20 U.S. companies that paid 0% in taxes

[BoberFett]

Hello no.

Deductions encourage investment.

In the past 2 months I have invested several hundred dollars into a new chicken yard. 100% of that is tax deductible. The eggs that will come from that chicken yard will be sold and given away.

But, the government should not be subsidizing fortune 500 companies. If the CEO rakes in millions, why is that company getting a tax break?

So loopholes are good.

 

[CLite]

So loopholes are good.

A company reinvesting money for growth is good.

A company creating a series of international shell companies, cross-selling products within them and creating extravagant financial schemes between them to essentially avoid all tax liabilities is bad.

This is thanks to the million pet projects every bought and paid for senator/representative throws into our insanely complicated tax code.

 

[Texashiker]

So loopholes are good.

Blanket statements do not work.

I see no problem with deductions as long as those deductions benefit society.

With my chicken yard, I can give those eggs away to people who need them, and sell the eggs to people who can afford to spend a few extra dollars.

When you have a ceo making tens of millions in salary, and another tens of millions in stock options, how does that benefit society? Why should the tax payers subsidize companies who can afford to pay their own way?

At the end of the year I will write my chicken yard off. In return, people who may not be able to afford extra food will get some eggs.

 

[z1ggy]

Blanket statements do not work.

I see no problem with deductions as long as those deductions benefit society.

With my chicken yard, I can give those eggs away to people who need them, and sell the eggs to people who can afford to spend a few extra dollars.

When you have a ceo making tens of millions in salary, and another tens of millions in stock options, how does that benefit society? Why should the tax payers subsidize companies who can afford to pay their own way?

At the end of the year I will write my chicken yard off. In return, people who may not be able to afford extra food will get some eggs.

The difference between your write offs and loop holes, and giant corporate ones are that you aren't a wealthy, greedy more than likely psychopath CEO who only wants more of what he already has.

So when these companies pay less to taxes, they just keep more for themselves when their stock prices go up. Taking that savings, then using it to pay for more employees isn't going to immediately increase their profits. For you, it doesn't matter because you're really not out raising chickens for profit.

 

[BoberFett]

Blanket statements do not work.

I see no problem with deductions as long as those deductions benefit society.

With my chicken yard, I can give those eggs away to people who need them, and sell the eggs to people who can afford to spend a few extra dollars.

When you have a ceo making tens of millions in salary, and another tens of millions in stock options, how does that benefit society? Why should the tax payers subsidize companies who can afford to pay their own way?

At the end of the year I will write my chicken yard off. In return, people who may not be able to afford extra food will get some eggs.

When you provide lawmakers with the ability to provide some people "loopholes" based on the subjective "good for society" metric, you give them the power to let their friends pay nothing.

If you want to believe in good government, fairies and unicorns, that's your prerogative I suppose.

 

[dank69]

I paid $30K in taxes last year on an income of around $100K. That's just direct taxes from filing, not including sales tax or any of the other incidental taxes the state/feds squeeze out of me.

You don't think I'm taxed enough?

No you didn't. You earned $70000 and your employer paid $30000 in taxes. If all those taxes were eliminated there would be 10 people lined up tomorrow to do your job for $70000 because that is the market value of it.

 

[nehalem256]

No you didn't. You earned $70000 and your employer paid $30000 in taxes. If all those taxes were eliminated there would be 10 people lined up tomorrow to do your job for $70000 because that is the market value of it.

Got to love liberal logic.

Personal income taxes that people pay are really being paid by corporations

Payroll taxes that corporations pay are really being paid by poor people

😵

 

[dank69]

Got to love liberal logic.

Personal income taxes that people pay are really being paid by corporations

Payroll taxes that corporations pay are really being paid by poor people

😵

Are you saying you wouldn't do your job for the same net pay you receive for it now? 😵

 

[Texashiker]

So when these companies pay less to taxes, they just keep more for themselves when their stock prices go up. Taking that savings, then using it to pay for more employees isn't going to immediately increase their profits. For you, it doesn't matter because you're really not out raising chickens for profit.

Greed is a central part of the problem.

When you provide lawmakers with the ability to provide some people "loopholes" based on the subjective "good for society" metric, you give them the power to let their friends pay nothing.

If you want to believe in good government, fairies and unicorns, that's your prerogative I suppose.

