Economics 101

[CultureCitizen]

He just seems to have forgotten to integrate the level of household debt and interest rates in his formula.

There is no "formula" here, simpleton. This is not chemistry. It's very simple. So simple, that only a liberal could struggle to understand it.

When government devastes a business with taxes, costly regulations, and labor laws - all of which sends money to the government - the business has less money in their account. That prevents them from hiring people. Or purchasing more equipment. Or expanding their operations. If the government has their money, they simply cannot do these things. Surely even you can't comprehend that.

The same goes with consumers. If the government has all of my money, I can't take vacations. Send my children to college. Purchase automobiles. Etc. What part of that can't you grasp? You and I both know that you realize people and businesses can't spend money that they don't have. Yet that undeniable realization is in direct conflict with your precious little liberal ideology. It's time to embrace reality my friend.

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high. Here we go again:

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases.

I think it's humorous that you believe Friedman didn't understand the basics of economics.

Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?

Obama adding additional regulatory road blocks to business formation and expansion.
Obama adding additional taxes. Excessive regulatory and capital restrictions on banks.

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis.

When the monetary authorities fucked up so royally, the monetary approach is important.

As I said before , Friedman liked to make simplifications to make models. So his models have to be taken with caution: they work only under certain asumptions. In any case, in the paper you linked there is no warning about household debt levels. And as pointed by the charts, the actual taxes in the US were a lot higher during the 60's and 70's.

"Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have "assumptions" that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (in this sense)
Milton Friedman"
Essays in Positive Economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Friedman liked to make simplifications to make models.

All models involve simplifications. So what?

In any case, in the paper you linked there is no warning about household debt levels.

If you say so. So what?

And as pointed by the charts, the actual taxes in the US were a lot higher during the 60's and 70's.

Actual taxes on what were a lot higher?

So what? Well , it is only a model , and you can't expect it to work under such circumstances. In this case the high level of debt and the deleveraging.

Which taxes : corporate income tax and personal income tax.

 

[CultureCitizen]

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high.

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

First of all - like all ideologues you fail to examine why. Why is there so much debt? Because the government steals 55% - 60% of what a person earns.

Second - is there a point to you suddenly turning your focus on debt after all of your other nonsense was disproven? People have debt. You can never account for who will have it or how much they will have at any given time. So you want what? The government to control people's finances as well?

There you go patriot. Scroll down to the 70's. You'll see tax brackets reaching up to 70%.
And household debt was much smaller at that time.

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no "formula" here, simpleton. This is not chemistry. It's very simple. So simple, that only a liberal could struggle to understand it.

When government devastes a business with taxes, costly regulations, and labor laws - all of which sends money to the government - the business has less money in their account. That prevents them from hiring people. Or purchasing more equipment. Or expanding their operations. If the government has their money, they simply cannot do these things. Surely even you can't comprehend that.

The same goes with consumers. If the government has all of my money, I can't take vacations. Send my children to college. Purchase automobiles. Etc. What part of that can't you grasp? You and I both know that you realize people and businesses can't spend money that they don't have. Yet that undeniable realization is in direct conflict with your precious little liberal ideology. It's time to embrace reality my friend.

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high. Here we go again:

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases.

I think it's humorous that you believe Friedman didn't understand the basics of economics.

Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?

Obama adding additional regulatory road blocks to business formation and expansion.
Obama adding additional taxes. Excessive regulatory and capital restrictions on banks.

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis.

When the monetary authorities fucked up so royally, the monetary approach is important.

As I said before , Friedman liked to make simplifications to make models. So his models have to be taken with caution: they work only under certain asumptions. In any case, in the paper you linked there is no warning about household debt levels. And as pointed by the charts, the actual taxes in the US were a lot higher during the 60's and 70's.

"Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have "assumptions" that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (in this sense)
Milton Friedman"
Essays in Positive Economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Friedman liked to make simplifications to make models.

