|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 28, 2011 8:15:28 GMT -5
GE had carry forward losses...nothing sinister or outrageous here.
This is just like the misinformation that 2/3's of US corps pay no taxes at all. Technically this is correct. What we are not told is these are small one or two owner/closely held cors, that show zero taxable income on the corporate books, but the taxable income flows through to the tax return of the one or two owners who then pay the taxes. If I can recall these are S corps.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 28, 2011 8:16:53 GMT -5
Shirina wrote:
Their slavish devotion to the shareholders already has them shrinking their workforce. Layoffs drive stock prices upwards, increasing dividends to the shareholders via the extra profit generated by having to pay fewer people. This is why companies can post record profits while simultaneously laying off tens of thousands.
And then you'll turn around and blame the government.
Shirina, GE has not been devoted to their shareholders since Jack Welch retired.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Mar 28, 2011 9:22:46 GMT -5
We should all recognize that the money connection between large corporations/special interests and government officials is a very serious problem in this country. It has been well documented that donations and benefits from these entities influence how elected officials vote. We also know the Obama/GE connection will result in more of the same just like the Chenny/ Haliburton or Clinton/ Walmart connections did. If we are serious about making taxation fair then we would have to start with outlawing the exemptions that allow any entity or individual to avoid their share of taxation. In Michigan a couple of years ago, Granholm instituted a business tax primarily based on gross sales that has been an absolute job killer but even worse she gave many large corporations exemptions and then added a surcharge to the remainder to make up the difference. We could fix the problem ourselves by voting these party people out and demanding more accountability from the new ones we elect or we could do what is happening in so many places right now, the people are rising up against their government and demanding a change. Which is most preferable or are there other options?
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Mar 28, 2011 10:01:49 GMT -5
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 28, 2011 10:34:27 GMT -5
They are paying no taxes, still oursourcing, and only paying higher wages to the executives, is that what you like? Just because they do not pay a Federal Income Tax doesn't mean they pay no taxes. Which is probably why they will never eliminate our current tax code, and replace it with something line the Fair Tax takes away to much power from the federal government. I believe it was last year I read an article that said GE's tax return was something like 25,000 pages. Unbelievable.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 28, 2011 10:52:31 GMT -5
I could go for the elimination of almost all corporate income tax with a few simple rules. 1) No corporate money can be used to lobby the government, promote political views, endorse candidates, etc. 2) Investment income will be taxed 3) 50% tax on all executive compensation over 25x the lowest paid employee
Downside?
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 28, 2011 11:29:46 GMT -5
Lobbying is good. Otherwise our representatives would have to rely on their own competence [pause for laughter] or listen to the half witted ideas of their constituents [like welfare recipients and others on the government dole ~ and, of course, government employees also on the government dole]. Legislation is a messy business, but the results generally legitimize the process. I don't think it'd be an improvement if all the decisions were made by direct government employees in conjunction with indirect government employees such as Universities. Such would constitute an oligarchy. [Plato thought that'd be a good idea but most of the rest don't]
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Mar 28, 2011 12:25:09 GMT -5
Downside?
none if public workers follow the same guidelines. especially point number 1.
public sector management and file rank and pay prevailing costs for health insurance public sector employees can have no more than 10 hours overtime a week. public sector employees can't accrue sick days.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Mar 28, 2011 12:25:47 GMT -5
This message has been deleted.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 28, 2011 13:34:05 GMT -5
Forget about Ge. AT&T actually had a negative tax rate last year. Whirlpool, DR Horton and a couple others had no Federal taxes. For the last 3 years, no less.
Most major oil companies,XOM and Chevron, included paid over 40% tax rate, well above the 35% rate Whole Foods did also. Even Goldman Sachs paid a 35% rate. If they made big money, they paid big taxes. Source:CNBC-yes I know that evil capitalist network.........
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 28, 2011 13:44:31 GMT -5
Lobbying is not good-it should be outlawed. If an industry wants to give its side of an argument- do it in a public forum where everyone with a stake can have their say no matter how much money they have.
Public employees should be paying a fair part of their health care, and overtime abuse is a sure sign of crappy management-so maybe some of these 100K+ administrator positions need to be looked at- why is it always the line workers getting the criticism?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:44:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2011 14:04:35 GMT -5
I could go for the elimination of almost all corporate income tax with a few simple rules. 1) No corporate money can be used to lobby the government, promote political views, endorse candidates, etc. 2) Investment income will be taxed 3) 50% tax on all executive compensation over 25x the lowest paid employee
Downside?
