Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Becks72's column >>

BECKS72

Articles Posted: 24  Links Seeded: 22
Member Since: 7/2009  Last Seen: 5/17/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Corporate welfare

Sat Nov 6, 2010 12:07 PM EDT
politics
By Becks72
Advertise | AdChoices

ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated)

Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein notes that, despite benefiting from corporate welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it threatens energy innovation research. Pat Garofalo at the Wonk Room notes that big corporations’ tax shelter practices similar to Exxon’s shift a $100 billion annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers. In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”

Update Forbes has updated its article to include a statement from Exxon: "Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a 'substantial 2009 tax liability.' How substantial? 'That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we.'"

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Becks72's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (39)
Becks72

Our tax dollars subsidies go to deserving corporations who in turn invest in there favorite politician. We can make a strong case that more subsidies wil create more jobs ....abroad !!!!!!

  • 14 votes
Reply#1 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 12:03 PM EDT
YotaJoshDeleted
Stu-4803409

Actually the French were rioting, we're more pansies than the French.

  • 5 votes
#1.2 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 9:36 PM EDT
YotaJoshDeleted
Reply
Frank BlackDeleted
Mo Jito

So, lets say we tax Exxon and GE $100 billion. What happens next? The cost of gas and products goes up. Who is hurt by that? The poorest among us can't afford to pay more for their gas and groceries. Who is really hurt by corporate welfare? I think that everyone knows better than to believe that corporations will not increase their prices to maintain their profits if their taxes are increased.

  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 1:40 PM EDT
btco

So, lets say we tax Exxon and GE $100 billion. What happens next? The cost of gas and products goes up. Who is hurt by that? The poorest among us can't afford to pay more for their gas and groceries. Who is really hurt by corporate welfare? I think that everyone knows better than to believe that corporations will not increase their prices to maintain their profits if their taxes are increased.

Not even an argument. How about they @!$%#ing pay ANY tax. How about one red cent? Is that too much?

  • 11 votes
#3.1 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 4:09 PM EDT
Mo Jito

The problem is that it's circular. Tax them, they pass on the costs. The people who are most affected by increased costs are the poor. I'm not advocating no corporate taxes. I just think the fix could have unintended consequences, and the people who will be hurt the worst by those consequences are the ones that have the least.

  • 2 votes
#3.2 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 4:25 PM EDT
Merewen

The problem is that it's circular. Tax them, they pass on the costs. The people who are most affected by increased costs are the poor.

If they are not paying any taxes why is the @!$%# they offer so high now?? I'm having a hard time with the pass the costs argument.

  • 7 votes
#3.3 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 4:59 PM EDT
Mo Jito

Are you in business? Do you seriously believe that if you add a cost to a business that they won't pass that cost on to the consumer?

  • 2 votes
#3.4 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 5:12 PM EDT
Jarandhel

If they try to pass the cost on to the consumer, as you correctly note, many people will not be able to afford the product. They will price themselves out of the market if they try to shift their tax burden onto their customers to that degree.

  • 8 votes
#3.5 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 7:29 PM EDT
Stu-4803409

Either they find a way to shoulder the tax (maybe a few less million dollar golf parties?) or they go out of business, that simple... Or like the current conservative favored system, they bend the taxpaying middle class earner over and screw them instead.

  • 5 votes
#3.6 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 8:00 PM EDT
Mo Jito

I love your faith in corporations! I'm pretty sure they will bend over the taxpayer in the end.

  • 2 votes
#3.7 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 8:05 PM EDT
ThinksbeforejudgingDeleted
RETLAW

Sooo....they raise their prices (to pass the cost to the customer) and the customer goes to a lower priced source. They find they aren't meeting their quota, then lower their price to be competitive. Am I missing something?? They pay taxes or lose market share !!

  • 5 votes
#3.9 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 10:25 PM EDT
Dr. Luny

Exxon will still sell oil at the market price, just like all the other oil companies. It isn't fair to the many companies that do pay their taxes, especially small ones who can't afford to hire a team of lawyers and accountants to route their money through tax havens. These companies have to compete for investment. The current situation ammounts to a subsidy for these corporations, and as any economist knows, subsidies result in a deadweight loss.

  • 5 votes
#3.10 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 10:34 PM EDT
Reply
Alan Curtis Montgomery

More example of Corporate Crooks and Political Crooks that do their bidding!