All models involve simplifications. So what?

In any case, in the paper you linked there is no warning about household debt levels.

If you say so. So what?

And as pointed by the charts, the actual taxes in the US were a lot higher during the 60's and 70's.

Actual taxes on what were a lot higher?

So what? Well , it is only a model , and you can't expect it to work under such circumstances. In this case the high level of debt and the deleveraging.

Which taxes : corporate income tax and personal income tax.

And as pointed by the charts, the actual taxes in the US were a lot higher during the 60's and 70's.

Actual taxes on what were a lot higher?

Which taxes : corporate income tax and personal income tax.

Wow. You're making all these claims about what Friedman didn't know, or what he did wrong, and you can't even read your own chart.

 

[P@triot]

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high.

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

First of all - like all ideologues you fail to examine why. Why is there so much debt? Because the government steals 55% - 60% of what a person earns.

Second - is there a point to you suddenly turning your focus on debt after all of your other nonsense was disproven? People have debt. You can never account for who will have it or how much they will have at any given time. So you want what? The government to control people's finances as well?

There you go patriot. Scroll down to the 70's. You'll see tax brackets reaching up to 70%.
And household debt was much smaller at that time.

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)

That's because available credit was exponentially smaller at the time, genius.

 

[P@triot]

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high.

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

First of all - like all ideologues you fail to examine why. Why is there so much debt? Because the government steals 55% - 60% of what a person earns.

Second - is there a point to you suddenly turning your focus on debt after all of your other nonsense was disproven? People have debt. You can never account for who will have it or how much they will have at any given time. So you want what? The government to control people's finances as well?

There you go patriot. Scroll down to the 70's. You'll see tax brackets reaching up to 70%.
And household debt was much smaller at that time.

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)

That's because available credit was exponentially smaller at the time, genius. And that's because people had no money in their pocket with 70% tax rates.

You continue to say inanely stupid things. Is there any other misinformation you would like me to debunk for you?

In 1970, 16% of households held at least one bank credit card...

Credit cards Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Credit cards

 

[Rshermr]

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high.

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

First of all - like all ideologues you fail to examine why. Why is there so much debt? Because the government steals 55% - 60% of what a person earns.

Second - is there a point to you suddenly turning your focus on debt after all of your other nonsense was disproven? People have debt. You can never account for who will have it or how much they will have at any given time. So you want what? The government to control people's finances as well?

Another profound post by the con troll janitor. Jesus, that was a dumb post.

 

[P@triot]

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high.

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

First of all - like all ideologues you fail to examine why. Why is there so much debt? Because the government steals 55% - 60% of what a person earns.

Second - is there a point to you suddenly turning your focus on debt after all of your other nonsense was disproven? People have debt. You can never account for who will have it or how much they will have at any given time. So you want what? The government to control people's finances as well?

Another profound post by the con troll janitor. Jesus, that was a dumb post.

You away cry "dumb" when you can't think of a liberal argument to dispute the facts.

 

[rdean]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

The free market is what sends jobs to China. Duh!

And, not a single mention of "supply and demand", the foundation of capitalism.

 

[P@triot]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

The free market is what sends jobs to China. Duh!

And, not a single mention of "supply and demand", the foundation of capitalism.

Uh...no it doesn't, stupid. Liberal policy devastating businesses with taxes (the highest corporate tax rates in the world), regulations, and labor laws is what has sent jobs to China. If it were cheaper to manufacture iPhones and iPads here in America, it is an indisputable, undeniable fact that Apple would be manufacturing everything here. The same goes with every other company. They don't want their operations tens of thousands of miles away under an unstable, authoritative regime but ignorant liberal policy leaves them no choice.

 

[CultureCitizen]

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high.

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

First of all - like all ideologues you fail to examine why. Why is there so much debt? Because the government steals 55% - 60% of what a person earns.

