"Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the three years, included, among others: Pepco Holdings (-59.6 percent tax rate), Prudential Financial (-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent), Unisys (-16.0 percent), Fluor (-9.2 percent) and CSX (-7.5 percent), the company previously headed by current Secretary of the Treasury John Snow.
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."

"In 2001, the Treasury paid corporations $40 billion in tax refunds, a third more than the 1998-2000 average.
Then in 2002 and 2003, after the law was changed to expand tax subsidies and make it easier for corporations to carry back excess tax breaks to earlier years, corporate tax refunds skyrocketed to an average of $63 billion a year - more than double the 1998-2000 average."

Lina says - US Gov should tax more everyone who is still hiring people, so everybody would be unemployed and can follow our new father to the grave...

"IF YOU SAY SOMETHING long enough and loud enough, there's every chance people will come to believe it's true, especially if your opponents tire of rebuttals. This time-honored political strategy has been working overtime of late, as Republican presidential hopefuls romance the richer Florida retirees with appeals for cuts in corporate taxes.

You may have heard: U.S. corporations face one of the highest income tax rates in the world, though the mention of "rate" is often enough excised, so that what comes through is the assertion that corporations pay too much in taxes. This is simply untrue if your basis for comparison is the developed world. The truth is that while the 35% corporate income tax rate is high indeed, the creativity and global reach of U.S. corporations make them among the most lightly levied.

"Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.
Why the disparity given the high federal rate, which rises to 39% counting state taxes? Part of the answer is that big U.S. companies have become expert at hiding profits in tax havens overseas. And many of the smaller ones simply pass through their income to owners who then report it on their personal returns.

According to one analysis, if so much corporate income hadn't moved to the personal tax rolls over the last 20 years, U.S. corporate taxes would account for 3.2% of the GDP, still a bit below the OECD average. "Usage of pass-through forms of business organization can be viewed as a form of 'self-help' corporate tax integration," writes Peter R. Merrill, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers."

"The income not squired away overseas or channeled to the personal returns still enjoys protection in the form of various tax breaks that depress the effective rate to 27%, according to the Treasury Department. Such breaks are expected to cost the Treasury $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, reducing the corporate tax revenue by 25%.


Meanwhile, there's growing evidence that, despite the occasional crackdowns on especially creative tax accounting, routine corporate tax dodges are way up by historical standards, as multinationals play an increasingly profitable shell game."

Lina says, we should help other people, like share everything we have, until we will be poor like rats and there will World Piece ....

Лина, можно по человечески без cut'n'paste??? Своими словами?
У меня малый бизнес, я "с него" живу, если одна из тех жирных корпораций которые ты описываешь соберет свои манатки и отвалит в Новую Зеландию оставив моих клиентов без работы, что ты будешь писать? Что Обама будет делать? Я не занимался спекуляциями на бирже, я не покупал дом с голой жопой надеясь продавать его втридорога, я открыл бизнес нужный людям, 15 лет существования это доказывают. Почему вы все знаете все на теории??? Взять и поделить? Забрать у богатых и отдать бедным? А где новых богатых брать? У Путина покупать олигархов?

"Почему вы все знаете все на теории??? Взять и поделить? Забрать у богатых и отдать бедным"
- - where on earth is she saying this?
I just see statistics...
I see evidence of corporate accounting manipulation.
We pay honest business taxes, we know how big the bite is, why wouldn't Pepsico ( or whatever Lina is quoting) not do the same?
And Gera, please, don't tell me I want to send everybody to poorhouse, we own family business and pay very competitive market wages ( as well as crazy business *and family taxes)
So, if you for once will try to understand some other positions - try to understand it not as some socialist stand, but as just desire for fairness.

Oleg, chitaite vnimatel'no. Zachem im uezhat' kogda im i zdes' xorosho? Zaberut svoi manatki i v uedut v NZ? A tam, chto nalogov netu? A 300 mill consumers willing to max out their credit cards just to buy whatever they're selling, gde naiti? Ili tam netu svoix corporations i svoei competition?
I gde Ya zdes' pisala o tom chto nuzhno delitsa ili zabirat' iotdavat'? Pomoemu tam yasno napisano, chto corporations ne tol'ko dazhe svoudolu ne platyat, a esche i nazhivautsa na tax refunds.
I voobsche, Ya ne ponimau kak s odnoi storoni mozhno krichat', chto corporations platyat slishkom mnogo nalogov (xotya eto yavno ne tak), and in the same breath oppose the stimulus plan? Cto eto ne te zhe den'gi? Esli Vi, Oleg, schitaete chto Vash business postradal v etoi economy, tak chto bilo bi esli bi zakrilis' eti korporatzii, i esche bol'she ludei poteryalo bi rabotu?

oh, and the reason I cut and paste, is because I don't like to pull information out of my...

