. Liberals don't consider this a "tax" when they write stories like this, which is bullshiat. It's lost money to the company for every employee they have on US soil.

I've heard you make the exact opposite argument about sales tax using the same set of data.

2 articles in a row about the same thing.

So long as democrats insist on plundering corporate profits earned over seas those profits stay over seas. Drop those taxes and that money will come back to the US where it can be invested or spent to drive the US economy. But instead Democrats are more interested in punishing success in the name of fairness than improving the economy.

sparkeyjames: It's funny that the biggest welfare queens are American corporations.
Something something brown skinned people are taking my tax dollars is the real butthurt of the political far right
even if it's totally untrue. Backdoor racism.

They are more afraid of the yawning abyss beneath them than they are about the weight that is bearing down on them from above and slowly pushing them into that abyss. Their "logical" response is to hate and fear those that are deeper in the hole than they are, while adulating and apologizing for those who are pushing them into it.

pdee: 2 articles in a row about the same thing.

So long as democrats insist on plundering corporate profits earned over seas those profits stay over seas. Drop those taxes and that money will come back to the US where it can be invested or spent to drive the US economy. But instead Democrats are more interested in punishing success in the name of fairness than improving the economy.

I feel like I'm in the presence of the Almighty Stupid, kneeling at the altar of trite fallacies.

Both sides play this "don't pay taxes" bit and both sides know there are tons and tons of different taxes, but both sides' followers don't care and will still puppet these phrases.

Corporations are people...we just don't tax them like people.

Zmog: Baryogenesis: Lsherm: FishyFred: Not paying taxes on money you haven't brought back to the country yet might not be tax-dodging, but it's a goddamn lie to then say you're paying zillions in taxes when you aren't paying any taxes.

They still have to pay medicare and SS taxes for each of their employees. While those aren't income taxes on the company, they are still a tax. Progressives tend to forget that the company has to pay that for each employee and it has nothing to do with profit, but it has everything to do with where your employee is working. Overseas employees don't have that extra cost.

So while this company apparently paid less than zero on their income, they've paid plenty for their employees. Liberals don't consider this a "tax" when they write stories like this, which is bullshiat. It's lost money to the company for every employee they have on US soil.

Is today the day that these taxes aren't passed on to the consumer or employee in the form of higher prices or lower wages?

Today is also the day that all taxes are considered. As opposed to the days when the poorest 47% of Americans "have no skin in the game".



Hey conservatards--show me an argument for lowering taxes on corporations and the rich that doesn't just boil down to "less taxes are better, so they should pay zero taxes." Think that's a strawman? Then show us your analysis as to why they're higher than they should be, not just "taxes=bad." No right-winger seems to be capable of this.

I will accept the argument that our nominal corporate income tax rate is higher than most other first-world countries, so there's good reason for it to be lowered. This is something that I personally actually believe, and apparently so does Obama. However, as we see with companies like Corning and GE, the effective tax rate is much lower, so this policy change would be more about closing loopholes than lowering payments.

Tax corporations more, tax imports even more.

Oh wait, then fat white trash won't be able to get their cheap Chinese goods from Walmart. That won't ever happen because buying cheap Chinese shiat is American.

Yankees Team Gynecologist: I will accept the argument that our nominal corporate income tax rate is higher than most other first-world countries, so there's good reason for it to be lowered. This is something that I personally actually believe, and apparently so does Obama. However, as we see with companies like Corning and GE, the effective tax rate is much lower, so this policy change would be more about closing loopholes than lowering payments.

As someone who actually wants to have the discussion and is less concerned with the actual policy outcomes, I would like to hear you explain your position explained. The only position I have heard explained is essentially an argument for no corporate taxes (as you can see above). My inner pragmatist is satisfied by this, but my inner anti-corporatist sounds like a cat in a wet sack whenever I hear that argument.

Fictional people who are given governmental protection against liability should not have lower taxes than real people, but I don't see any way that a tax structure like that could help people.

andrewagill: So in other words, the large, immediate tax loopholes include paying your employees and buying the glass for your glassware.

The smaller, less attractive tax loopholes are things like actually making your company better

Deductions are not "loopholes." The only meaningful definition of a loophole is using a provision of the tax code/regs in a way not intended by Congress, and the existence of deductions in general is definitely intended by Congress.

