Skip to main content

What I really like about corporate skullduggery is that at least it's usually done with big numbers, as in billions of dollars. Nothing on the cheap (except, of course, when it comes to paying workers). In another installment of "how can we fill our coffers, pay our CEO millions of dollars and fleece the public" comes today's news: Corporate-based America  is robbing the states of billions of dollars by dodging taxes.

Once again, Citizens for Tax Justice (now there's an organization that deserves the Medal of Freedom) has another in-depth study, which is quite detailed but I'll summarize it here:

   * 90 companies paid no state income tax at all in at least one year, and 38 companies avoided taxes in two or more years.
    * 10 companies, including Boeing, Merck, Rockwell Automation, paid no state income tax at all over the five-year period covered by the study.
    * The average weighted state corporate income tax rate is 6.25 percent, but the 269 companies paid an average rate of just 3.06 percent.
   * The companies examined collectively avoided paying $73.1 billion in state corporate income tax.[emphasis added]
And the kicker:
In 2012 alone, 25 companies paid no state income tax. Another 127 of the companies paid less than half the weighted-average statutory state corporate tax rate that year, meaning that more than half of the companies in our sample paid less than half the average legal state tax rate in that year
How to stop it? One key step:
The single most important corporate tax reform available to states is to adopt a practice used by 24 states called “combined reporting,” which effectively treats a parent and its subsidiaries as one corporation for state tax purposes. Combined reporting eliminates most of the tax benefits of shifting profits into Delaware or Nevada by adding them back to the profits of the corporation that is taxable in the state and then taxing a share of the combined profit.
The bottom line:
The data in this report show in stark terms just how successful large, multistate and multinational corporations have become at shirking their tax responsibilities to state and local governments. They have been abetted in this effort by America’s major accounting firms, have used heavy lobbying and even threats to extract further tax breaks, and have often persuaded state elected officials to become their facilitators, too. As a result, individual taxpayers and purely in-state (usually smaller) businesses are paying a heavy
price, in the form of higher taxes, reduced public services and unfair competition
.

What is particularly galling is that many of these corporate "leaders" (it's not leadership to essentially argue for your self-interested greed) are the very ones arguing for state budget cuts, cuts in pensions, and vociferously opposing the quite puny proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10.  

By dodging a fair share in taxes, the same corporations have created the very crisis of shortfalls in state budgets (and, on the pension side, in particular, the finance-industry driven financial crisis caused hundreds of billions of dollars in pension losses).

Scum.

12:04 PM PT: Several people have commented quite appropriately about the race to the bottom in the competition between states and cities for jobs, a race to the bottom fanned by the overpaid CEOs whose one goal is to boost the share price of the company to enhance their own wealth...a great organization on this whole topic is Good Jobs First http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/ Check them out.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Cheating government on a large scale are called (43+ / 0-)

    smart business.
    Someone cheating the food stamp program is the lead on Fox News.

    The crimes of the poor are the virtues of the rich.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:26:44 AM PDT

  •  Why? (10+ / 0-)

    Why do we keep trying to demonize the companies for OBEYING THE LAW?

    These corporations you cite have entire professionally staffed departments who SOLE mission is to make sure the company adheres to every tax requirement that applies to them in every locality, state and country in which they operate.

    People are paid A LOT to make sure the company has no liability to be assessed with tax fines and levies.  This is their job.

    Its not "robbing" or a "dodge" when this is exactly what the law is designed to foster.

    Do you think that if the law changed these same companies wouldn't then pay exactly what they owed under the NEW LAW?  Of course they would.  Just as obviously as they would try to resist any changes that would force them to pay more.

    This isn't new.  This isn't some secret trick only allotted to the few.  EVERY company has the exact same access to these laws if  and when they operate across jurisdictional boundaries.

    Advocate for tax reform all you want and hell, most of us will take up arms with you, but why the constant search to find EVEN MOAR!!! companies that are following the law?  How is that not a completely dog-bites-man story?

    I don't get the accusatory thrill we get out of some contrived "A-ha!" moment that Boeing obeys interstate tax law compliance standards!!  I am shocked.  SHOCKED I tell you!!1!one!!

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:34:05 AM PDT

    •  Wrong scapegoat, see below (3+ / 0-)

      Written same time you were posting your parental response to the diarist...rofl

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:39:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clap louder (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk, Sparhawk, VClib, Lujane

        but still no answer... ...is the goal here to try and shame a faceless profit-driven entity into altruistically changing its behavior because we think it should think it should?

        Is there some outrage quota we need this to feed?

        I am not disagreeing on the message, I am simply weary of the tactic.  Combined Reporting would be a way of curbing some of this, sure.  Where are the efforts to enact that?

        What else is being done?  {::crickets::}  but, but but... Disney!  and um, Ford Motors!  oh an Pfizer!  Fuck them!  

        Whatever... I have clouds that are more fun to yell at then this.

        Tax reform could should be a big issue but "LOOK WHAT THIS RICH COMPANY PAYZ!!1!" is the approach I'd expect if we wanted this problem solved by 4th graders.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:47:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Comment on Point (12+ / 0-)

      In fact, many Dems have written the tax code which has enabled companies to have no state tax burden.

      It's the obligation of any CFO to do whatever he/she can to minimize the tax burden.

      And it should be the obligation of a governor to maximize tax revenues.

      Why not demonize the Dem state lawmakers who have championed this?