Second - is there a point to you suddenly turning your focus on debt after all of your other nonsense was disproven? People have debt. You can never account for who will have it or how much they will have at any given time. So you want what? The government to control people's finances as well?

There you go patriot. Scroll down to the 70's. You'll see tax brackets reaching up to 70%.
And household debt was much smaller at that time.

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)

That's because available credit was exponentially smaller at the time, genius. And that's because people had no money in their pocket with 70% tax rates.

You continue to say inanely stupid things. Is there any other misinformation you would like me to debunk for you?

In 1970, 16% of households held at least one bank credit card...

Credit cards Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Credit cards

First, those figures (70% tax rate) applied only for the top 20%.

If you look at the chart in the link you'll see the bottom 4 quintiles have mostly the same income they had in the 70's, and mostly the same tax rates. Sure enough the top 20% have seen their taxes decreased and their income grow. But that is not the sector which is holding the debt: they don't need to go into debt.

Household Income Analysis -not adjusted for inflation

Household Income Analysis - adjusted for inflation

 

[Rshermr]

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high.

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

First of all - like all ideologues you fail to examine why. Why is there so much debt? Because the government steals 55% - 60% of what a person earns.

Second - is there a point to you suddenly turning your focus on debt after all of your other nonsense was disproven? People have debt. You can never account for who will have it or how much they will have at any given time. So you want what? The government to control people's finances as well?

Another profound post by the con troll janitor. Jesus, that was a dumb post.

You away cry "dumb" when you can't think of a liberal argument to dispute the facts.

You made no argument. And you just created a sentence that makes no sense. You provided no facts. At least none that make any sense based on your broken sentence. Next.

 

[rdean]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

The free market is what sends jobs to China. Duh!

And, not a single mention of "supply and demand", the foundation of capitalism.

Uh...no it doesn't, stupid. Liberal policy devastating businesses with taxes (the highest corporate tax rates in the world), regulations, and labor laws is what has sent jobs to China. If it were cheaper to manufacture iPhones and iPads here in America, it is an indisputable, undeniable fact that Apple would be manufacturing everything here. The same goes with every other company. They don't want their operations tens of thousands of miles away under an unstable, authoritative regime but ignorant liberal policy leaves them no choice.

Gawd you're dumb.

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

Apple moved to China so they could pay $127 a month. People live in dorms and eat at cafeterias.

'Mass suicide' protest at Apple manufacturer Foxconn factory

What happened after the Foxconn suicides
-----------------
This is what happens when you have no regulations:
-----------------
At the end of her first month, Yu received no wages because of an administrative error that no one helped her to resolve. She had to take a bus to another factory of 130,000 people where she had to try to find someone to locate her wage card. No one would help her. The second-hand cell phone her father had given her when she had left home broke and she had no money left. With no friends, no communication and no money, she jumped from her dormitory window.

---------------------------------

Now don't be such an ignorant dipshit, dipshit. There is simply no excuse for it. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you don't have enough common sense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

The free market is what sends jobs to China. Duh!

And, not a single mention of "supply and demand", the foundation of capitalism.

Uh...no it doesn't, stupid. Liberal policy devastating businesses with taxes (the highest corporate tax rates in the world), regulations, and labor laws is what has sent jobs to China. If it were cheaper to manufacture iPhones and iPads here in America, it is an indisputable, undeniable fact that Apple would be manufacturing everything here. The same goes with every other company. They don't want their operations tens of thousands of miles away under an unstable, authoritative regime but ignorant liberal policy leaves them no choice.

Gawd you're dumb.

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

Apple moved to China so they could pay $127 a month. People live in dorms and eat at cafeterias.

'Mass suicide' protest at Apple manufacturer Foxconn factory

What happened after the Foxconn suicides
-----------------
This is what happens when you have no regulations:
-----------------
At the end of her first month, Yu received no wages because of an administrative error that no one helped her to resolve. She had to take a bus to another factory of 130,000 people where she had to try to find someone to locate her wage card. No one would help her. The second-hand cell phone her father had given her when she had left home broke and she had no money left. With no friends, no communication and no money, she jumped from her dormitory window.

