Some tax shit to chew on...

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jun 18, 2004
2,190
0
0
#1
Corporate taxes melting away
Many profitable firms in past 3 years were able to skip paying

By Tom Abate, SF Chronicle.

Some of the United States' biggest, most profitable corporations saw their federal income tax rates decline over the last three years, thanks to recent tax cuts, according to a liberal think tank in Washington.

The 68-page report issued Wednesday by Citizens for Tax Justice arrived at its conclusions by gleaning the annual reports of 275 companies on the Fortune 500 list that shared one characteristic: All reported profits in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Among the study's findings:

-- Eighty-two of the companies, which collectively reported $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits, paid no income tax in at least one of the years; together these 82 firms collected $12.6 billion in tax rebates over the three- year period.

-- Although the nominal corporate tax rate is 35 percent, a variety of tax breaks helped the entire group of 275 firms to reduce their effective tax rate to 17.2 percent in 2003 from 21.4 percent in 2001.

-- The report cited wide disparities among the group. It said SBC Communications paid 5.2 percent of its profit in corporate income taxes over the three years and General Electric paid 9.2 percent. For Amgen, the comparable figure was 26.1 percent, while Charles Schwab & Co. had an effective corporate income tax rate of 33.9 percent.

Separately, Internal Revenue Service figures show that total corporate income tax receipts fell to $128.8 billion in 2003, down 13.4 percent from 2001, when the comparable figure was $148.7 billion.

Robert McIntyre, the tax group's director and the report's principal author, said Bush administration tax cuts, notably including accelerated depreciation, have unfairly cut corporate income taxes, widened the budget deficit and shifted the tax burden to individuals.

"The whole tax system is in danger when people discover that companies that make millions of dollars more than them are paying less and less in taxes, '' he said.

William Ahern, a spokesman for the conservative Tax Foundation, said many of the tax policies cited in the report were bipartisan measures designed to stimulate economic growth.

"The 2002 tax bill was designed to be a three-year temporary stimulus to business investment,'' he said. "To turn around and complain that companies are paying less taxes because of those deliberately passed provisions is to ignore the rationale for their existence.''

The Citizens for Tax Justice report noted that business capital investment by the 275 companies studied fell 15 percent from 2001 to 2003.

Treasury Department spokeswoman Tara Bradshaw called the study misleading, arguing that accelerated depreciation gave companies a break during the recession but would increase their taxes in the future.

"What would have happened had the president not proposed these incentives?'' she said. "The economy likely would have been in far worse shape. ''

SBC spokeswoman Anne Vincent said "to say we're not paying our fair share in the last three years is ridiculous.'' She said that in 2003, by her firm's reckoning, SBC paid about 15 percent of its pretax income in state and federal income taxes. That SBC's effective tax rate is lower than the 35 percent nominal tax rate is largely because of deductions for contributions to retiree health and pension programs, she said.

Stanford law professor Joseph Bankman, an expert on business taxes, said corporate income taxes have been on a long, slow decline, for reasons including the fact that big firms have taken aggressive advantage of tax laws and because of legislation that reduced corporate taxes in order to reward investment and job creation.

Bankman said the debate over corporate income taxes should take into consideration how tax policies affect the federal deficit.

"Given our current huge deficit, we're replacing taxes with debt,'' Bankman said, adding that when the debt comes due, today's tax cuts are "a tax on our children.''
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#4
Corporate welfare is nice. I am thinking of setting up homeless people with legitimate corporate status and then have them collect on it. Wonder if that would work?
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
49
#5
nice read.


L Mac-a-docious said:
Corporate taxes melting away
Many profitable firms in past 3 years were able to skip paying
By Tom Abate, SF Chronicle.


according to a liberal think tank in Washington.

William Ahern, a spokesman for the conservative Tax Foundation, said many of the tax policies cited in the report were bipartisan measures designed to stimulate economic growth.

"The 2002 tax bill was designed to be a three-year temporary stimulus to business investment,'' he said. "To turn around and complain that companies are paying less taxes because of those deliberately passed provisions is to ignore the rationale for their existence.''

Treasury Department spokeswoman Tara Bradshaw called the study misleading, arguing that accelerated depreciation gave companies a break during the recession but would increase their taxes in the future.

"What would have happened had the president not proposed these incentives?'' she said. "The economy likely would have been in far worse shape. ''

SBC spokeswoman Anne Vincent said "to say we're not paying our fair share in the last three years is ridiculous.'' She said that in 2003, by her firm's reckoning, SBC paid about 15 percent of its pretax income in state and federal income taxes. That SBC's effective tax rate is lower than the 35 percent nominal tax rate is largely because of deductions for contributions to retiree health and pension programs, she said.

Stanford law professor Joseph Bankman, an expert on business taxes, said corporate income taxes have been on a long, slow decline, for reasons including the fact that big firms have taken aggressive advantage of tax laws and because of legislation that reduced corporate taxes in order to reward investment and job creation.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
49
#6
http://www.nationalreview.com/moore/moore200408191201.asp
August 19, 2004, 12:01 p.m.
Killing the Class-Warfare Argument
The rich are paying more taxes since the Bush tax cuts.