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:43:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thats an idea (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PatriciaVa, blackhand, VClib, Lujane

        Push our own party on this... that was actually something  I was hoping to see the OWS movement accomplish.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:48:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who actually holds the reins of power? (7+ / 0-)

        The international corporations or the local and state governments?  I would argue that the corporations are using their financial (and purchased political) power to get the low taxes that they want.

        An illusion can never be destroyed directly... SK.

        by Thomas Twinnings on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:51:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You can't blame a CFO for minimizing tax burden (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          Is BigBiz in charge of the government?

          Why not vote for potential governors or mayors who promise not to engage in fiscal competition with other states/cities?

          Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

          by PatriciaVa on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:57:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  When are these fictional governors going to run (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PatriciaVa, maryabein, BlackSheep1

            for office?

            Why not vote for potential governors or mayors who promise not to engage in fiscal competition with other states/cities?
            •  Why don't you find somebody who wants to? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FG, VClib

              There are always lots of candidates on our ballot for governor.  

              The people here, for whatever reason they had, voted for a Republican.  

              •  Then maybe I can fund his campaign too! (0+ / 0-)
              •  your own link (0+ / 0-)
                Minister Dan Northcutt (I) was the only declared challenger to Jindal, but has since dropped out of the race.[3] On October 22, Caroline Fayard's name surfaced on talk-radio program Think Tank with Garland Robinette, as a potential competitor for Jindal in his reelection campaign. The discussants cited Jindal's high approval ratings and already in-the-bank $7 million campaign fund as unapproachable assets for Democrats other than Fayard, who at the time of the program was seeking the office of lieutenant governor in a special election runoff against Republican secretary of state Jay Dardenne.[4]
                 
                Hardly lots of candidates, and the pernicious effect of private money in elections.
          •  DO you really have (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NoMoreLies, JayRaye, mzkryz, BYw

            to ask if Big Biz in charge of government?  It owns the government and the players, owns the media and controls the messages.  

            And fiscall competition is just another name for race to the bottom where costs are socialized, profits are maximized and no public benefits really ever pay out for the average  citizen.

        •  The voters hold the reins of power. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, Mikey, Sparhawk, erush1345

          If a majority of the voters don't like the fact that state governments are willing to give tax breaks to businesses to attract businesses to that state, then their solution is to vote those people out of office.  

          •  I just spit my coffetalk all over my screen. n/t (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            burlydee, jfromga, Simplify, BYw

            If you don't watch news, you're un-informed. If you watch Fox news, you're mis-informed. (paraphrasing Mark Twain)

            by edg on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:51:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Please.. this IS what voters want (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coffeetalk, VClib, Sparhawk

              How many local politicians run on a platform of "attracting jobs"?

              Here in DC, one politician stood up against a windfall tax giveaway to build the new Nationals stadium when DC got a team back.  Her name was Linda Cropp.  ...and she went from being chairwoman of the city council to unemployed because the DC Voters WANTED that stadium.

              And she was right.  All her math was right.  THe city is paying through the nose for that project now.

              Voters do not care.  And they didn't get "lobbied".  They wanted the team, the stadium and the jobs that came with it.  And every politician that wanted to get in or stay in office lined up and said they could have them.

              Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

              by Wisper on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:59:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Some people here are in denial. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sparhawk, Catte Nappe, erush1345, VClib

              If people here think that voters really don't want their elected officials to give businesses tax incentives for locating there, they must be living in a dkos bubble.

              A lot of voters WANT their elected officials to give big tax breaks to certain businesses in exchange for the business locating there.  Most voters in Texas, for example, know exactly why a lot of business goes there, and they don't want their elected officials to tax business any more and send some out of state.  

              We've actually had VOTES here in Louisiana on giving big tax breaks to big companies.  There was one I remember for a Bass Pro shop in Livingston Parish, where people voted overwhelmingly to give a big tax break to them so they'd bring a store there.  

              I remember after the Army Corps of Engineers Disaster (what some call "Katrina") there was talk that the New Orleans Saints would move to Texas.  There was a huge sentiment among the voters to do whatever was necessary to keep them in New Orleans.  

          •  I believe that we are in what would be called (0+ / 0-)

            A circle jerk.  When the system is such that only those who willing to give such breaks are able to make it choice pool, we're beyond fixing it via votes.

            "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

            by blackhand on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 01:45:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So what do you suggest if not "via votes"? n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib
              •  In order for votes to work, we first need (0+ / 0-)

                to get clean elections.  That certainly isn't going to happen any time soon.  In order to develop a solution, one first need to recognize and identify the problem.  Collectively, we're in the first phase on this process.  

                Personally, I think it is going to take some form of great crisis in order for there to even be enough will to begin to fix the system.  A crisis so great that society simply can not continue in the direction it has been going.   By crisis, I mean event like the American Revolution, Civil War, and WW2.  What will precipitate such a crisis?  There is no way to no until it happens.

                "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

                by blackhand on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 05:47:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  This is a load of bull wrapped in dung (0+ / 0-)

        and covered in droppings.

        And it should be the obligation of a governor to maximize tax revenues.

        Why not demonize the Dem state lawmakers who have championed this?

        Because states are played against each other just like countries are played against each other with free trade agreements. Boeing threatened to move the 787 production to a "favorable" state and got massive tax concessions and union busting agreements for their efforts. With assholes like Rick "No Taxes in Texas" Perry and the like governors (or more correctly the legislatures) don't have a hope in hell of cracking down on the venue shopping. And even if the states were all uniform with "free trade" deals coming off the ALEC fed printing press on a weekly basis those global companies can just pull workers and tax revenue out of the country all together.