I never said anything about a "good" government.

I personally feel that certain dedications are needed to encourage investment.

The main problem is companies can write off too much. There was an article several months ago about hollywood being able to write off movies that were failures.

Being able to write off a movie that goes belly up does not curve future bad behavior. So what if a studio lost $200 million, just write it off.

 

[BoberFett]

Greed is a central part of the problem.

Such as your greed to have a chicken coop that you aren't paying your fair share of back to society.

I never said anything about a "good" government.

I personally feel that certain dedications are needed to encourage investment.

The main problem is companies can write off too much. There was an article several months ago about hollywood being able to write off movies that were failures.

Being able to write off a movie that goes belly up does not curve future bad behavior. So what if a studio lost $200 million, just write it off.

You think people will blow $200M so they can avoid paying $50M in taxes?

And you'd rather they stop making movies unless they know they'll profit greatly from it. That's a good idea, they can probably lay of tens of thousands of people by only making blockbusters. Who needs all those people you see rolling by in the credits of those movies that lose money. Fire 'em.

You're dumber than people give you credit for.

 

[nehalem256]

Are you saying you wouldn't do your job for the same net pay you receive for it now? 😵

Are you saying that my company won't keep giving me the same gross pay for the same work? 😵

 

[Texashiker]

And you'd rather they stop making movies unless they know they'll profit greatly from it. That's a good idea, they can probably lay of tens of thousands of people by only making blockbusters. Who needs all those people you see rolling by in the credits of those movies that lose money. Fire 'em.

Isn't that the way a free market works? You either make a product people want to buy, or you go under.

Why should the tax payers subsidize poor quality work?

That is why GM is in the shape it is. Make a poor quality product, ask for a bailout every few years. Why isn't ford or toyota asking for a bailout? Maybe because they make products people want to buy.

 

[BoberFett]

Isn't that the way a free market works? You either make a product people want to buy, or you go under.

Why should the tax payers subsidize poor quality work?

That is why GM is in the shape it is. Make a poor quality product, ask for a bailout every few years. Why isn't ford or toyota asking for a bailout? Maybe because they make products people want to buy.

And you want the taxpayer to help you pay the bill for your chicken coop, you greedy farmer.

 

[dank69]

Are you saying that my company won't keep giving me the same gross pay for the same work? 😵

Are you saying your company would pay $30000 more than they have to for the same work? 😵

 

[Texashiker]

And you want the taxpayer to help you pay the bill for your chicken coop, you greedy farmer.

That is absolutely right.

I do not even pay sales tax on my farm supplies.

In the past few months about 20 of my chickens were killed by a dog, fox or chicken hawk.

Each of those hens would have laid at least 200 eggs a year. Over the course of 2 years that is around 8,000 eggs I lost.

I wonder if I can write off the thousands of eggs I lost?

 

[highland145]

That is absolutely right.

I do not even pay sales tax on my farm supplies.

In the past few months about 20 of my chickens were killed by a dog, fox or chicken hawk.

Each of those hens would have laid at least 200 eggs a year. Over the course of 2 years that is around 8,000 eggs I lost.

I wonder if I can write off the thousands of eggs I lost?

Only if you were the one that inseminated the hens.

 

[Lonyo]

Corporations have to prepare consolidated financial statement, where inter-companies transactions like loan, interest expense, sales, and payable will be eliminated.

In the UK, that's irrelevant for tax purposes. I would be almost certain it's the same in the US as well.
Consolidated financial statements just show the overall results of your group, but you don't use those figures to calculate taxes at any level in any country. It does, however, mess with your effective tax rate calculation because it's not based on just US taxes.

It could be that all of these companies are in fact paying US taxes and getting tax credits outside the US, for instance. (Unlikely to be the case, but it is probably possible).

 

[iGas]

I paid $30K in taxes last year on an income of around $100K. That's just direct taxes from filing, not including sales tax or any of the other incidental taxes the state/feds squeeze out of me.

You don't think I'm taxed enough?

American are lucky have such low tax rate.

My last earning statement shown so far for the year of 2014, I already payed close to $25K CAD income tax.

 

[Zaap]

So what if a studio lost $200 million, just write it off.