  • 5 votes
Reply#4 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 1:49 PM EDT
Tom-VermillionOhio

Becks72, here and elsewhere on the vine, we are really beginning to build the 'case'. We know the motives and the agendas. All we have to do is package it in a nice, tight bundle. Nice commentary.

  • 5 votes
Reply#5 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 3:13 PM EDT
ScienceGuy-356641

Financial assistance to struggling middle and lower class Americans = socialism, the death knell of our society

Financial assistance (via federal subsidies, disproportionately huge tax breaks, bailouts, etc) to major corporations and the ultra-wealthy = free market capitalism at its best

And the fine folks on the right reply: Damn straight!

  • 15 votes
Reply#6 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 3:20 PM EDT
jwtiii

And if monied interests are so worried about the deficit, the gov't should come down on tax evaders! Oh, wait - they're one and the same. . .

  • 7 votes
#6.1 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 4:05 PM EDT
Reply
Village Idiot-2299796

And Still, We Retain This Grand Fiefd ... Er ... Freedom Mythology ...

because??????????

  • 4 votes
Reply#7 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 4:40 PM EDT
GREG - STL

Sick.......But, what else do you expect from under-regulated corporations? If we just listened to republicans and not regulated anything, it would be raining Benjamens by now!

  • 3 votes
Reply#8 - Sat Nov 6, 2010 10:30 PM EDT
Sebbydad

but under the GOP philosophy doesn't this mean that they will begin hiring 1000's of people?

  • 1 vote
Reply#9 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 1:42 AM EST
Tim Boothby

There's been a whole bunch of corporate welfare in these past few years, GM, Chrysler, Banks, and then BP gets carte blanche to do what it likes in the Gulf and to keep the press out of the way as they do it. Hell, it's hard to tell where one party stops and the other starts with both being so obliging. Why buy one party when you can have both?

  • 2 votes
Reply#10 - Sun Nov 7, 2010 2:54 AM EST
Pete520

Okay, let me throw this out there. Regardless of where Exxon paid taxes, according to the article, they had an after-tax profit of $30 billion. If they decided to take just 10% of this after-tax profit and create jobs, they would have a $3 billion jobs program.

Now, let's say a "good" job is $80k per year...throw in health insurance, payroll taxes, and other costs; and you have about $100k per year per employee.

With ten percent of Exxon's after-tax earnings, they could create 30,000 (THIRTY THOUSAND) jobs at $80k each...yes, that's THIRTY THOUSAND jobs! And they'd still have $27 billion in after-tax earnings.

Thirty thousand $80k jobs would infuse a huge amount of discretionary spending into the economy, which would effectuate the hiring of more people throughout all industries.

So why do people argue that if you put more money into the hands of the rich - through tax cuts - the rich will do more hiring? If that were the case, why isn't Exxon creating jobs. They do, after all, have an incredible amount of cash on hand.

  • 3 votes
Reply#11 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 12:13 PM EST
Mo Jito

Because it makes no sense to create jobs you don't need just to spend money. Shareholders want those profits in the form of dividends.

    #11.1 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 12:25 PM EST
    Tim Boothby

    If they decided to take just 10% of this after-tax profit and create jobs, they would have a $3 billion jobs program.

    Do they have $3 billion worth of work for people to do?

      #11.2 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:04 PM EST
      Pete520

      I know that...and you know that...but those who rally for tax cuts don't seem to get it.

      Demand creates jobs...not excess $$$.

      • 3 votes
      #11.3 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:33 PM EST
      Pete520

      Do they have $3 billion worth of work for people to do?

      No...demand is the reason why employers hire employees...not excess cash. This is why the argument that tax cuts create jobs is an empty one.

      • 3 votes
      #11.4 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 5:35 PM EST
      Sebbydad

      and one that has never, NEVER, worked.

      • 3 votes
      #11.5 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 9:03 PM EST
      Tim Boothby

      No...demand is the reason why employers hire employees...not excess cash. This is why the argument that tax cuts create jobs is an empty one.

      If there's cash on hand but no work for someone to do companies don't hire people to do that nothing. How does a tax cut fit in there?