        So, sure, blame the state lawmakers. But the real culprits are the business owners who have the whole freaking world trade rigged against the 99%.

        Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

        by ontheleftcoast on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 02:42:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  the problem isn't obeying the law (9+ / 0-)

      it is buying the law so that you don't have to worry about obeying it except when it directs you get another deduction or subsidy.

      •  No, the problem is with the voters. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, VClib, erush1345

        If the voters don't like the fact that their elected officials are giving deductions or exemptions or other tax breaks to certain businesses to attract that business to their state, for example, the solution is to vote those elected officials out of office.  

        •  so little truth in that assertion (11+ / 0-)

          huge amounts of money are spent on propaganda, disguising proposals or simply not reporting on them at all.  Big companies are doing their best to silence traditional media and dissent.  Voters have to take some responsibility, but  people are struggling to survive, make ends meet, they collectively really don't have the time or energy to fight the system let alone try to ferret out the few who analyze these proposals and attempt to tell the truth.  The media has abdicated its job because of revunue streams and conservative corporate ownership, and even blogs like this one are flooded with those who defend the indefensible every time a key interest is threatened to be exposed for what it really is.  The truth is endangered more every day.

          But this is a refreshing look at the apologia about how nothing is ever the fault of the crooks and frauds in collusion between big business and the houses of government.

          •  Seriously? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, Sparhawk, erush1345
            Voters have to take some responsibility, but  people are struggling to survive, make ends meet, they collectively really don't have the time or energy to fight the system let alone try to ferret out the few who analyze these proposals and attempt to tell the truth.
            You let voters off the hook because they don't want to spend the time or energy to "ferret out" the truth?

            That's ridiculous.  That's saying that some people have to act against their own self-interests in politics because a lot of voters aren't going to take their vote seriously.  

            We  have a representative democracy, and a First Amendment.  We are all entitled -- even rich people -- to say what we want, and get involved in the political process as much, or as little, as we want.  The people who get up and go to work every day -- or wish they had a job to go to every day -- make up the vast majority of this country.  There are plenty of places for them to get a variety of political views if they want. There are plenty of groups that are putting out messages to counter the "big corporations."  If voters don't want to take the time or the effort to take their votes seriously, and are willing to abdicate the political arena to others, then they get the government they deserve.

            We can't make up for the fact that some people don't take their political responsibilities seriously, or don't want to delver deeply into politics, by trying to silence others. You don't get to silence messages you don't like because you don't think some voters have the time or effort to discovery the "truth."  That's not how it works.  To coin a cliche, there are 99 times as many voters in the 99% than there are in the 1%. If the 99% are willing to cede their government by not educating themselves enough to take their own voter seriously, it's their own fault.

            We get the government that people vote for.  That's the bottom line.  

          •  The propaganda arguement is old (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345

            If you truly believe that the American People have no agency, cannot make their own decisions, that they have been brainwashed.

            Then there is no reason for this blog, for advocacy, even for elections.

            Might as well just go home and give up.

            •  explain the scientific studies (0+ / 0-)

              that prove Fox News viewers know less after watching the news more than if they were like the people that don't watch.

              And then look at how many viral emails based on the same information circle in the red states.   Come talk to these folks and look into what they 'believe'.    And then tell me about propaganda.  The only reason someone at this blog would denigrate the idea of the kind of propaganda coming out of the media, is they don't relly read the blog.

              •  and somehow you can still come (0+ / 0-)

                here and have a coherent thought.  My oh my, how did you overcome the propaganda!?

                I never said I don't believe that is is propaganda, I just push back at the idea that the American people are brainwashed if  they don't agree with your world view.

        •  And replace them with? (0+ / 0-)

          "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

          by blackhand on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 01:46:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, the problem isn't with the voters imo but... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          ...the solution is absolutely in the hands of the voters.  

        •  Always trust Coffeetalk to blame the fella conned (0+ / 0-)

          into buying the Brooklyn Bridge instead of blaming the fella that sold it.

          Like the Bizarro Will Rogers.

    •  I honestly don't get this comment (8+ / 0-)

      Boeing and its friends lobby hard to make the laws exactly as they are to benefit themselves at the price of the workers and smaller companies.  They shirk their burden to the local gov'ts that serve them.  Yet we aren't ever supposed to direct our ire at the man behind the mask that is pulling all the politicians strings?

      Its not demonizing companies for obeying the law.  Its waking people up to the fact that companies are writing the law for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else.  You say you'll help lobby to get the tax laws changed.  Well who in the hell do you think is going to be standing in your way? Boeing is not your friend.  It may not be your enemy, but its not your friend.  

      •  The fault is with the voters, then. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, VClib, erush1345

        Every person in this country wants laws, especially tax laws, that benefit them.  Every. Single. One.  Including people who own businesses.  That's how democracy works. Pretty much nobody -- except maybe a few of the uber rich who are so rich that their money is nothing more than number on a sheet of paper, and a billion here or there doesn't make much difference -- says "please, pass a law so I can pay more in taxes."  Do you EXPECT anybody to do that?    

        The problem is that in states that do not have an income tax -- like Texas -- there's not a huge outcry from the voters of that state to impose more business taxes.   States that have a tax system where businesses don't pay very much do that on purpose, because business that can move all or part of their business often will "follow the money" and move to states where their tax burden is lessened.

