America officially has the highest taxes in the World...

You still denying that you gave evidence that destroyed the OP? Wowsers!

 

Show the evidence you claim I showed

 

You want me to tell you about the evidence that you posted? Golly! No. I'll just smile at your backtracking. Keep going

 

What evidence did he give destroying the OP?

 

What evidence did he give destroying the OP?

I haven't seen that in my review of posts in this thread, but it is quite possible I missed it.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...rld-s-sixth-highest-tax-rate-study-finds.html

 

Thanks.

I've seen that line of report about the effective tax rate, and IMO even they are somewhat misleading because they are based on tax paid on reported income, and of course, reported income can vary greatly depending upon the tax rules for things like deductions and exemptions and write-offs and depreciation etc. etc. A high depreciation shedules increases expenses and makes your profit look lower and thus your income tax percentage look higher.

The only effective way to compare taxes IMO is to compare taxes acutally paid with a consistent baseline that represents gross corporate income.

 

The other fellow's 'defence' of the opening post (which also destroyed it) was admittedly a much better source. There should be comparison of different scholarly sources (particularly to demonstrate the importance of the techniques used and the countries covered)

 

The Christian Century article is in error. Xom has paid income taxes every year because it has been profitable every year, those taxes have averaged 43%. GE, due to its financing arm's exposure to the mortgage mess, paid income taxes every year except 2009, when it incurred a loss. BAC and C, of course got hammered by the mortgage mess. C did not pay income taxes in 2007 and 2009 because they didn't make a profit. In prior years their income taxes paid averaged 28%. BAC similarly lost money and paid no income taxes in 2009, 2010, and 2011. In prior years they paid income taxes on average at 30%.

So in some recent years those three didn't make a profit on which they would pay income taxes. But the "truth" that you and others offer is false. Look at the numbers.

 

Scholarly sources are well and good but in my experience can be subject to a large degree of bias. Which is why I generally prefer to look at source data and draw my own conclusions and let others draw theirs.

 

Its the variation that's useful in scholarly source. We tend to go for our chosen preferred methodology and miss out on some of the complexities within the raw data.

 

Fair enough.

 

When data that refutes the progressive agenda is presented it is ignored.

 

Any examples of that you want to share with us from this thread, or are you just throwing out baseless opinion for the hell of it?

 

Haven't I already thanked you for providing evidence that destroyed the OP?

 

Those who promulgate the idea that US companies either don't pay income taxes or pay a minimal amount when it is not true obviously have an agenda. When evidence contrary to their claims id presented , they either deny it or ignore it.

What should Exxon Mobile's income tax rate be?

 

Are you denying that some US companies pay little or no taxes?

What do I think? I'd put is at around 5% or so.

 

Companies pay no income taxes when they have no income, when their expenses are larger than their revenues. Why is that hard for you to understand?

Exxon Mobil's income tax rate in 2011 was 42%. Why do you deny this?

 

That is not accurate. Companies pay -0- tax when they either have not income, or through various tax loopholes and exemptions, are able to make their income look like it was zero. There are all kinds of games that can be played top reduce taxes.

Which post of mine are you referring to? Though I'd find it strange that Exxon is paying a 42% tax rate when the top corporate tax rate is 35%.

 

Income has a definition, it is revenues minus expenses. If you think some expenses are not legitimate, which ones? I agree that the US tax code is rediculously complex and should be revised, but companies like Exxon are following the regulations laid out in the tax code.

2011 Exxon pretax income $73.3, Income taxes $31.1, thus a tax rate of 42%.

 

So then You are lying

 

2006 -2009. the sixth highest and now in 2012 the highest. As I said it had to be something you were taking out of context and I was right

 

Don't fib now. Your source, admittedly poor, concludes that the OP is bobbins

 

You're comparing apples and oranges, effective and nominal tax rates.

 

What expenses can be claimed for income tax purposes is how favorable tax rules can lower profits and create a higher apparent tax rate.

Just a simple example.

Suppose company A has this income statement:

10m revenues
9m costs
1m expense
250k tax.

Here we have a 25% tax rate on $1m in profit.

But now they change the tax rule and allow the company to increase its expenses by $1m accelerated depreciation schedules, or any number of other mechanisms:

10m revenues
9m expenses
1m additional expense with tax loophole.
0m tax profit
0k tax.

Now we have the exact same situation, with the same $1 million in actual profit which has now be reduced to -0- by tax loopholes. So the Corporation pays -0- taxes.

That's the way they can lower taxes paid, and why the US has relative to GDP, one of the lower corporate taxes in the industrialize world, despite a higher nominal rate.