Julia, you probably know no one pays the entire top rate on their gross profit - not individuals, not companies - because they can deduct lots of eligible expenses.. so it's the average statistics says they pay 17%, it doesn't mean they didn't pay their fair share..
the reason economic stimuli don't work (not when Bush did some in summer 2008, not the humongous Obama's) is because
1. lots of money from Obama's stimulus went to government which does nothing for businesses
2. money that went to individuals, just like when Bush did, don't necessarily get spent on smth that stimulate the economy - smth like credit card payoffs, etc..
3. when you cut taxes long-term, not for a year or so like Obama did, only then busensses can plan long-term and grow and create jobs..but it takes people who actually create smth, not community organizers to know that..even his treasury admitted he never had a real job..

4. corporations can leave to Ireland, for example, where there is 12% corporate tax.. they can still do business with the US, just won't create jobs here..
5. when corporations are taxed more, they usually pass it on on the consumer, like every business does.. so, we end up paying the tab again..

but would u pay more if you don't deduct at all - federal, state, local, ss, medicare...it's way more than 40%, right? ... and corporate expenses are probably much more than for small busineses - they are regulated much more..

corporations can leave to Ireland, for example, where there is 12%corporate tax..
-------------------------------------------------------------------
how is that less than paying no taxes?
they can still do business with the US, just won'tcreate jobs here..
------------------------------------------------------------------
at no additional cost? you're forgetting that there's a lot more to the cost of doing business than just taxes. you honestly believe that most US corporations stay here out of some sense of patriotic loyalty?

but would u pay more if you don't deduct at all - federal, state, local, ss, medicare...it's way more than 40%, right? ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
???

so do corporations, otherwise, they would be in prison.. or maybe still will be if they didn't pay what was required of them by law..

so do corporations, otherwise, they would be in prison.. or maybe stillwill be if they didn't pay what was required of them by law..
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ignorance is bliss... :-)

It is customary amongst liberal "intellectual thinkers" of today and yesterday, as well I am sure, as of tomorrow to count somebody else money. It is easy, justifiable and self fulling to keep explaining why the profits of so and so are OK to spent.Especially if it involves good intentions and feelings...
They bring all of the possible statistics to help to guilt the members of society to be on board and shut down these egoistic individuals, maniacally dedicated to make money by actually working and producing goods and services.
I do not care what statistics exists out there. I do not want to share. Anything with anybody. I want to decide to give, when it feels good to me, not them, or Uncle Sam.
Stay away from my paycheck!

Gera, but they also forget that the same people who want to tax "the rich" more (which we, regular people, end up paying), don't pay their own taxes - Geithner - our treasury!!, Kennedy, Sebellius and many others from the same Obama cabinet..

I do not care what statistics exists out there. I do not want to share.Anything with anybody. I want to decide to give, when it feels good tome, not them, or Uncle Sam.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
it's not an issue of sharing... it is simply the cost of living or doing business in the country of your choice. if you can afford to buy your own island, I'm sure (not 100%) you won't have to "share" any of your money.

how about you pay for your own "cost of living" and other programs? I pay for mine, so should anyone!! :-)

how about you pay for your own "cost of living" and other programs? I pay for mine, so should anyone!!
---------------------------------------------------------------
when you move to that island of yours, you can make up your own rules... considering the size of your family compared to mine, and the amount of time you've lived in this country, I probably already paid and am paying for at least some of your "cost of living".

Lina says - we breathe the same air, we should pay taxes for her and her folks and her state, and many other states.

Gera, I think you've had one too many. :-)
If anything, I'm probably saying that you owe me. So, you're welcome. :-)

Lina, stop advocating for taxation and punishment of anybody. Then may be I will have one for you.

Debunking the Right-Wing "47% Pay No Taxes" Talking Point
********crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/debunking-47-pay-no-taxes-talking-point
:-D

Lie #4: Tax cuts always increase revenue.
Thanks to supply-side snake oil salesman Arthur Laffer and his magical Laffer Curve, conservatives have been peddling this mythsince the age of Reagan. Tax cuts, which GOP doctrine now claims is theuniversal cure-all for surpluses and deficits, male pattern baldnessand erectile dysfunction, are at the center of every Republicaneconomic program. As John McCain put it during the campaign, "tax cuts, starting withKennedy, as we all know, increase revenues." And in February, TexasRepublican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison offered the purest statement of Arthur Laffer's fantasy:
"Every major tax cut we've had in history has created more revenue."

As it turns out, not so much. The claim, as ThinkProgress neatly summed it up, is empirically and historically false:

The notion that cutting taxes somehow - magically -increases government revenues is a myth that won't die. "The claim thattax cuts pay for themselves...is contradicted by the historicalrecord," reported the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, whichshowed that revenues grew twice as fast in the 1990s, when taxes wereraised, than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut. FactCheck.org called aclaim like Hutchison's "highly misleading" and stated the obvious factthat "we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers."

Lie #5: The GOP is the party of fiscal discipline.

Back in February, AP reporter and John McCain donut server Liz Sidotiwrote of beaten and battered Republicans trying to find their way backfrom the political wilderness in a piece titled, "GOP tries to restoreimage of fiscal discipline."

