They all have to pay some corporate tax in whatever country they do business in. According to this report, 80% of countries only levy taxes on business done within their borders. The United States is the only country in the 20% that taxes corporations on business done worldwide that has a rate over 30%.
The tech was developed by the government, the commercial development (running wire that allowed the mass of people who use the internet to do so) was done by private industry.
Claim: GE paid no taxes in 2010. Fact: GE did pay almost $2.7 billion in cash income taxes in 2010 on a consolidated basis (almost 19% of pretax income from continuing operations) globally, including significant U.S. federal income tax payments. GE also paid in excess of $1 billion in payroll, state and local sales and use and property taxes. Claim: GE “dodges” tax obligations generally. Fact: Over the past 10 years, GE has paid almost $23 billion of corporate income taxes to governments around the world, making it one of the highest payers of corporate income taxes. Over the past five years alone, GE has paid over $14 billion of income taxes. Claim: GE used “tax avoidance strategies” to reduce its tax rate the past few years. Fact: GE’s tax rate has been lower in recent years due to financial crisis losses at GE Capital. From 2008-2010, GE Capital suffered nearly $32 billion in losses as a result of the financial crisis. That’s not a “tax avoidance strategy.” Absent such unusual losses, GE’s overall effective tax rate would have been 15 percent over the past several years, which is comparable to the average for other multinational corporations. Our 2011 tax rate is slated to return to more normal levels with GE Capital’s recovery. Claim: GE received a $3.2 billion refund or rebate on its 2010 taxes (alternately described as GE “made” $3.2 billion or U.S. taxpayers “paid” GE $3.2 billion). Fact: This is not true. GE received no rebate or refund or payment from the government on its 2010 taxes. The tax benefit it received is a book accounting concept and resulted from reversal of accruals for prior year taxes as a result of audit settlements with the IRS and revisions of estimates for prior-year returns. So this benefit is an accounting concept related to prior years, not a refund of taxes from the IRS for 2010. In addition, much of this benefit is offset by higher future tax liabilities over time — accounted for as deferred tax liabilities as reflected in our financial statements Claim: GE has dramatically reduced U.S. employment over the past decade. Fact: GE’s US employment has increased from 2001 to 2010, excluding dispositions. Those jobs weren’t cut; they moved to other companies. Claim: GE and other U.S. companies use overseas tax “shelters” to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. Fact: The United States is virtually the only major industrialized country that taxes overseas earnings of companies. GE and many other companies — and, for that matter, Congress and administrations over many decades — have supported deferral of tax on foreign earnings for all companies. Doing so makes U.S. companies more competitive globally. This is not a “shelter,” it is good policy. (Learn more in this presentation from the Business Roundtable and in other information provided by the Roundtable.) Claim: GE used charitable contributions to “horse trade” for legislative relief on taxes. Fact: This is completely false. A recent New York Times story pointed to a 2008 donation to New York City schools. The GE Foundation independently determines public-education-related donations. Like other public education Foundation donations to cities in which GE is located, this grant was based on the percentage of students who receive free or subsidized lunches. In fact, as GE told the Times (although the Times failed to report it), former U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel introduced legislation after the GE Foundation’s donation was announced that was directly contrary to GE’s position and which GE opposed. This was the sixth grant under GE’s $150 million+ Developing Futures in Education program in major GE cities, including Louisville, KY; Cincinnati, OH; Stamford, CT; Erie, PA; Atlanta, GA; New York City; and recently, Milwaukee, WI.
All of the information in this article comes courtesy of http://www.gereports.com/. It's a website owned and operated by General Electric. This Business Insider link details the possible angles of this story: http://www.businessinsider.com/ge-taxes-2010?op=1
So this is just one giant K -street corporation using fancy accountants to avoid taxes, an isolated instance: oops. Honestly though, if we just reduced the rate from 35% to 25%, those companies would gladly go from 0% back up to 25%, right?
A great argument for abolishing the corporate tax rate entirely. Taxes on corporations are nothing more than taxes on people, be they shareholders in lower profits or employees in lower wages or customers in higher prices. It's people that take the hit, not some corporation (which is just a collection of people anyway). Need to abolish any and all taxes on productivity and savings/investment. Taxes should be limited to consumption only (VAT or sales tax).
Sure, why not? countries that have zero corporate taxes are either failed states like Somalia, largely uninhabited places like the CHannel Islands, or caribbean banana republics. Now that is a helpful model!
What was the combined profit of those 1.2 million US Companies with $2.5 Trillion in sales? If they had combined expenses of $2.6 Trillion, we shouldn't be surprised. Corporate earnings are one of the most volatile tax bases, since a corporation doesn't have to eat to survive. We shouldn't be surprised that it dries up most in recession. Next up, you'll be pointing out all the billionaires that didn't pay any capital gains taxes in 2009.
Uh, have you been paying attention for the last two years? We are in the biggest equity bull market in history for the last 2 years, largely because corporate profits are killing it for about the past 5-6 quarters. It's basically back up to 2007 levels. If they had a combined expenses of $2.6 trillion, not only would I be surprised, but you and I wouldn't be arguing over the internet, we'd be fighting over the last few cans can of tuna, Road Warrior stylee. Edit: here's some better data, U.S. corporate profits are around $1.6 trillion annually, up from 1.2 during the great recession. http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/txt/gdp4q10_3rd.txt
I could be wrong, but I was thinking that a lot of the corporations being referenced are S corps, which means that all of the income is being distributed every year and the US is receiving the taxes on individual tax returns.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-28-2011/i-give-up---pay-anything--- I give up too, Jon Stewart. It's a pity we can't get a new Democratic candidate for 2012.
Join the fight! <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9op8B3ZcnD4?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
One could make an article that let's lower corporate taxes and raise taxes on the wealthy whether they got their income on capitall gains or wages or rents or let's raise a VAT tax or a tax on fiancial transactions etc. However, what is the use of discussing taxes with libertarians; it is like discussing evolution with a person who believes in the Bible absolutely literally.
I don't know the numbers off of the top of my head but if I recall correctly a lot of the laying of that wire was subsidized and / or done by public utilities which are basically public private partnerships.
They're talking about bringing all this money back home and last time they paid dividends to their stockholders. I forget what the % (thinking 80%) is but maybe someone here knows. What % of stock is owned by other corporations? Seems like it would be yet another opportunity for the major Corps to just reap tax free profits that they'd pay each other under the guise of potential domestic investment. If government allows this, they better set up some guidelines of how that tax free cash is spent.
