Puppet Masters
- 26 of the 30 companies continued to enjoy negative federal income tax rates. That means they still made more money after tax than before tax over the four years!
- Of the remaining four companies, three paid four year effective tax rates of less than 4 percent
(specifically, 0.2%, 2.0% and 3.8%). One company paid a 2008-11 tax rate of 10.9 percent.
- In total, 2008-11 federal income taxes for the 30 companies remained negative, despite $205 billion in pretax U.S. profits. Overall, they enjoyed an average effective federal income tax rate of - 3.1 percent over the four years.
Amongst the 30 are corporate titans such as General Electric, Boeing, Verizon, and Mattel. The only four companies that slipped into positive tax territory were DTE Energy, Honeywell, Wells Fargo, and DuPont, with DuPont the only one that paid more than 4 percent over the four years.
Corporate taxes in the U.S., contrary to the constant protestations of conservatives, are at a 40 year low, with many of the most profitable companies paying nothing at all. CTJ noted that "had these 30 companies paid the full 35 percent corporate tax rate over the 2008-11 period, they would have paid $78.3 billion more in federal income taxes." And this is not a problem that only afflicts the U.S., as the UK found out last week that online retailer Amazon made billions in sales in 2011, while paying nothing in corporate taxes.
Reader Comments
This is the tax that a lot of these guys wanted.
Now we know why.
My main problem with it, as I have mentioned before, is how invasive it is as a tax system. A consumption tax might be less "fair" but it would also be less invasive.
And as we can see, the argument that income tax is "fair" is a bit overrated.
Tithes are a classic way that management makes its money. The theory is that if management is good, income of the area it manages will go up, and it would earn more tithes as a result. But if the system does not function that way in practice, then it doesn't make much sense. Except to a criminal.
Just about any tax system, though, would be workable if it:
1. Did not expose the individual to government invasion except by the lowest local level of government.
2. Promoted saving for bad times during the good times.
If it doesn't do those two things, then it's not workable.
Hell, they could probably make some arrangement where the 1,000 or so biggest corporations in the nation financed the federal government (let's face it; it basically belongs to them, anyway) and then trickled down the cost anonymously to its customers.
Can you imagine what boost in efficiency that would give to the IRS, if they only had 1,000 corporate taxpayers to deal with?
That would get the feds off the back of individual citizens, cities and states, and leave the problem of central government finance with the big guys, where it probably belongs.
Couldn't that make a case to the World Trade Organization that prohibits subsidies to companies due to the unfair competition that it creates? By not taxing the companies, then they are given an unfairly advantage over foreign competitors.
This is not to mention the obvious that it screws the 99%, who are forced to pay taxes.