---------------------------------

Now don't be such an ignorant dipshit, dipshit. There is simply no excuse for it. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you don't have enough common sense.

How can profitable companies end up with a $0 corporate income tax bill? There could be a few reasons, according to the GAO.

Among them, they may get a lot of tax deductions for losses they had in previous years but carried forward. They also may be able to write off more for depreciating assets than they have to claim on their financial statements. Or, if they made profits offshore and haven't brought them back to the United States, they would not owe U.S. tax on them until they do.

Sounds legit. So what's the problem?

 

[CultureCitizen]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

The free market is what sends jobs to China. Duh!

And, not a single mention of "supply and demand", the foundation of capitalism.

Uh...no it doesn't, stupid. Liberal policy devastating businesses with taxes (the highest corporate tax rates in the world), regulations, and labor laws is what has sent jobs to China. If it were cheaper to manufacture iPhones and iPads here in America, it is an indisputable, undeniable fact that Apple would be manufacturing everything here. The same goes with every other company. They don't want their operations tens of thousands of miles away under an unstable, authoritative regime but ignorant liberal policy leaves them no choice.

Gawd you're dumb.

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

Apple moved to China so they could pay $127 a month. People live in dorms and eat at cafeterias.

'Mass suicide' protest at Apple manufacturer Foxconn factory

What happened after the Foxconn suicides
-----------------
This is what happens when you have no regulations:
-----------------
At the end of her first month, Yu received no wages because of an administrative error that no one helped her to resolve. She had to take a bus to another factory of 130,000 people where she had to try to find someone to locate her wage card. No one would help her. The second-hand cell phone her father had given her when she had left home broke and she had no money left. With no friends, no communication and no money, she jumped from her dormitory window.

---------------------------------

Now don't be such an ignorant dipshit, dipshit. There is simply no excuse for it. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you don't have enough common sense.

How can profitable companies end up with a $0 corporate income tax bill? There could be a few reasons, according to the GAO.

Among them, they may get a lot of tax deductions for losses they had in previous years but carried forward. They also may be able to write off more for depreciating assets than they have to claim on their financial statements. Or, if they made profits offshore and haven't brought them back to the United States, they would not owe U.S. tax on them until they do.

Sounds legit. So what's the problem?

Or they can sell overpriced raw materials to their overseas branches
Or they can charge for phantom services.
Or they can inflate the services they charge to their sibling companies.
... All apparently legit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

The free market is what sends jobs to China. Duh!

And, not a single mention of "supply and demand", the foundation of capitalism.

Uh...no it doesn't, stupid. Liberal policy devastating businesses with taxes (the highest corporate tax rates in the world), regulations, and labor laws is what has sent jobs to China. If it were cheaper to manufacture iPhones and iPads here in America, it is an indisputable, undeniable fact that Apple would be manufacturing everything here. The same goes with every other company. They don't want their operations tens of thousands of miles away under an unstable, authoritative regime but ignorant liberal policy leaves them no choice.

Gawd you're dumb.

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

Apple moved to China so they could pay $127 a month. People live in dorms and eat at cafeterias.

'Mass suicide' protest at Apple manufacturer Foxconn factory

What happened after the Foxconn suicides
-----------------
This is what happens when you have no regulations:
-----------------
At the end of her first month, Yu received no wages because of an administrative error that no one helped her to resolve. She had to take a bus to another factory of 130,000 people where she had to try to find someone to locate her wage card. No one would help her. The second-hand cell phone her father had given her when she had left home broke and she had no money left. With no friends, no communication and no money, she jumped from her dormitory window.

---------------------------------

Now don't be such an ignorant dipshit, dipshit. There is simply no excuse for it. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you don't have enough common sense.