        •  Yawwwwnnnnn. There is nothing wrong (5+ / 0-)

          with calling out the people who lobby to have the laws in place that benefit the few at the price of the many.  That is also called democracy, with a helping of free speech.  The system is corrupt b/c its flushed with money. Politicians on both side of the aisle are bought and paid for.  They serve big money interest over small and confuse voters with propaganda and lies about the effects.  Do you think Americans are voting for a reduced standard of living? B/c that is what there getting.  

          •  I think the people get the government they (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, erush1345

            vote for.  And if enough people would rather vote for social issues, for example, over economic issues, then they get the government they vote for.  

            And comments like this:

            They serve big money interest over small and confuse voters with propaganda and lies about the effects.
            make it sound as if you think most people are too stupid to be voters.  I always find comments like these to be arrogant.  The implication is that most voters are stupid, or at least not as smart as you are, because YOU can discern all those "lies" through the "propaganda" but it seems -- from this kind of comment -- that you think most voters are too stupid to do that.  

            What's your solution, then?  An IQ test for voters?  Only those who are smart enough to see the lies through the propaganda (like you) get to vote?  

      •  Same targets (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, erush1345

        I think you and I might actually agree on the larger point, but look at these diaries..

        How many politicians are named?  Which states?  What lobbyists?  

        Who are the actual people that are signing these sweetheart deals and tax incentives?  Who are the people out there campaigning against them?  Which cities or states have taken a stand against this? How did they do it?  How did they even try?

        Name one proposal that has actually been put forward to address this legitimate issue.

        I'm not championing Boeing or anyone else.  But Im also not going to get worked up that some easy-target eebil corporation is getting away with rape fraud robbery "skullduggery" (I think that was my favorite today) for doing what they are supposed to do.

        DO NOT interpret my comment as "Stop picking on these nice corporations".  Not at all.  Its "Why AREN'T we actually targeting something actually relevant?"

        My Guess?  Because it is far far easier to whip up some hate on a company that has a household brand name and a 7 to 10 figure bottom line.

        Which tells me this isn't about policy.  It is about venting.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:54:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  First you have to inform people about the issue (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tasini, NoMoreLies, gooderservice, JayRaye

          I think this diary is more than relevant.  First people have to learn, and be convinced there is a significant problem with the tax code in this country.  If you don't ever put the numbers out there, how would people know?  

          Name one proposal that has actually been put forward to address this legitimate issue
          From the diary:
          The single most important corporate tax reform available to states is to adopt a practice used by 24 states called “combined reporting,” which effectively treats a parent and its subsidiaries as one corporation for state tax purposes. Combined reporting eliminates most of the tax benefits of shifting profits into Delaware or Nevada by adding them back to the profits of the corporation that is taxable in the state and then taxing a share of the combined profit.
          I'm not championing Boeing or anyone else.  But Im also not going to get worked up that some easy-target eebil corporation is getting away with rape fraud robbery "skullduggery" (I think that was my favorite today) for doing what they are supposed to do.
          I don't know what they are supposed to do.  All I know is they are working specifically against my interests, and yours, on this issue.  So i don't see any reason not to hold them accountable for their part in advancing a cause detrimental to my interest.

          The great thing about corporations is that they are never accountable.  Even as they spend millions lobbying, setting up astro-turf groups to spread propaganda and paying off politicians to write laws in their favor, we must never say anything bad about them.  I mean, these creatures are just doing what comes naturally to them.

          This site is hysterical.  When people criticize corporate dems people get mad.  Criticize Obama, people get mad. Now you don't want people criticizing the corporations themselves.  IT's LEGAL!!! Of course it is.  They wrote the laws.

          Inherent in the criticism of these companies, is a criticism about policy.  From what I can tell your chief problem is the diarist use some editorial license to call this "robbery." Your concern is noted.  

    •  Gawd Bless America! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burlydee, MKSinSA, jfromga, JayRaye

      I'm gonna send flag pins to every one of em!

      It just about brings tears to my eyes, we're so...GREAT!


      The Fail will continue until actual torches and pitchforks are set in motion. - Pangolin@kunstler.com

      by No one gets out alive on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:38:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree but reporting which & how many cos pay $0... (0+ / 0-)

      ...is very important in educating the public on how regressive and corrupt our tax code is and how important it is for the public to demand change (since neither business nor Congress will).

      Same for Wall St. There no need to hate Wall St. or attack some nebulous entities like Wall St. or the "rich" to fight opposition for rational taxes and regulations. Economic populism, for instance, is responsible and responsive government that prioritizes the needs of all Americans for today's marketplace. Companies or Wall St. thrive no less regardless of how much taxes a few hedge fund managers or CEOs pay, if the Social Security cap is raised or benefits are raised, or if minimum wage is raised, and in fact they thrive better as the overall economy improves.

      But reporting the insanity is important and not exactly minus the demonizing since there are very awful consequences of the status quo but there's more focus with empowered denouncing of the facts without the drama.

    •  Corporations pay tax advisors to save them money (0+ / 0-)

      These people have tax accountant teams paid to save them every dollar they can, legally or otherwise. Unfortunately, those who write the laws are too often neither educated about taxes or care. A single word changed in a tax law can save a corporation millions.
      There should be a mandatory minimum paid by these companies on their annual profits, period. A CEO should be only paid a certain amount over those who actually work. Sitting in a cushy office and stepping over the bodies, and families, of actual workers is hardly worth the millions these people are paid. It also is a way to take money off of the top of profits. (cheating)
      More than anything we have to end the abuses in congress of silently changing a word here or there in tax laws to save a corporation so much that they end up with subsidies and pay nothing. They play to win. Profit is their sole goal, not human lives, and certainly not workers. I'm still shocked people stand up for these so called "Job Gods", when they always take more than they give. Their unpaid taxes are then made up by smaller companies and citizens locally, even as they threaten to 'take jobs if things change". The GOP games of claiming "Corporations pay enough taxes and hurt small business or jobs", is a tired lie. Corporate savings then are funneled back to those in Congress who help them. Great Diary Tasini!

