26 companies pay CEO more than they do in federal taxes

Wow. I'd also like to see how much these companies pay lobbyists. I saw a stat somewhere that fortune 500 companies combined pay lobbyists more than they do in taxes.

And we wonder why our government is running a deficit.

 

I missed General Electric on that list. However, addressing the larger point, the OP's list clearly demonstrates the crying need for tax reform from top to bottom.

Democrats are proud to point out that Romney's tax plans benefit only the rich, but they never mention that 50% of the population pays no federal income tax at all. That said, tax shelters and write-offs, in general, do favor the wealthy.

So, I repeat something I have stated in previous posts, we need to change the tax rules to make them more fair. A graduated flat tax coupled with elimination of most write-offs and deductions would simply tax collection, increase understanding of tax obligations and raise overall revenues. Of course, reducing expenditures is the other shoe that is crucial to elimination of our debt crisis.

 

That is just whacked.

 

a great argument for abolishing the corporate income tax

smaller business can't afford lobbyists and lawyers to avoid taxes, creating an artificial barrier to entry against larger competitors

any government activity that discourages expansion/hiring/growth (especially vs. overseas competitors) should be scrapped

 

Our tax code is ****ed because of these assholes and their corruption. The fortune 500 should pony up and write a check for 1/2 the national debt. Reinstate the Bush tax cuts across the board while keeping the DOD budget cuts scheduled and we're there.

 

Sanjay Jha is laughing all the way to the bank. He got paid 47 million and his company lost 250 million dollars? There's got to be a lot of stupidity going around in Motorola Mobility.

 

Just can't summon up any anger about this. Really don't like moralizing or even examining other people's salaries in general; not even sure what "value" the government can claim to have to a company, compared to its leadership.

 

This is all about corporate our tax code. Surely you have an opinion on the size rebate Halliburton and its share holders are receiving at the expense of the public treasury. Meanwhile in BFE small town, USA city employees are being paid minimum wage cuz there's 'no' money.

 

Ironically enough my Dad was from Africa and worked for a couple of Halliburton subsidiaries back in the day; so the only thing irritating here is the little "BFE" gem.

 

And then Google bought out Sanjay Uncle's shares. Not bad.

As far as taxes go, a lot of these companies have carryforward losses from previous years that they use to lower their current tax base. Nothing wrong with that, although some of them are over-compensating poorly performing execs.

Also, several of these execs like Pandit and Mulally took $1 salaries, with no bonus in 2009 to their credit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aph5ao14SgMM

 

while they need to pay more for sure like everyone else, i am wondering how much tax are all of the employees paying all together. that should be considered how much the company is paying.

 

I've mentioned this several times to you, so I assume you just want to really believe in a flat tax, but adding the word "graduated" to it automatically makes it NOT a flat tax. A flat tax, by definition, is flat - it has one rate that everyone pays. If you have a graduated tax, that is the current system of a progressive tax. The only difference it that you've reduced the available deducations. And that's fine - but please stop pretending that this is an innovative new idea of a flat tax.

 

You want to b**** about the lack of taxes paid by someone who earns 20k a year that struggles to pay for health care, healthy food, gasoline, college tuition, etc. because it's not "fair". At the same time, the millionaire candidate for President pays a 13% tax rate. It's another faux issue that you guys harp on to rally ignorant people.

 

I never stated a graduated flat tax is "an innnovative new idea." It was proposed years and years ago. While I understand that a flat tax is "by definition" a single rate system, but that would not be entirely fair when evenly applied. Therefore, from level to level, the tax is flat for everyone in that level. I know it's a difficult concept for you to grasp, but a "graduated flat tax" is a concept whereby everyone shares some, but not all, of the tax burden. Ten percent tax is harder for someone at the $15,000 per year level than someone at the $100,000 per year level.
However, a 14% rate for the latter is tolerable without being stifling.

Let the Paul Ryan style economic wonks work out the percentages but with a cap at, say, 25%. When subsidies and deductions are eliminated, more revenue is generated and everyone has skin in the game.

This is not me trying to be difficult, but I am trying to support a fairer tax system than we currently have.

 

Irritating? Whateve man.

 

Great. So several corporations are getting away with paying low or no taxes so the answer is to do away with corporate taxes altogether.

I agree with Thumbs that our tax code needs to be greatly simplified with reducing deductions and if so then reducing tax rates but doing away with corporate taxes altogether is a bad idea. It is the type of race to the bottom thinking that would just end up shifting tax burdens to other portions of society.

 

What about govt activity such as IP protection for corporations or building roads to get to work? How do you expect to pay for such encouraging activities?

 

money is such a weird thing