 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Other then Lose forwarding which didn't occur since none of these companies posted a lose what did you pwn? ? |
Did you check the prior years for losses? I didn't but then again I never claimed that a loss carryforward or carryback actually applied. I merely contend that this mechanism makes a comparison of profit to tax paid in a given year to be a USELESS EXERCISE.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Site? I haven't looked up any of these profit statements but the report says each of them reported at least a 1 billion profit to share holders. We'd have to see if 2002 or 2001 were lose years. I tend to believe Aggie and the Mac bridgade would have been gloating if IBM was losing money while Asher would have been running around trying to explain it. |
Or 2000 or 1999, 1998 etc etc-- Is there a limit on the carryforward of regular ( ie non-capital) losses in the US system
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:36
|
|
That article is just spewing garbage numbers as well as taking 2003 in isolation. Consider Pfizer. Here's what the article says...
quote:
Viagra maker Pfizer took home the 'Taxpaying Dysfunction (TD)' award. Despite $14 billion in profits between 2001 and 2003, Pfizer couldn't get excited enough about paying taxes to perform sending just $1.2 billion to the federal treasury, a miserly effective tax rate of just 8.2%. In contrast, Pfizer's industry competitor Merck paid 32.5% of its $12.7 billion in three-year profits in federal taxes. |
Here were the profits and income taxes paid for 2001 through 2003...
Income before taxes (income taxes paid)
2001: $10.0 billion profit before taxes ($2.4 billion in income taxes)
2002: $11.8 billion profit before taxes ($2.6 billion in income taxes)
2003: $3.2 billion profit before taxes ($1.6 billion in income taxes)
http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/qu...746&siteid=mktw
Last edited by DanS on 15-06-2005 at 23:25
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
#2 we dealt with by showing those were transactions from one legally independent party to another so that's the share holder paying a tax not the company. You even got stuck up and said you knew that but here you are claiming this is a tax paid by the corporation. That's a bit dishonest.
. |
Nope-- you obviously can't read and have never read any taxation theory . As for stuck up, I just stated a fact that I have been working as a corporate lawyer for 11 years so I don't need a lesson in the legal person that is a corporation. None of this changes the fact that you have to consider both transactions to tax correctlyand accurately
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
#4 I don't know if the profits were earned in the US or not but the US treasury says they have to pay taxes on the money they remite to the US. If they are remitting it to share holders then it must be declared and taxed in the US. It's talking about profits those companies declare to share holders vs taxs they declare to the US government. |
I think your terminology is off but I think I understand your meaning. Corps do not declare profits to shareholders in any different way than they declare them publicly etc. What they do is declare and pay dividends on shares. Those dividends are taxable in the hands of the recipient.
None of this changes the fact that a US corp that earns 2 billion, 1 billion in the US and 1 billion in Canada will not pay tax on 2 billion in the US. Tha Canadian taxman will have its hand out first for the tax on one of those billions . . . US tax on that billion will be much less or non-existent ( I don't know the details). A US corp with significant overseas operations could pay very little US tax if their US operations were not profitable but overseas operations were.
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
#3 You once again get it wrong; did you read the pdf file? The author pointed out that in the 1940's 50% of Federal revenue came from corporate taxes, in the 1970's corporations paid only 20%, and now days they pay only 7%. This is a long term shift of the tax burden off of companies and onto individuals. The author would like to see corporations pay more while individuals pay less and he wants to see fewer subsidies going to corporations. Further more he pointed out ten free loaders which either didn't pay taxes or recieved such large subsidies that they netted more subsidies then they paid in taxes.
|
I never disputed most of this. The exception is I still find a simple ratio of tax to profit to be a useless , simplistic and idiotic number
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You can, although without a schedule C or similar loss, it's rather hard to have negative personal income in order to be able to have losses to carry forward. |
I said the same thing only wordier-- Outside of business or capital losses, its hard to make negative personal income, unless the system was ridiculous and allowed decuctions for everyday living expenses
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
Realize that the federal government could confiscate all corporate profits, and the corporate income taxes still wouldn't pay for anything near 50% of federal revenue.
. |
As well, A sad statement on government that they gobble up that much revenue.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-06-2005 23:13
|