      •  Big public companies don't do "legal or otherwise" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep, Sparhawk, coffeetalk

        we have seen it, but it's very rare for big companies to cheat on their taxes for several reasons. First, they are audited by the IRS EVERY YEAR. Second, it's a criminal offense to take part in tax fraud and the tax departments of the big companies are filled with tax professionals who don't want to go to jail.

        There is no doubt that the tax departments of the major multinationals are some of the best professional tax groups in the world. Companies like GE are legend regarding the skill of their tax department. Big companies are always trying to minimize their world wide tax liability. That's not going to stop.  

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:54:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Had to log in for this AWESOME article (19+ / 0-)

    Great presentation and opinion tasini

    Often countered with such nauseating responses like

    We have a responsibility to our shareholders to rob, steal, pillage, and plunder.

    We have done nothing illegal, we follow the tax code and State laws.

    We pay tax professionals a ton of money to avoid paying a penny more then required to state and local coffers.

    Or the succinct response

    STFU

    just add this slippery tax skulduggery to the burgeoning proof-positive bindle of facts:

    Politicians serve big business, not the over-taxed, under-paid, under-serviced, over-fee'd, increasingly underfed citizens of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    What's not to love?  What will be the tipping point?

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:34:37 AM PDT

  •  thank you for this diary (9+ / 0-)

    it is time to change

    it is time to stop electing people who submit these loopholes and tax breaks into bills, under cover --and those who support them out right ----like the current goofy-ass proposal to lower taxes for corporations and get rid of loopholes, "as if" the loopholes won't be slipped right back in under the cover of unrelated bills.

    No more!

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:42:48 AM PDT

  •  The race to the bottom..... (5+ / 0-)

    of course, the thing is, the states at the bottom have to STAY at the bottom to keep winning businesses.  In the past, we'd assume that eventually, the taxes or wages would rise once the businesses became established.  But Gov. Perry has to promise that wages and taxes will NEVER go up in Texas, condemning his state to be the third world producer for the US.

    The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

    by Inland on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:56:32 AM PDT

    •  He can't promise that wages won't rise (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffeetalk, VClib

      Can only (sort of) promise that taxes won't.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:56:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure he can. (0+ / 0-)

        And with some truthfulness: if he attracts only low skilled, low paying jobs, and provides no educational opportunities, they will at least stay low relative to all the other states.

        The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

        by Inland on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 01:03:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Even Buffet Minimizes Taxes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gypsytoo, VClib, FG

    He structured the recent sale of his remaining stake in The Washington Post to pay 225M less than he would have otherwise.

    All completely legal.

    http://ftalphaville.ft.com/...

    At $715 each, Berkshire’s holding of 1,727,765 shares in Graham is worth $1.2bn.

    More than 99 per cent of that value is a capital gain, which,were Berkshire to sell, would trigger a tax liability at 35 per cent. Consider, also, that to sell more than a fifth of Graham Holdings in the market would mean accepting some sort of discount to the market price in return for the liquidity.
    ...................

    Consider also what Buffett is getting as part of the deal – a big slug of Berkshire stock. If you assume that the conglomerate is say 10 per cent undervalued, the return rises to 94 cents on the dollar.

    The difference between 94 cents on the dollar and 75 cents in this case is $225m.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

    by PatriciaVa on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:05:10 PM PDT

  •  Not "robbery." Not "cheating." (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, PatriciaVa, VClib, FG, erush1345

    These corporations are doing exactly what the law requires them to do (unless, of course, anybody  has evidence that they are violating the law).

    Here's the deal.  The law in this country is this:  no one and no entity --  not an individual, not a corporation, not a partnership, not an LLC -- has a legal obligation to pay one single dime more in taxes than the minimum that the law makes them pay.  The SCOTUS and virtually every court in this country have recognized that fact over and over and over.  Taxes are the government's way of legally taking your property -- your money, assuming you legally earned or generated it - -from you.  You and I -- and every person and entity in this country -- have every right to do whatever the law allows you to do to minimize the taxes you pay -- to minimize the amount of your money that the government takes from you. That's how things operate in a country that recognizes -- and protects -- private ownership of property.  We have no obligation to give the government any more of our money than the minimum that the law requires.  And we're entitled to use every avenue that the law provides to us to minimize the amount of our money that we give to the government.  

    In fact, a business that DID NOT pay the least amount of taxes that it was legally obligated to pay would actually be breaching its fiduciary obligation to its shareholders.  A business has an OBLIGATION to its shareholders to make sure that it is not paying more in taxes than it is legally obligated to pay.

    Really, both Congress and state legislatures set up tax codes to provide certain incentives.  Congress -- and state legislatures -- are the ones who set up this system which, in effect, tells business, "if you do x, y, and z, you get to keep more of your money."  Of course a business is going to do exactly what government is "telling" them they need to do to keep more of their money.   It's just stupid to think that either individuals, or businesses, are NOT going to do the very things that Congress and the state legislatures give them the incentives to do.  It's like Congress (through the ACA) telling business that if they let an employee work 30 hours instead of 29, each of that extra hour makes each of the prior 29 hours more expensive for the employer, and then being shocked -- shocked! -- that some businesses started limiting workers to 29 hours.  