How can profitable companies end up with a $0 corporate income tax bill? There could be a few reasons, according to the GAO.

Among them, they may get a lot of tax deductions for losses they had in previous years but carried forward. They also may be able to write off more for depreciating assets than they have to claim on their financial statements. Or, if they made profits offshore and haven't brought them back to the United States, they would not owe U.S. tax on them until they do.

Sounds legit. So what's the problem?

Or they can sell overpriced raw materials to their overseas branches
Or they can charge for phantom services.
Or they can inflate the services they charge to their sibling companies.
... All apparently legit.

The IRS doesn't watch for things like that? What do we pay them for then?

 

[CultureCitizen]

The free market is what sends jobs to China. Duh!

And, not a single mention of "supply and demand", the foundation of capitalism.

Uh...no it doesn't, stupid. Liberal policy devastating businesses with taxes (the highest corporate tax rates in the world), regulations, and labor laws is what has sent jobs to China. If it were cheaper to manufacture iPhones and iPads here in America, it is an indisputable, undeniable fact that Apple would be manufacturing everything here. The same goes with every other company. They don't want their operations tens of thousands of miles away under an unstable, authoritative regime but ignorant liberal policy leaves them no choice.

Gawd you're dumb.

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

Apple moved to China so they could pay $127 a month. People live in dorms and eat at cafeterias.

'Mass suicide' protest at Apple manufacturer Foxconn factory

What happened after the Foxconn suicides
-----------------
This is what happens when you have no regulations:
-----------------
At the end of her first month, Yu received no wages because of an administrative error that no one helped her to resolve. She had to take a bus to another factory of 130,000 people where she had to try to find someone to locate her wage card. No one would help her. The second-hand cell phone her father had given her when she had left home broke and she had no money left. With no friends, no communication and no money, she jumped from her dormitory window.

---------------------------------

Now don't be such an ignorant dipshit, dipshit. There is simply no excuse for it. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you don't have enough common sense.

How can profitable companies end up with a $0 corporate income tax bill? There could be a few reasons, according to the GAO.

Among them, they may get a lot of tax deductions for losses they had in previous years but carried forward. They also may be able to write off more for depreciating assets than they have to claim on their financial statements. Or, if they made profits offshore and haven't brought them back to the United States, they would not owe U.S. tax on them until they do.

Sounds legit. So what's the problem?

Or they can sell overpriced raw materials to their overseas branches
Or they can charge for phantom services.
Or they can inflate the services they charge to their sibling companies.
... All apparently legit.

The IRS doesn't watch for things like that? What do we pay them for then?

It is hard. If company A is paying for widgets at $15 instead of $10 which is the average price, can the IRS do something about it? ... and that is assuming the IRS is able to find out the average price of widgets during that period and that company was buying them at a larger price.
Then as far as I know buying overpriced widgets isn't a crime.
Phantom services ( services bought and not provided)... I can't think of any way to detect them as far as ther is an invoice supporting them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Uh...no it doesn't, stupid. Liberal policy devastating businesses with taxes (the highest corporate tax rates in the world), regulations, and labor laws is what has sent jobs to China. If it were cheaper to manufacture iPhones and iPads here in America, it is an indisputable, undeniable fact that Apple would be manufacturing everything here. The same goes with every other company. They don't want their operations tens of thousands of miles away under an unstable, authoritative regime but ignorant liberal policy leaves them no choice.

Gawd you're dumb.

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

Apple moved to China so they could pay $127 a month. People live in dorms and eat at cafeterias.

'Mass suicide' protest at Apple manufacturer Foxconn factory

What happened after the Foxconn suicides
-----------------
This is what happens when you have no regulations:
-----------------
At the end of her first month, Yu received no wages because of an administrative error that no one helped her to resolve. She had to take a bus to another factory of 130,000 people where she had to try to find someone to locate her wage card. No one would help her. The second-hand cell phone her father had given her when she had left home broke and she had no money left. With no friends, no communication and no money, she jumped from her dormitory window.