We pay an income tax, not a gross receipts tax. To figure income for a year, you have to deduct your expenses of producing the income for that year from the receipts for that year. Capitalized items are generally expenses for producing income in future years. Depreciation is supposed to represent the portion of that capitalized outlay which produces income in the year of the depreciation.

Congress has allowed accelerated depreciation methods (and occasional bonus years where you can depreciate 50-100% of capitalized expenses during a year) since the 60s. Acceleration and bonus are (due to the time value of money) large tax expenditures. But they're politically popular, since they seem to increase U.S. capital spending somewhat and therefore can be spun as spurring investment in America/increasing manufacturing jobs.

Nicholas Urfe: Deductions are not "loopholes."

andrewagill: As someone who actually wants to have the discussion and is less concerned with the actual policy outcomes, I would like to hear you explain your position explained. The only position I have heard explained is essentially an argument for no corporate taxes (as you can see above). My inner pragmatist is satisfied by this, but my inner anti-corporatist sounds like a cat in a wet sack whenever I hear that argument.

Fictional people who are given governmental protection against liability should not have lower taxes than real people, but I don't see any way that a tax structure like that could help people.

---

On a basic conceptual level I can begin to buy an argument that says if you tax the means of wealth creation--i.e., business activity, "corporations"--less, and tax more at the endpoints--i.e., when corporate earnings are disbursed to individuals as personal income--you can increase overall yield. I'm generally not a believer in supply-side/trickle-down, and I realize that every country is different, but I will at least entertain this argument when our rate is higher than most other first-world countries.

In practice I realize that this could lead to people filing as corporations, and other such abuses, but until I hear a thorough debunking (which may be readily available, I just haven't encountered it yet) I am open to the fundamental logic behind the idea.

Where I am convinced, however, is that if companies like Corning can pay zero corporate income taxes, something is broken. Our effective rate is lower than most other first-world countries, which in turn is lower than our nominal rate. That to means the nominal rate is a joke and should be revised (along with closing loopholes), even if only to make things neater on paper.

cretinbob: Fark Me To Tears: Are you sure you got that right, subby?

RTFA before asking stupid questions


Oh Corning..That's right down the road. Expect a headline next week about a Farker getting arrested for kicking a Corning executive in the nuts.

Kick 'em once for me Bob.

Gulper Eel: Zero taxes coupled with zero subsidies would be the ideal.

If that's "ideal," then why are there no major economies with a zero corporate rate? Serious question.

great team this year...

Lsherm: Uh huh. I was just pointing out that they have to pay more taxes for their employees here than anywhere else.

No, they don't. Maybe here more than CHINA, but not "anywhere else".

pdee: 2 articles in a row about the same thing.

So long as democrats insist on plundering corporate profits earned over seas those profits stay over seas. Drop those taxes and that money will come back to the US where it can be invested or spent to drive the US economy. But instead Democrats are more interested in punishing success in the name of fairness than improving the economy.


'My gawd-giffen gift'a intellganse is both muh gift an' muh curse.."

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Gulper Eel: Zero taxes coupled with zero subsidies would be the ideal.

If that's "ideal," then why are there no major economies with a zero corporate rate? Serious question.

The key here is that corporations should benefit from the infrastructure network, security (department of defense), and trading security (SEC, etc.), and IP protections the government affords them, but they shouldn't pay for any of it... neither should any of their investors, because the investors are job creators... the key here is that we only tax the poor farkers who actually work for a living.

CSB time.

I owned over 400 shares of two stocks in May2004, both trading at nearly the same price.
AAPL split soon after I sold, and farming GLW has been flat as a pancake, with minuscule dividends.
The fact that I'm wasting my time on Fark is indicative of my choice to sell the wrong stock...

Lsherm: FishyFred: Not paying taxes on money you haven't brought back to the country yet might not be tax-dodging, but it's a goddamn lie to then say you're paying zillions in taxes when you aren't paying any taxes.

They still have to pay medicare and SS taxes for each of their employees. While those aren't income taxes on the company, they are still a tax. Progressives tend to forget that the company has to pay that for each employee and it has nothing to do with profit, but it has everything to do with where your employee is working. Overseas employees don't have that extra cost.

So while this company apparently paid less than zero on their income, they've paid plenty for their employees. Liberals don't consider this a "tax" when they write stories like this, which is bullshiat. It's lost money to the company for every employee they have on US soil.