Well it would sure increase employment. After all the government would have to hire a LOT of people to make sure those rules were followed. Oh & while those people are at those companies maybe they could throw even more government rules in their faces. We need less government & less government interference in businesses. Just my opinion.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Mar 28, 2011 14:07:45 GMT -5
We should not limit compensation for any employee with legislation. If you don't like what any employee makes regardless of what level then simply don't buy their product, don't invest in their stock, don't vote for the board members who approved it, stand in the street and protest, write articles to the news media of your choice, start a thread on MSN Money, call Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, Rev.Wright or appear on the View but we don't need federal laws to control this. Especially not ones written by people who will see it as an opportunity to create a new department of government or write a 2700 page law that is filled with more pork. We pay movie stars, sports players, lawsuit recipients, lawyers and lottery winners millions for doing less. Lets not ask the government to take more responsibility when they can't handle what they already have.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 28, 2011 14:14:46 GMT -5
I agree with you, but when liberals don't like something, they don't want anyone to have it...and they want a law to enforce it because they think you're too stupid to decide for yourself...
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 28, 2011 18:15:38 GMT -5
I did not see it posted here so not sure if this was brought up. GE files a consolidated tax return.
This means business units like GE Capital which had massive losses in 2008, and 2009, is carrying forward those losses to net against current income from other units, which results in no taxable income for the corporation as a whole, even though other business units were profitable.
This is standard and elementary accounting and taxation. There is nothing sinister orunderhanded here. The fools that listen to boobs like Chuck Schummer, Harry Reid...and similar imbeciles, who rail about situations such as these are fodder for the ignorant and uneducated populace that is rampant in the US.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 28, 2011 19:33:18 GMT -5
We should not limit compensation for any employee with legislation. I didn't say limit it- I said tax compensation over 25x the lowest employee. They could easily avoid the tax by paying the peons better. Management is out of control and I see no reason not to reign them in a bit. Would a return to the 90% tax bracket be a better plan? Also, many of these corporations provide necessities so you just can't not do business with them, and considering the new 401K retirement scam everyone is getting thrown into, there is not an option to not buy stock in those companies. All I see is a few thieves on top stealing from the owners and employees- not in all companies mind you. I say tax the crap out of any salary higher than the president- it is on its face excessive and no one is worth that kind of money. An inventor or entrepreneur in a private company is one thing, the good ol boys club of substandard CEOs inhabiting each others boards and raking in millions regardless of performance is quite another.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Mar 28, 2011 20:00:59 GMT -5
Jealousy is such a tacky emotion.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 28, 2011 20:22:50 GMT -5
I didn't say limit it- I said tax compensation over 25x the lowest employee. They could easily avoid the tax by paying the peons better. Management is out of control and I see no reason not to reign them in a bit. Would a return to the 90% tax bracket be a better plan?
I believe I made a post on this thread the other day, or maybe it was some other thread. Congress has tried legislating limiting executive compensation since the 80s and has made the situation worse each time. I will find the link and article and post it if necessary. The lowest paid employees make low salaries because they bring no value to the market. Quite simple.
considering the new 401K retirement scam everyone is getting thrown into, there is not an option to not buy stock in those companies.
What new 401K scam? 401Ks have been around for nearly 30 years and come in all shapes and varieties.
All I see is a few thieves on top stealing from the owners and employees- not in all companies mind you. I say tax the crap out of any salary higher than the president- it is on its face excessive and no one is worth that kind of money. An inventor or entrepreneur in a private company is one thing, the good ol boys club of substandard CEOs inhabiting each others boards and raking in millions regardless of performance is quite another.