---------------------------------

Now don't be such an ignorant dipshit, dipshit. There is simply no excuse for it. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you don't have enough common sense.

How can profitable companies end up with a $0 corporate income tax bill? There could be a few reasons, according to the GAO.

Among them, they may get a lot of tax deductions for losses they had in previous years but carried forward. They also may be able to write off more for depreciating assets than they have to claim on their financial statements. Or, if they made profits offshore and haven't brought them back to the United States, they would not owe U.S. tax on them until they do.

Sounds legit. So what's the problem?

Or they can sell overpriced raw materials to their overseas branches
Or they can charge for phantom services.
Or they can inflate the services they charge to their sibling companies.
... All apparently legit.

The IRS doesn't watch for things like that? What do we pay them for then?

It is hard. If company A is paying for widgets at $15 instead of $10 which is the average price, can the IRS do something about it? ... and that is assuming the IRS is able to find out the average price of widgets during that period and that company was buying them at a larger price.
Then as far as I know buying overpriced widgets isn't a crime.
Phantom services ( services bought and not provided)... I can't think of any way to detect them as far as ther is an invoice supporting them.

It is hard. If company A is paying for widgets at $15 instead of $10 which is the average price, can the IRS do something about it? ..

Absolutely. You think they'll just take your word for it? LOL!

Then as far as I know buying overpriced widgets isn't a crime.

If it's a related party transaction, they'll charge you taxes based on the proper price, plus a penalty.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Gawd you're dumb.

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

Apple moved to China so they could pay $127 a month. People live in dorms and eat at cafeterias.

'Mass suicide' protest at Apple manufacturer Foxconn factory

What happened after the Foxconn suicides
-----------------
This is what happens when you have no regulations:
-----------------
At the end of her first month, Yu received no wages because of an administrative error that no one helped her to resolve. She had to take a bus to another factory of 130,000 people where she had to try to find someone to locate her wage card. No one would help her. The second-hand cell phone her father had given her when she had left home broke and she had no money left. With no friends, no communication and no money, she jumped from her dormitory window.

---------------------------------

Now don't be such an ignorant dipshit, dipshit. There is simply no excuse for it. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you don't have enough common sense.

How can profitable companies end up with a $0 corporate income tax bill? There could be a few reasons, according to the GAO.

Among them, they may get a lot of tax deductions for losses they had in previous years but carried forward. They also may be able to write off more for depreciating assets than they have to claim on their financial statements. Or, if they made profits offshore and haven't brought them back to the United States, they would not owe U.S. tax on them until they do.

Sounds legit. So what's the problem?

Or they can sell overpriced raw materials to their overseas branches
Or they can charge for phantom services.
Or they can inflate the services they charge to their sibling companies.
... All apparently legit.

The IRS doesn't watch for things like that? What do we pay them for then?

It is hard. If company A is paying for widgets at $15 instead of $10 which is the average price, can the IRS do something about it? ... and that is assuming the IRS is able to find out the average price of widgets during that period and that company was buying them at a larger price.
Then as far as I know buying overpriced widgets isn't a crime.
Phantom services ( services bought and not provided)... I can't think of any way to detect them as far as ther is an invoice supporting them.

It is hard. If company A is paying for widgets at $15 instead of $10 which is the average price, can the IRS do something about it? ..

Absolutely. You think they'll just take your word for it? LOL!

Then as far as I know buying overpriced widgets isn't a crime.

If it's a related party transaction, they'll charge you taxes based on the proper price, plus a penalty.