    If Congress, or states, wanted to make the situation with respect to business more equitable, they'd lower the statutory rate (our federal statutory rate is among the highest) and make the tax much flatter, so that the amount of taxes remained pretty constant regardless of all the structuring a business does.  I'd be all in favor of that.  Business should be making decisions based on what's best for the business, rather than what minimizes their tax liability.  But as long as we have these complicated federal and state tax codes, where significant amounts of tax dollars depend on things like how you structure your business, it's not going to happen.  As long as we have this horrible tax code that's a morass of laws that make very little sense when you try to meld them together -- but, at the same time, involve a lot of money -- then business is going to pay people to wade through that morass of laws and figure out how to pay the minimum that the law requires them to pay.

    The blame for business being able to do these things lies with the people who write the laws.  And if the people don't like the ways they write the laws, it's up to the people to vote them out.  So, our remedy if we don't like the way the tax code is currently structured (and I CERTAINLY don't) is to push our elected officials for tax reform that simplifies the tax code and makes it flatter and fairer for all businesses.  And if they don't do it, vote them out. That's how things work in our representative democracy.  Apparently, we don't have enough voters right now who are willing to cast votes against people who perpetuate this horrible mess of a tax code that we have.  Until we do, this will continue.  

    •  except the corporations (7+ / 0-)

      are taking all the tax money they have saved and are calling it free speech to further buy the political system.

      "The system is rigged' means something different to people who don't have a vested interest in keeping it rigged than it does to the people who rigged the system in the first place.  And all the pretence you set out about how just showing up and voting in a system dominated by the rich and by raising money from the rich works just fine for the little guy just isn't working.

      •  Really? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, Sparhawk, FG, erush1345

        I always think this kind of message is arrogant.  

        After all, you are subjected to the exact same corporate money and commercials as every other voter.  Yet you manage not to believe everything you are told in Americans for Prosperity Commercials.  Do you think the vast majority of voters are not as smart or discerning as you are?  Do you think the vast majority of voters are so stupid or gullible that they have no choice to believe whatever they see in a commercial from a corporation, and are unable to see commercials from the left that counter that message, unable to find MSNBC on their cable channel, and unable to find internet sites that put out messages that counter the corporate message?  

        •  I have learned (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NoMoreLies, burlydee, ask, JayRaye, Tonedevil

          to avoid the propaganda by reading source material from many sources but mainly excluding most US mainstream broadcast media, and the local newspapers.  I live in Georgia, where people tell me all the time that Fox News isn't biased and it isn't conservative. And it isn't about stupidity of other voters but priorities and awareness of how much we hear is conditioned by carefully paid for messages.   Many people never have an event or experience that calls this to their attention.

          So blame me for arrogance if you want, I don't care about your opinion of me at all.   But I know propaganda is effective, I know that big companies and political parties spend a fortune on it.  Frank Luntz is a byword around here for his messaging.

          And the internet,  routinely laws are introduced to dumb down the internet, provide corporate paid for search patterns to prevent equal access to sites, etc.   And many people don't have the luxury of access or the time to spend on the internet searching for alternative viewpoints.   Seems to me your disingenuous insistence that the playing field is really equal and fair is much more hurtful to the interests of people than my arrogance.  

          •  Um, MSNBC isn't too hard to find if people want to (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk, VClib, erush1345

            I have to think that more than the 800,000 people who tune in to their prime time shows in this country know where to find it on their cable channels if they want to.  And Dkos isn't any more difficult to find that Drudge is.    

            And this:

            Seems to me your disingenuous insistence that the playing field is really equal and fair is much more hurtful to the interests of people than my arrogance.  
            Is absurd if your definition of "equal" and "fair" is that everybody's message is published on an equal footing -- and the government should guarantee that. That's against everything that is at the basis of the First Amendment.  We've always had some political messages more widely disseminated than others, even from the inception of this country.  People -- not government -- decide how much a message gets heard.  Government is supposed to stay out of the business of trying to "equalize" messages.  

            I'd really, really be interested in hearing how you think we can make political speech "equal" and "fair" without the government playing some roll in suppressing some speech and subsidizing other speech, which is EXACTLY what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent.  

            •  you can't stick to my message (0+ / 0-)

              as you try to deflect.  Never once did I say anything about what government should do.   You are projecting what you fear not what I said.   And the playing field goes far beyond media into the money spent in elections, to buy officeholders, to prevent the wrong kind of people from voting, etc.   And you can pretend, but the less bright among the Republicans frequently give the game away by actually saying out loud them mean to stop people who support democrats from voting.

              I merely pointed out private interests in private media are using propaganda techniques and are co-opted,  and that many Americans have no clue as to what is happening.

              And 800K watch the almost liberal leaning MSNBC and there are over 150 million eligible to vote.  SO much for your argument.

    •  Partnerships aren't liable for Fed income taxes (0+ / 0-)

      (n general) because they're flow-through entities.  Only in very rare circumstances does a partnership itself incur Fed tax.
        LLCs must elect (if other than their default) which entity type (Eg. corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship) they will be treated as for Fed tax purposes.

      In fact, a business that DID NOT pay the least amount of taxes that it was legally obligated to pay would actually be breaching its fiduciary obligation to its shareholders.
       Funny, I've worked in the tax departments of businesses that paid more in taxes than they were "legally obligated to" because the owner-executives screwed up on the business side.  Maybe the shareholders should have sued themselves.