You referring to people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and George Soros? You see nothing. What I see is elected reps, stealing from the middle class.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 28, 2011 20:26:07 GMT -5
For all the public school graduates who think the govt can mandate lower executive salaries. Read this and weep. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26963309(click link for full article) Can wild CEO pay be tamed? Probably not The gap widens: CEO compensation 275 times the salary of average worker By Eve Tahmincioglu MSNBC contributor The guys who ran the recently collapsed Lehman Bros., Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all prove one thing. You don’t always get what you pay for. Big paychecks for jobs not well done: 1. Lehman Bros.’ Richard Fuld, $40 million. 2. Merrill Lynch’s Stanley O’Neal, $46 million. 3. Bear Stearns' James Cayne, $40 million. 4. Freddie Mac’s Richard Syron, just shy of $20 million. 5. Fannie Mae’s Daniel Mudd, $12.2 million. As the nation’s financial system was crumbling, the CEOs who were in charge of the most troubled financial firms pocketed fat paychecks during their final full year on the job — and that doesn’t include the golden parachutes they got when they walked away. Public outrage over this disconnect has caused Congress to step in and try to do something about skyrocketing executive compensation. But history shows that government attempts have been weak, at best, when it comes to curtailing CEO riches. Why? Because regulators never go far enough in giving shareholders a true voice. It’s difficult to break up entrenched boards of directors that make the decisions on executive compensation. Even the $700 billion bailout package that is fighting for life on Capitol Hill doesn’t have the teeth to put a lid on these financial windfalls, experts say. Over the past two decades, efforts by government officials to rein in the big payouts, including changes to the tax code and calls for more oversight, have actually contributed to the growth in CEO pay — now 275 times the salary of the average working stiff, according to the Economic Policy Institute. “Government regulators are notoriously ineffective at reining in pay, and oftentimes the unintended consequences caused greater problems,” says Charles Elson, an expert on corporate governance at the University of Delaware. Let’s go back to the mid-1980s when the public also was outraged about executives getting huge payouts as a result of the merger mania at the time. The government and investors wanted to make sure managers were selling companies because it was financially prudent, not because they would walk away with huge severance packages. These concerns resulted in a 1986 change in the tax code creating a penalty tax on excessive golden parachute payments more than three times an executive's base pay. What happened after that, says Steve Van Putten, a senior executive pay consultant for Watson Wyatt in Boston, was that companies started paying this penalty tax for executives, a process called grossing up. And the three-times base pay limit became the standard for many parachutes that were once well below that. In 1992, the Securities and Exchange Commission introduced proxy disclosure rules taking information about executive compensation that was once narrative and thin on numerical values, and putting actual numbers out there for all to see. “It became very transparent, and a CEO at one company could see what another was making so they’d say, ‘Hey, I want to be making that,’ ” says Van Putten.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 28, 2011 21:13:35 GMT -5
"General Electric announced it made a profit of $14 billion last year and paid zero in U.S. taxes. How does this make Wesley Snipes feel? Had he just been making light bulbs instead of movies he wouldn’t be in prison now"....Jay Leno
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Mar 28, 2011 21:20:59 GMT -5
It's amazing the number of financial idiots that are prevalent on a money board. And the general public is even less educated than this crew here. [/size]
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 28, 2011 21:27:42 GMT -5
It's amazing the number of financial idiots that are prevalent on a money board. And the general public is even less educated than this crew here.
Excuse me but I am probably one of those financial idiots you are refering to so what is your point Re: GE pay no taxes in 2010...
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Mar 28, 2011 21:49:43 GMT -5
I made no such accusation towards any one person. It just amazes me that people that are supposed to be above average from a financial intelligence perspective can be so baffled and create such a stir because a company paid no federal taxes or even had a negative tax liability.
Guess what - if you take a loss on a stock or bond then you get to deduct the losses on your tax return. And if your losses are too high [say from 2008 and 2009], you can carry them forward to the next year(s). No different for a business, except for the rules for carry forward.
As a portion of the population that is supposed to be financially savvy, the posters here should be discussing why the populace is so financially uneducated to fall for these dumb articles that are clearly meant to divide, not further perpetuate the stupidity.
I'm sorry if you were included or if you were offended; I honestly haven't read the posts because it takes about 5 seconds to register that this company had CL carry forwards that reduced its tax liability if you know how to read a financial statement. I would bet a good amount of money that there is a specific tax note in GE's financial statements that discusses the carry forwards. Depending on the level of disclosure, they may even include the duration for those carry forwards and when they expire.
[/size]
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 28, 2011 21:53:44 GMT -5
It may seem like accounting magic, but it's completely legit. GE isn't the only "Top 5" company on this year's Fortune 500 list that owed no income taxes. Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), which suffered major losses in 2009, included a tax benefit of $1.9 billion in its annual profit. "That's one way of escaping taxes," said Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. "Companies get to deduct their losses, so if there's no earnings, then they pay no income tax." But GE isn't exactly escaping all tax-related pain: The company paid almost $23 billion in taxes to governments around the world from 2000 to 2009, Eisele said. Plus, paying the accountants to crank out 7,000 tax returns can't be cheap. And then there's all the lawyers needed to defend those returns. GE filed tax paperwork in more than 250 jurisdictions around the world last year. "We are under examination or engaged in tax litigation in many of these jurisdictions," the company dryly notes in its annual report. GE may not owe the IRS, but it still has to file -- and its filings are epic. In 2006, as the IRS ramped up its corporate e-filing program, the tax agency actually issued a celebratory press release when it processed GE's tax return. On paper, the return -- the nation's largest -- would have totaled a massive 24,000 pages. But instead, the IRS was able to upload the 237 MB document in under an hour. Reading it, though, is apparently taking a bit longer. The IRS is currently auditing GE's tax returns for 2003-2007. money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 29, 2011 5:52:36 GMT -5
Guess what - if you take a loss on a stock or bond then you get to deduct the losses on your tax return. And if your losses are too high [say from 2008 and 2009], you can carry them forward to the next year(s). No different for a business, except for the rules for carry forward.