Of course, that would constitute a return to a time that never was.Far from the deficit hawks of Republican legend, the modern RepublicanParty from Reagan forward devastated the U.S. treasury, leaving mounting debt and hemorrhaging red ink for as far as the eye can see. As it turns out, U.S. national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan, only to double again under George W. Bush. As this eye-popping chartshows, under recent Republican presidents the debt exploded as apercentage of GDP, interrupted only by the all-too-brief fiscal sanityof the Clinton years.

"Reagan," Dick Cheneyonce famously declared, "proved that deficits don't matter."Apparently, that rule only applies when a Republican is sitting in theOval Office

Lie #6: Ronald Reagan was the greatest tax cutter of all time.
Through thick and thin, this hagiography of Ronald Reagan is central to Republican identity. But as Steve Benenrightly noted, it is President Obama whose stimulus plan delivered thelargest two-year tax cut in history. And as it turns out, what SaintRonnie giveth, he also taketh away.
As predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits.Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan deliverednot the balanced budgets he promised, but record-settings deficits.Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous "rosy scenarios."

Ultimately, Reagan was forced to raise taxes twice to avert financial catastrophe (a fact John McCainlearned the hard way from Tom Brokaw last October). By the time he leftoffice in 1989, Ronald Reagan nonetheless more than equaled the entiredebt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history.

Lie #10: The rich pay too much in taxes already.
While 60% of Americans in recent Gallup pollsbelieve upper-income people are "paying too little" in taxes, it is anarticle of faith among Republicans that the reverse is true.

In one variant of this argument, Arthur Lafferclaims Barack Obama will have to raise taxes on lower and middle incomeAmericans because "it cannot be done at the high end because thosepeople can get away from it." That assessment echoes George W. Bush,who similarly argued in 2004, "The really rich people figure out how tododge taxes anyway." (They are right in one sense; thanks to the GOP's gutting of the IRS in the 1990's, by 2007 the amount of federal revenue lost to fraud and unpaid taxes catapulted to $300 billion.)

Leave it to Bush's former flunkie Ari Fleischerto make even more comical Tax Week plea on behalf of the nation'sbedraggled wealthy. The top 10% of taxpayers, Fleischer argued, are"supporting virtually everyone and everything" and "their burden keepsgetting heavier." As he put it:

"It's also what's called redistribution of income, and it is getting out of hand."
Oh, it's gotten out of hand all right, just not in the direction Fleischer claims.

As the Center for American Progress noted, the Bush tax cuts delivered a third of their total benefitsto the wealthiest 1% of Americans. And to be sure, their payday wasstaggering. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities detailed, by 2007millionaires on average pocketed $120,000 from the Bush tax cuts of2001 and 2003. Those in the top 1% stashed an extra $45,000 a year. Asa result, millionaires saw their after-tax incomesrise by 7.6%, while the gains for the middle quintile and bottom 20% ofAmericans were a paltry 2.3% and 0.4%, respectively. (Another CBPPstudy demonstrated that the Bush tax cuts accounted for half of the mushrooming deficits during his tenure in the White House.)

And as the New York Times revealed in 2006, the 2003 Bush dividend and capital gains tax cutsoffered almost nothing to taxpayers earning below $100,000 a year.Instead, those windfalls reduced taxes "on incomes of more than $10million by an average of about $500,000." As the Times revealed in a jaw-dropping chart,"the top 2 percent of taxpayers, those making more than $200,000,received more than 70% of the increased tax savings from those cuts ininvestment income." So it should come as no surprise that the incomeshare of the 400 richest Americans doubled over the past decade.

There is, of course, one final GOP meta-myth for Tax Day. Despitetheir best efforts to portray Republicans as the best economic stewardsfor America, the record clearly shows that the stock market and theeconomy over all almost always do better under Democratic presidents.

Lie #3: 40% of Americans pay no taxes.
This canard, too, has been in circulation since last summer. Parroting right-wing papers including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune Review, the McCain campaignargued, "Obama raises taxes on seniors, hard working families to give'welfare' to those who pay none." While Sean Hannity and Rudy Giulianiechoed the "welfare" charge in January, on Monday, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischerkept up the drum beat, deeming Obama's middle class tax cuts a "moralproblem" when "50% of the country gets benefits without paying forthem."

Alas, they do pay for them. As FactCheckamong others noted, Republican conveniently ignore sales, excise andmost of all, payroll taxes. Starting with the first dollar they earn,virtually all American workers pay the 6.2% Social Security tax (onincome up to $97,000) and another 1.45% for Medicare. An analysis bythe Tax Policy Center concluded, "three quarters of filers pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes."

Тут за день так накувыркаешься,
Придешь домой - там ты сидишь!
А чем болтать — взяла бы, Зин,
Сгоняла б лучше в магазин...
Владимир Высоцкий , "Диалог у телевизора"