      My Karma just ran over your Dogma

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 03:06:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Probably can't sue if they paid more than they (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, erush1345

        owed because of a mistake.  Corporate officers often aren't liable to shareholders for mere negligence.

        However, there could be suits in some instances.  If the officers of the company knowingly paid more than the company legally owed because of some personal convictions, for example , and it was enough to affect stock prices, that could be the basis of a suit by the shareholders against the officer.  He has a fiduciary duty to make sure the company acts in the best interests of the shareholder.  It would be like a trustee who is overseeing a trust for a child deciding to donate a big chunk of the trust to the ACLU because he admires what they do.  That would be all well and good if it was his own money.  He's not allowed to do that with somebody else's money.  That's what a fiduciary duty is all about.  

  •  Government finance by Deficit Spending! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA, snoopydawg

    I wonder why we don't just do away with the Fraud that is the Tax System!  

    Let's recognize the reality.  Only fools pay taxes.  The Rich, the Corporations, the People who make most of the money pay people to rig the system so that they can avoid paying taxes.

    I am not a financial wizard.  But, I have always wondered what would be the actual effect if we just realized that the people and companies who actually should pay taxes won't.

    So, Maybe Government should just do away with income taxes entirely and run on deficit financing.  Inflate the money supply to operate.

    That way, the honest people who pay their taxes would not be penalized as  the only people who are DUMB enough to think that they should PAY their taxes when the people who should and could never do.

    This is written only half in jest.  I pay my taxes, I never claim any deductions, I simply take the standard deduction because I work for a living, earn a salary and don't claim that I have a small business or family farm.  I have additional withholding and then at the end of the year, I still end up having to pay extra.

    When I end up paying a higher percentage than Exxon, GE, Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, the Waltons, Mitt Romney, I get upset.  

    Why do I have to pay, when all of the "smart money" people don't?

    Voters should select people to represent them in their government. People in government should not select people who may vote!

    by NM Ray on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:44:51 PM PDT

    •  You don't have to be rich to itemize (0+ / 0-)

      The standard deduction is $6,100 for individuals.  If you pay a mortgage, your interest is deductible.  So are your property taxes and state income taxes.  Between the three, you're likely to hit that number as a middle-class person.

      Rich people do, in fact, pay a lot of taxes.  The middle quintile pays about 11% of their income in taxes each year.  The top 1% pays nearly 30%.  

  •  Re (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, erush1345
       * 10 companies, including Boeing, Merck, Rockwell Automation, paid no state income tax at all over the five-year period covered by the study.
    But their employees paid sales, income, and property taxes (and lots of it). Without these companies the taxes pulled in from the state would have been zero.

    Private employers pay 100% of the tax burden in all cases.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:53:20 PM PDT

    •  This is one hell of an argument... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ask
      •  Do the math (0+ / 0-)

        If all private employers leave your area, all money, jobs, playgrounds, schools, public services, etc dry up and blow away, even at "0% tax".

        That fact tells you exactly who is ultimately paying all those costs.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 02:13:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is it realistic that all private employers will (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ask, JayRaye, Tonedevil

          leave the area? Lol.  You realize the private employers are in my area to sell good and services to me so that they can make money. Its a symbiotic relationship, they didn't land from space or heaven.  

          Your view is wayyy out there.  People work and pay taxes on the profits they make.  The company is also suppose to pay taxes on their profits. No one, even in their most conservative dreamland, disputes that. That is how the system is set up. The company doesn't get to take credit for the taxes the employees pay.  What you're advocating isn't even conservative politics, its some weird sort of feudalism.  I think I heard Tywin Lanister say something similar on Game of Thrones.  "The Lannister's have sacrificed enough! 3,000 of our men died on the battlefield..."

          •  Re (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coffeetalk
            leave the area? Lol.  You realize the private employers are in my area to sell good and services to me so that they can make money. Its a symbiotic relationship, they didn't land from space or heaven.  
            No they aren't. All the grocery stores, McDonalds, retail, etc all subsist off the same activity that your public parks, schools, etc do.

            Export activity runs the whole show. Mining, manufacturing, designing, growing, tourism, etc. THAT activity runs the whole show. Any store you walk into that sells you something isn't likely one of these things.

            Your view is wayyy out there.  People work and pay taxes on the profits they make.  The company is also suppose to pay taxes on their profits. No one, even in their most conservative dreamland, disputes that.
            Except that lots of places don't agree with you as is the subject of this diary. A lot of localities realize that biting the hand that feeds you is not a good strategy.

            Besides; corporate officers, CEOs, shareholders, all of them pay taxes on their individual gains as well. Why tax corporate profits when they are already being taxed anyway via these mechanisms?

            Being competitive and attracting business is the name of the game. It's how the world works.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 02:41:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And those places have shitty education systems, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JayRaye, Tonedevil

              crappy environmental protections, and a host of persons in poverty. Its funny how republican economic politics leads to higher poverty rates, failing infrastructure and a general race to the bottom.  

              BTW, when has someone stopped mining for taxes? Manufacturing - in what chinese province are you referring? I don't know what designing and growing are... But please, continue...  One day our workers will have the same protections they have in China.  Than we will really be able to compete!

              The race to the bottom is doing America wonders.  Just look around you!  All the happy faces!

              •  States, localities, and individuals... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk, VClib

                ...must be competitive. That's how it works. No one owes you, your town, or your state anything. It's all about what you can offer.