...and so the net benefit to the company is to not have any employees on US soil?

You know, this may be too subtle for most people to figure out, but what you did here, I see it.

Yankees Team Gynecologist: On a basic conceptual level I can begin to buy an argument that says if you tax the means of wealth creation--i.e., business activity, "corporations"--less, and tax more at the endpoints--i.e., when corporate earnings are disbursed to individuals as personal income--you can increase overall yield. I'm generally not a believer in supply-side/trickle-down, and I realize that every country is different, but I will at least entertain this argument when our rate is higher than most other first-world countries.

Oddly enough, the trickle-down theory is more compatible with a high corporate tax rate, since it forces you to put all your money in wages. You can't keep it, since you'd get taxed on the investments.

We might do better to apply the corporate tax to something else, like executive pay or provide more attractive depreciation schedules to make shareholders more inclined to support companies that actually improve.

brianbankerus: God this make me sick. Why can't "job creators™" actually create a gotdamn job or two?

Maybe we need a new term.

"Job destroyers?"

"Wealth destroyer?"

Oh, wait, how about an older term that applies perfectly: FARKING THIEVES.

indoorplant: great team this year...

[www.csmonitor.com image 600x400]

That's the OWS from Frisco, aint it...

maldinero: CSB time.

I owned over 400 shares of two stocks in May2004, both trading at nearly the same price.
AAPL split soon after I sold, and farming GLW has been flat as a pancake, with minuscule dividends.
The fact that I'm wasting my time on Fark is indicative of my choice to sell the wrong stock...

[i860.photobucket.com image 850x523]

I recently found out that a stock I had a chance to buy at IPO at $14 was eventually bought back by the company at $67. Calculating the splits I know happened I could have made about $2 million on an initial investment of $14,000


//want fries with that?

Gulper Eel: You think any legislature would give away that kind of power willingly?

I understand where you're coming from, and I do agree with the sentiment. However, the freedom of information act was, in my opinion at least, a great deal of power handed over to every person, and every civil rights lawyer in the country. So, you don't necessarily have to assume that legislators wouldn't reduce their government's power.

Lsherm: FishyFred: Not paying taxes on money you haven't brought back to the country yet might not be tax-dodging, but it's a goddamn lie to then say you're paying zillions in taxes when you aren't paying any taxes.

They still have to pay medicare and SS taxes for each of their employees. While those aren't income taxes on the company, they are still a tax. Progressives tend to forget that the company has to pay that for each employee and it has nothing to do with profit, but it has everything to do with where your employee is working. Overseas employees don't have that extra cost.

So while this company apparently paid less than zero on their income, they've paid plenty for their employees. Liberals don't consider this a "tax" when they write stories like this, which is bullshiat. It's lost money to the company for every employee they have on US soil.

So does Joe's hardware store, the one that's about to be put out of business by the proposed Lowe's over on route 6... why should big corporations be treated any differently than Joe?

As for "lost money".. that what the f*ck is wrong with conservatives in general and corporations in particular... what is paid to employees in cash and benefits is not "lost", but exchanged for that employee's work. Without that employee's work there is no business, and that employee's work is obviously worth more than you're actually paying them or there would be no profit for you.
If you're paying social security and medicare for these people, they are working in this country... that means you don't take the profits from that work and hide them in some bank in the cayman Islands so that they don't get taxed. Work done here, profits made here, taxes paid here.

If you're a company that is based here, does business here, and profits from our protections, rules, regulations and contract laws, you pay taxes here - period. You want overseas employees, move your f*cking ass overseas with them and deal with those taxes and laws.

Lsherm: FishyFred: Not paying taxes on money you haven't brought back to the country yet might not be tax-dodging, but it's a goddamn lie to then say you're paying zillions in taxes when you aren't paying any taxes.

They still have to pay medicare and SS taxes for each of their employees. While those aren't income taxes on the company, they are still a tax. Progressives tend to forget that the company has to pay that for each employee and it has nothing to do with profit, but it has everything to do with where your employee is working. Overseas employees don't have that extra cost.

So while this company apparently paid less than zero on their income, they've paid plenty for their employees. Liberals don't consider this a "tax" when they write stories like this, which is bullshiat. It's lost money to the company for every employee they have on US soil.

I expect to see you in the next thread that complaines about half of US citizens not paying taxes pointing out thta they actually pay taxes, just not income tax.