One of the inconvenient facts for the foes of the Bush tax cuts is that the percentage of total taxes paid by the rich rose after the economic stimulus plan was put into effect. This consequence of the Bush tax cuts is highly damaging to the case by the Bush-haters that his tax cuts disproportionately benefit Halliburton executives and Bill Gates. Moreover, the Bush tax cuts took some 2 million low-income taxpayers off the tax roles entirely, so it’s hard to argue that working families didn’t get a financial benefit.

But the Left continues to work as best it can around these facts. The Kerry-Edwards campaign is now touting a new study by the Congressional Budget Office which purportedly finds that last year’s tax cut was tilted to the rich. There’s just one problem with this class-warfare whine: It just isn’t true.

What the CBO report did conclude was that the total tax share by the richest 1 percent declined modestly from 2001 to 2004. But that wasn’t because of the tax cut. It was because of the recession. When the economy contracts and incomes fall as they did in 2001 and 2002, tax payments by the wealthy fall the fastest. This is because of the progressive rate structure of the income tax. In other words, if everyone’s income falls by 10 percent, the overall percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy falls, because they pay a higher marginal tax rate.

What this means is that the best way to get the rich to pay more taxes is to incentivize their incomes to rise. For every extra dollar the rich person earns, about 30 to 40 cents goes into the government coffers. And since the Bush tax cuts have helped put the economy back on track, as evidenced by the 4.5 percent real growth rate of the economy since May 2003, the share of taxes paid by the rich has started to rise again.

Those who actually read the CBO study will discover that it confirms exactly this point. From 2001 to 2004 incomes have fallen sharply for the highest income groups. IRS data shows that in 2002, taxable income fell by about 4.3 percent, with declines steepest among the highest income groups. In 2002, income fell for the second year in a row. Prior to 2000, annual incomes hadn’t fallen since 1953. The New York Times recently reported that income fell 63 percent from 2000 to 2002 for the highest income bracket. When the rich make less; so does the government. So why do members of the Left hate the rich so much? Without them, there would be no money to finance the government.

A recent report from the Treasury Department confirms that the rich are paying a bigger share of taxes than they would if the Bush tax cuts hadn’t passed. The Treasury estimates that the top 1 percent of earners will pay about 32.3 percent of taxes this year, which is the same as the CBO estimate. The Treasury also estimates, however, that absent the tax cuts, the top 1 percent would be paying only 30.5 percent of taxes, down 10 percent from 2001.

The Treasury data confirm that the real impact of the tax cuts on the rich has been precisely the opposite of what the CBO study suggests. By resuscitating the economy and spurring a turnaround in income growth, the tax cuts have increased the share paid by the rich. Real income growth has increased significantly since the 2003 tax cuts were passed, increasing at faster than a 6 percent rate in the first two quarters of 2004. With the economy now growing more quickly, we can expect the tax shares paid by high-income groups to increase.

There is another reason to suspect that as the Bush tax cuts continue to kick in, they will increase tax payments by the wealthy. People are much more likely to work harder, engage in entrepreneurial activity, and make investments when the government is confiscating less of the monetary rewards for these activities. When you tax something, you get less of it.

This is obvious to most people. It’s why we tax socially undesirable activities like smoking and drinking. It’s why we fine people for traffic violations. Similarly, when we tax income, people tend to have less of it — either from working less or spending their time, effort, and money on tax-avoidance schemes. JFK understood this, writing that “Middle and higher-income families are both consumers and investors — and the present rates not only check consumption but discourage investment, and encourage the diversion of funds and effort into activities aimed more at the avoidance of taxes than the efficient production of goods.”

Those who argue that the Bush tax cuts were a “give-away” to the rich assume that incomes grow at a constant rate, regardless of how heavily they are taxed. That is the fallacy of the recent CBO study. The report concedes: “Our analysis does not account for incomes changing in response to the tax cuts.” It’s like assuming that you’re not going to take off any weight if you stop eating hot fudge sundaes with whipped cream and cherries on top. This is the same whimsical logic that compelled the tax accountants on Capitol Hill to famously estimate that a 100 percent income-tax rate would bring in billions of dollars in federal revenue.

One final point: The CBO study confirms that the rich carry the bulk of the tax burden on their shoulders. The CBO estimate says that the share of income taxes paid by the richest 20 percent of earners fell from 82.5 percent to 82.1 percent in 2004. The report also states that the top 10 percent of earners will pay “only” 66.7 percent of 2004 taxes, with the top 1 percent paying 32.3 percent. Fully 80 percent of Americans pay less than 18 percent of total income taxes. Not even Al Sharpton could look at this data and say the rich are getting a free ride.

How much exactly does the Kerry-Edwards team want the rich to pay? Seventy percent? Eighty percent? One hundred percent? Does the Left want rich people like Barbara Streisand, George Soros, Teresa Heinz, and Ted Kennedy to pay all the taxes? Hey, now there’s an idea . . .

— Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth. Phil Kerpen is a research assistant at the Club for Growth.