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 03:38:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  What do you expect a business to do? (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sparhawk, VClib, erush1345, nextstep, Kasoru

                Let me give you an analogy. Let's say you need to buy a car.  You generally have an idea of what you want and need, so you go to three or four car lots, look at what they have, compare prices, etc., and make a decision based on what's best for you -- where you get the most "bang for your buck," or -- in many cases -- which one offers you the best price. You might negotiate with two or three dealerships, to see what is the best deal you can get from each dealership.  And it's a big purchase, so price is generally important.  You don't say, "That dealer offers a bigger commission to his employees, so I'll buy at that dealership  even if it costs me substantially more for the same car that I can get cheaper elsewhere, and even though the terms are not as good for me.  

                That's EXACTLY what a business does when it decides where to locate anything from a factory to its corporate headquarters.  It weighs everything and makes the decision that is best for its business -- and the best financial situation plays a big role in that.  So if a business thinks the financial benefit of locating in State A outweighs whatever else State B is offering, it will go to State A.  

                I'm not sure what else you think a for-profit business is supposed to do BUT act in whatever way -- legally -- that maximizes profits.  That's the whole point of its existence.  

                •  Your comment has nothing to do with mine (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't expect shit from these companies.  I never will.  What I expect is for people to fight against the companies attempts to structure the tax code in their favor.  Your endless apologia for these companies is ridiculous.  You're the same person who argued we shouldn't raise the minimum wage.  Now you want to act like you're on the side of the workers, WE JUST HAVE TO GET ORGANIZED. BS.

                  The policies these companies advocate ultimately end up hurting the locations that attract them.  I don't expect Boeing to do anything but act in their interest.  I don't expect McDonald's to do anything but advocate for the lowest wages possible. I just want to wake up more workers so we start to act in OUR interest.  

                  •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)
                    You're the same person who argued we shouldn't raise the minimum wage.  
                    if you look, I've said repeatedly I think the minimum wage needs to be raised to the $9 - $10 area.

                    And if you blame companies for being bad actors, you ought to be able to say what you think they should be doing differently.  Which is why my comment has everything to do with yours.  If you can't come up with anything they should do differently, they aren't the bad actors.  The ones who enable them to act in their own best interests are the ones that the blame goes to.  

              •  burlydee - public companies have a fiduciary (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                erush1345

                duty to maximize long term shareholder value. Part of that in minimizing worldwide tax liabilities. It's up to our politicians to structure tax codes to generate the revenues necessary to fund government services. It is not the responsibility of companies or individuals to pay more taxes than legally required. Individuals and corporations have a legal obligation to pay taxes owed based on the current tax codes, and not a penny more.

                If communities have poor schools and lax regulations, blame the politicians.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:43:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No shit (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib
                  It's up to our politicians to structure tax codes to generate the revenues necessary to fund government services.
                  But you and coffeetalk want to act as if those politicians are acting in a vacuum.  As if these companies aren't doing everything they can to get the laws written exactly as they want them.  I'm just recognizing the companies are applying political pressure against our interest.  Damn.  
                  •  burlydee - of course they are (0+ / 0-)

                    And they have every right to lobby politicians to change the tax and other laws to be more favorable to their interests. It's out job to rally the other side to create equity in the tax laws and regulations. And sometimes we win. Mitt Romney would have been a much more pro business President than Barack Obama.

                    "let's talk about that"

                    by VClib on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:43:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  BTW one of the reasons we tax corporate profits (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JayRaye

              is b/c the corporation is suppose to be a legal entity on to its own.  That is why when you sue McDonald's the CEO doesn't pay the tab out of his own pockets.  The corporation also retains profits from year to year to fund growth.  That way you don't have to go to the shareholders for cash each time you want to expand.  It also facilitates stock and company movement.  

              If Corporations don't want to be double taxed there are lot of business forms they could take - LLC, propietorships, etc. that do not come with the double taxation consequence.  But obviously the corporate form is too lucrative a form to choose a more "friendly" tax model.  

              •  burlydee - it's not more lucrative (0+ / 0-)

                but once you reach any real scale it is the only business structure that actually works. You can't have thousands of partners or other pass through owners, plus add to that the nightmare a public company with thousands of shareholders. That's why all the listed stocks are C corporations.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 08:04:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  That isn't the only way governments are cheated (7+ / 0-)

    You should look at the way that local governments have been robbed by Wall Street through the derivatives market.
      That's billions of dollars more.

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 01:08:44 PM PDT

  •  I support the principle (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coffeetalk, FG, VClib

    But I'm not crazy about the study.  

    1.) For starters, calculating anything in comparison to this 6.25% corporate tax rate strikes me as weak.  Weighted average by state domestic product?  Come on.  A 50-state survey isn't some impossible task.  

    2.) Even accepting that number, comparing the marginal rate to the percentage of pre-tax profits paid is borderline dishonest.  Tax deductions aren't some secret fraud, they're a very familiar part of the tax code.  And they added depreciation back into profits, which is a very real cost to business.  

    3.) Stating that big companies are shifting tax burdens on to small businesses is probably true, but they don't prove it here.  If big corporations pay x% of their profits in state taxes, what do small corporations pay?

    4.) Their proposals are solid, but I don't know how valuable they are because it's not what they studied.  How much do the states pay in corporate tax incentives?  How much could be raised by closing profit-shifting loopholes?

    The policy proposals seem sound, but the data isn't really useful other than to throw around big numbers.

  •  Thanks for highlighting this, Tasini. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 08:25:39 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site