Multi-billion dollar corporations pay less taxes on their profits than a typical middle class families in taxes. Surprise!
Wonder who pays those middle class families....
Corporate profits are taxed at two levels, the company level and the shareholder level.
So, for example, Exxon earns $100. It's taxed 35%, leaving $65. Then the shareholder is taxed at $39.5%, leaving $39.33.
In short, for every $100 in profits Exxon distributes, the Obama Regime takes $60.68, for a total tax rate of 60.61%.
Jewbacc just, just don't. We've been over this in multiple threads at least a dozen times by now. People love to focus soley on corporate income tax for some reason.
Report is the same old tired bullshit of comparing taxes paid to GAAP basis financial statement income. Not to mention is a look at a single year's worth of information.
This is hogwash used to issue propaganda.
You mean facts for Realnews to report on.
Here is another theoretical falsehood. 35% is the nominal tax rate, not the effective rate. A big difference!
Since you fancy yourself an amateur economist why don't you post you replies to let The Real News readers what propaganda this is. And please don't forget to cite your sources;)
So, what is a "fair" rate?
So this is justification for multi-billion dollar corporations to pay less Fed income tax than their workers?
Not the point. The poster tried to pretend that corporations pay 35% and they do not. Fed tax rate was over 90% in the 1950's and the economy grew at a much better rate than today. So you tell me......
I wasn't addressing your point. You brought up what wasn't fair, I was asking you a direct question. What is? What is fair to take from a company? At what minimum rate is it unfair to allow a company to keep from its' earnings?
Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950's and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You?
I'm not an amateur economist, but I am a professional accountant, you know someone who actually understands the subject matter of this thread.
So pardon me while I don't waste my time pointing out the utter idiocy of this "study" to a bunch of lefties who don't even know what the matching principle is, let alone the difference between GAAP basis and tax basis income levels.
Anyone who made a 10 min video about this is either completely ignorant of accounting on every level, or has an agenda to fill and needs some good propaganda.
I did cite the same source this stupid video did in my first post.
lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.
So, your stance it that it is unfair for a corporation to be allowed to keep more than 10% of the wealth it creates?
Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950's, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.
The 1950's were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950's were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980's helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950's. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
This guy has been practicing economy for longer than you have been an accountant. I'm surprised of your unwillingness to show others the right way. Or are you afraid if the professor replies he will shoot down your points like taking candy from a baby? Maybe it's that your ignorant of economics since you are an accountant. Just some thoughts.
Really, so corporations effective tax rate in the 50's was close to zero? Care to provide any proof? Cite any sources?