A studio doesn't just "lose" 200 million. That's 200 million spent on the salaries of all the people that made the movie: watch the credits roll after each movie to get some inkling of a clue how many. Most of those people pay taxes if they work in the US. (Don't worry, as dumb as people in the US are becoming, more and more of them won't be.)

Every time the armies of crew vehicles gas up- government gets its cut.

Whatever localities the movie shoot in sees a landslide of money come its way, including the state and local governments.

Whenever a permit is sought (and you need tons to shoot anything, let alone a 200 mil picture) govt. gets money.

Even if the picture only does $100m at the box office (a huge flop) govt. got its grubby hands on sales taxes, stinker or not.


So studio: puts up everything, does everything, pays for everything, loses big.

Government(s): puts up nothing, does nothing, pays for nothing, make out like bandits collecting a stream of tax money even off the biggest flop imaginable.

Government suck-ups (AS ALWAYS) whine, cry, and stomp their feet that their precious government (rolling in money even from a flop, let alone a huge success) doesn't have enough money *sniffle sniffle*

Meanwhile government, realizing that it's pansy ass, dumb-as-dirt suck-ups are always worried about it not having enough money, parties hardy with the fat cats that keep it rolling in dough, spends like drunken sailors, borrows a ton more money, and sends the bill to the idiot suck ups to pay.

Oh yeah, and it offers its buddies in studios and plenty of other business ventures write-offs even on flops, because unlike it's idiot suck-ups, government is able to spot a good deal when it sees one. Getting bukku bucks for a flop that's "written off" is a better deal than collecting ZILCH for a picture that's never made because the incentive wasn't there.

 

[nehalem256]

Are you saying your company would pay $30000 more than they have to for the same work? 😵

Its not more than they have too.

 

[dank69]

Its not more than they have too.

It's $30000 more than it takes to keep you happy right now.

 

[Texashiker]

A studio doesn't just "lose" 200 million. That's 200 million spent on the salaries of all the people that made the movie: watch the credits roll after each movie to get some inkling of a clue how many. Most of those people pay taxes if they work in the US. (Don't worry, as dumb as people in the US are becoming, more and more of them won't be.)

And?

The tax payers should not subside substandard work.

The free market works like this:

Company A makes product people want, sells product makes money.

Company B makes poor quality product, nobody buys, company goes out of business.

Moral of story, do not make crappy product.

 

[BoberFett]

It's $30000 more than it takes to keep you happy right now.

I don't think you people understand how companies pay their employees. They don't care what your take home is.

 

[BoberFett]

And?

The tax payers should not subside substandard work.

The free market works like this:

Company A makes product people want, sells product makes money.

Company B makes poor quality product, nobody buys, company goes out of business.

Moral of story, do not make crappy product.

What is your point? What does anything you said have to do with taxes and deductible expenses?

 

[Zaap]

And?

The tax payers should not subside substandard work.

The free market works like this:

Company A makes product people want, sells product makes money.

Company B makes poor quality product, nobody buys, company goes out of business.

Moral of story, do not make crappy product.

No outside taxpayer subsidized a thing in that example. You're so steeped in the jealousy over someone else spending money in amounts you'll never in your life see, your brain doesn't function properly. (It's generally a result of leftardation that does this to people, in your case, who knows.)

Company had budget of 200 million: paid people (TAXPAYERS themselves from that very money) it to create a 200 million dollar picture. Government reaped a hellacious cut from all the business transactions and salaries resulting from the production.

I know you're not in any way capable of grasping this, but I'll attempt to ask anyway: if YOU as a private citizen can engage in an activity that cost you more than you end up making, and realize that as a capital loss, why wouldn't a company also?

If you invested $50,000 of your own money on something (transporting yourself to/from a job site, expenses, materials, hiring others, whatever) and then ended up only eeking out $25,000 from the effort- WHAT taxes do you owe the government? You should owe money on a $25k loss? How much? To who? Why exactly?

Are you being subsidized by someone else's taxes because you're not handing over MORE money on top of your loss to government?

Why the fuck is a business loss any different?

Why don't you use your pea brain and tell me exactly what the fair rate of taxation is on a $100 million production loss. Beyond that, tell me exactly why some greedy ass government that had shit to do with shit in the whole process deserves this payout.

Or are you just too much of a suck-up to even understand any of this. (I'm already guessing most-likely answer: yes).