As a portion of the population that is supposed to be financially savvy, the posters here should be discussing why the populace is so financially uneducated to fall for these dumb articles that are clearly meant to divide, not further perpetuate the stupidity.
Yes, PI no offense from here either, but Expat is spot on with this. This stuff is so elementary. As ExPat notes, even individual filers can also offset income with investment losses. On a personal note, I have big losses in 2008, which I used to offset income on my 2008 return, and carried them forward to 2009 and my 2010 return.
The fact that GE Capital had massive losses in the meltdown is not a difficult concept to grasp.
The fact that this topic and issue has generated the outrage on this forum that it has, is a sad commentary to the overall ignorance of the US population. Yeah, I know, it is not a representative sample, but on Comcast's web site two identical threads on this topic are longer.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 29, 2011 5:59:38 GMT -5
That is correct Dem, one can offset gains, with cap losses, then deduct up to $3000, the rest is carried forward.... I am nearly an expert in this area...LOL
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 29, 2011 6:12:35 GMT -5
That is correct Dem, one can offset gains, with cap losses, then deduct up to $3000, the rest is carried forward.... I am nearly an expert in this area...LOL Demi is refering to Corporations and not individual tax payers who can deduct a maximum of $3,000.00 each year and then carry losses over the $3,000.00 to next year's income tax filing. You aren't the only expert in this area there is a lot of that going on lately with Reformed Day Traders as well>>>
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 29, 2011 8:04:33 GMT -5
Heh. It rarely pays to try to tell someone else to what they're referring. ;D
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 29, 2011 12:30:36 GMT -5
Guess what - if you take a loss on a stock or bond then you get to deduct the losses on your tax return. And if your losses are too high [say from 2008 and 2009], you can carry them forward to the next year(s). No different for a business, except for the rules for carry forward.
As a portion of the population that is supposed to be financially savvy, the posters here should be discussing why the populace is so financially uneducated to fall for these dumb articles that are clearly meant to divide, not further perpetuate the stupidity.Yes, PI no offense from here either, but Expat is spot on with this. This stuff is so elementary. As ExPat notes, even individual filers can also offset income with investment losses. On a personal note, I have big losses in 2008, which I used to offset income on my 2008 return, and carried them forward to 2009 and my 2010 return. The fact that GE Capital had massive losses in the meltdown is not a difficult concept to grasp. The fact that this topic and issue has generated the outrage on this forum that it has, is a sad commentary to the overall ignorance of the US population. Yeah, I know, it is not a representative sample, but on Comcast's web site two identical threads on this topic are longer. I had my two best years ever in 2008 and 2009. If I wasn't basically lazy, I'd have had a bang up 2010, too-- but I got tired, and took a week's vacation that lasted about 6 months. This year is going better... I'm rocking it out- even starting up a transactional funding business (finally) later this year, and consulting in conjunction with it-- to make sure the rehab flippers I'm funding can pay me back. The numbers are insane: $3,200 just to apply and do due dilligence, 2 to 5 points, 12% interest, and an equity stake in the deal to boot. Title goes in trust and beneficial interest is assigned to the rehabber when the work is done and we're paid back. Otherwise, the trust reverts the property to us, and we manage it and/or sell it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:44:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2011 14:00:13 GMT -5
Does anyone here understand that when corporations pay higher taxes, they pass it on to consumers and/or take it out of their employees' compensation? This is the difference between taxing individuals and taxing corporations. So you admit, then, that these corporations are behaving in a greedy, unethical manner by doing this, yes? It's the equivalent of passing a debt on to someone else. It's not as though these corporations can't afford a tax increase. They just don't want to see their profit margins shrink. It's just become a game of hoarding.
Shirina, I'm just blown away by your comments. It's almost as if you don't "get" that a company has to make a profit? Not only that but they are obligated to make as much profit as possible to make the company in a strong financial positions (so that they can invest in the company & maybe expand). To set a goal of breaking even every year means that they will be out of business at the first downturn. Would that benefit investors, would it benefit workers? It's the same with people & home finances. If you break even every payday sooner or later something will happen & you will lose everything (or be in debt), just on a smaller scale. Too little of what you call greed would mean that there would be no companies & everyone would be out of work. To a large extent greed is good (as far as making the company stronger. As for unethical, sure some companies are unethical & that will always be the case. That's because some people are unethical & they run the companies. Unless your are advocating lining up everyone that's unethical against a wall & killing them I don't see how to avoid it. Hiring a million government inspectors to look over every companies books & review their actions on a daily basis just isn't practical.
|
|