        #11.6 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 10:17 PM EST
        Sebbydad

        it doesn't. There is plenty of work that needs to be done. Who will pay for it? In the absence of private industry doing it (due to plack of immediate profit) the government must. the more people that work, the more people spend which eventually does affect all sectors of the market. Tax cuts for private sponsorship of public works, now that is a cut I could get behind.

        • 2 votes
        #11.7 - Mon Nov 8, 2010 11:46 PM EST
        Tim Boothby

        There is plenty of work that needs to be done. Who will pay for it?

        Interesting premise, what work?

          #11.8 - Tue Nov 9, 2010 2:07 AM EST
          Pete520

          If there's cash on hand but no work for someone to do companies don't hire people to do that nothing. How does a tax cut fit in there?

          How does it not fit in there? The argument is that if we give tax cuts to the wealthy, they will hire people with the excess cash on hand. My counterargument is that tax cuts will provide the wealthy with more cash than they have today...and that cash will not create jobs either (just like Exxon's $30 billion in after-tax profits does not create jobs).

          • 3 votes
          #11.9 - Tue Nov 9, 2010 12:20 PM EST
          Sebbydad

          There are any number of public works projects that could be done. Bridges, roads, buildings, renovating neighborhoods. electrical grids, sewer systems, etc.

          • 1 vote
          #11.10 - Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:16 AM EST
          Reply
          Tim Boothby

          How does it not fit in there? The argument is that if we give tax cuts to the wealthy, they will hire people with the excess cash on hand. My counterargument is that tax cuts will provide the wealthy with more cash than they have today...and that cash will not create jobs either (just like Exxon's $30 billion in after-tax profits does not create jobs).

          Nope, you're still reaching for a point. If you don't have work to hire people to do, what are you going to hire them to do?

          There are any number of public works projects that could be done. Bridges, roads, buildings, renovating neighborhoods. electrical grids, sewer systems, etc.

          Electrical grids and most buildings are private, and lets face facts you can't use unskilled labor to fix the power grids. Government money would be nice in this but it would be nice if Uncle Sam would mandate upgrades because waiting for upgrades to be profitable hasn't done dick. Buildings and neighborhoods is an interesting idea, habitat for humanity type projects, but government buildings are already cared for under contracts, and private buildings are generally owned by somebody, but who is renovating buildings going to benefit, and who pays for it?

          For the rest you'd need public money to do the jobs, with the possible exception of renovating neighborhoods. You can't take someone off the street to repair bridges, roads, or sewer systems because that is skilled labor and union jobs in many cases as well, and they don't respond well to people taking jobs from members. There is nothing stopping anybody from cleaning up neighborhoods.

          • 1 vote
          Reply#12 - Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:05 AM EST
          Becks72

          Please explain why we provide this profitable multinational corporation tax breaks and in return gain no federal taxes. As for dividends to stock holders this is a sham it is run for the directors, Ceo's and a privileged few. The manipulation of wall street is not a new revelation it occurred openly prior to the great depression. I believe it occurs today just a lot more sophisticated.

            #12.1 - Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:50 PM EST
            Tim Boothby

            Please explain why we provide this profitable multinational corporation tax breaks and in return gain no federal taxes

            Simple, because they put enough into the coffers of both parties that they are left alone. Case in point, Microsoft didn't bother much with things like lobbyists and campaign donations until the Justice Department hammered them with Antitrust investigations and litigation. The started seriously donating to the parties in 2000, the DOJ backed off after that first election and MS hasn't missed writing a check since.

            • 3 votes
            #12.2 - Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:57 PM EST
            Reply
            Becks72

            One might study the history of the personal income tax. Where is the Federal Government supposed to get the income to run the Nation ? The answers might surprise you.


            History of the US Income Tax (Business Reference Services, Library of Congress)

            The Origin of the Income Tax - Adam Young - Mises Daily


            • 1 vote
            Reply#13 - Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:55 PM EST
            Leave a Comment:
            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
            Newsvine Privacy Statement
            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
            FUN STUFF:
            • Leaderboard |
            • E-Mail Alerts |
            • Top of the Vine |
            • Newsvine Live |
            • Newsvine Archives |
            • The Greenhouse |
            COMPANY STUFF:
            • Code of Honor |
            • Company Info |
            • Contact Us |
            • Jobs |
            • User Agreement |
            • Privacy Policy |
            • About our ads
            LEGAL STUFF:
            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com