I am not very optimistic about it: I've seen it done in the pharma industry with no penalty whatsoever for the company. It is really easy :
Company A produces base component X. There is a generic component X1 which has half the price.
Company A adds substance Y to component X, so it is not exactly equal to X1 ( for example for delayed absortion, and this might not be true, but it makes it a different substance).
Company B buys component X at an overprice and it is hard for bureaucrats at IRS to make an argument against that since it is not exactly the same component as X1.
Clever isn't it ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How can profitable companies end up with a $0 corporate income tax bill? There could be a few reasons, according to the GAO.

Among them, they may get a lot of tax deductions for losses they had in previous years but carried forward. They also may be able to write off more for depreciating assets than they have to claim on their financial statements. Or, if they made profits offshore and haven't brought them back to the United States, they would not owe U.S. tax on them until they do.

Sounds legit. So what's the problem?

Or they can sell overpriced raw materials to their overseas branches
Or they can charge for phantom services.
Or they can inflate the services they charge to their sibling companies.
... All apparently legit.

The IRS doesn't watch for things like that? What do we pay them for then?

It is hard. If company A is paying for widgets at $15 instead of $10 which is the average price, can the IRS do something about it? ... and that is assuming the IRS is able to find out the average price of widgets during that period and that company was buying them at a larger price.
Then as far as I know buying overpriced widgets isn't a crime.
Phantom services ( services bought and not provided)... I can't think of any way to detect them as far as ther is an invoice supporting them.

It is hard. If company A is paying for widgets at $15 instead of $10 which is the average price, can the IRS do something about it? ..

Absolutely. You think they'll just take your word for it? LOL!

Then as far as I know buying overpriced widgets isn't a crime.

If it's a related party transaction, they'll charge you taxes based on the proper price, plus a penalty.

I am not very optimistic about it: I've seen it done in the pharma industry with no penalty whatsoever for the company. It is really easy :
Company A produces base component X. There is a generic component X1 which has half the price.
Company A adds substance Y to component X, so it is not exactly equal to X1 ( for example for delayed absortion, and this might not be true, but it makes it a different substance).
Company B buys component X at an overprice and it is hard for bureaucrats at IRS to make an argument against that since it is not exactly the same component as X1.
Clever isn't it ?

Company B buys component X at an overprice and it is hard for bureaucrats at IRS to make an argument against that since it is not exactly the same component as X1.
Clever isn't it ?

Yes, losing money.....very clever.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Or they can sell overpriced raw materials to their overseas branches
Or they can charge for phantom services.
Or they can inflate the services they charge to their sibling companies.
... All apparently legit.

The IRS doesn't watch for things like that? What do we pay them for then?

It is hard. If company A is paying for widgets at $15 instead of $10 which is the average price, can the IRS do something about it? ... and that is assuming the IRS is able to find out the average price of widgets during that period and that company was buying them at a larger price.
Then as far as I know buying overpriced widgets isn't a crime.
Phantom services ( services bought and not provided)... I can't think of any way to detect them as far as ther is an invoice supporting them.

It is hard. If company A is paying for widgets at $15 instead of $10 which is the average price, can the IRS do something about it? ..

Absolutely. You think they'll just take your word for it? LOL!

Then as far as I know buying overpriced widgets isn't a crime.

If it's a related party transaction, they'll charge you taxes based on the proper price, plus a penalty.

I am not very optimistic about it: I've seen it done in the pharma industry with no penalty whatsoever for the company. It is really easy :
Company A produces base component X. There is a generic component X1 which has half the price.
Company A adds substance Y to component X, so it is not exactly equal to X1 ( for example for delayed absortion, and this might not be true, but it makes it a different substance).
Company B buys component X at an overprice and it is hard for bureaucrats at IRS to make an argument against that since it is not exactly the same component as X1.
Clever isn't it ?

Company B buys component X at an overprice and it is hard for bureaucrats at IRS to make an argument against that since it is not exactly the same component as X1.
Clever isn't it ?

Yes, losing money.....very clever.

Company B looses money, but pay at a rate of 35% of income taxes
Company A earns money , but pays a rate of 10% or less.
Company A owns company B.