Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[initforme]

Morality and capitalism cannot work together. Never have. The words pursuit of happiness should not be taken all that seriously. Its a dog eat dog throw your neighbor under the bus society. That's the way it has always been.

 

[dnsmith35]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

Are you proud to identify yourself as a moron?


1. Should we go after the owners of Exxon with pitchforks an firebrands?
Better not, after all they is us! “Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html



2. And, of course, the antibusiness crowd loves stories about how much Big Oil is stealing from the American people! On the contrary, in 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxon’s earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Businessweek - Business News, Stock market & Financial Advice


3. The non-thinking segment of the public has been conditioned to hate the oil industry. Very few realize the extent to which they are subsidized by this industry.
“According to the [Exxon] company's income statement, the amount of taxes it paid in 2008 was 2.5 times as much as its net profit. The $45.2 billion profit figure makes a snappy headline, but the $116.2 billion in taxes that it paid is relegated to a footnote—if that. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion.” Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills - US News


If Exxon’s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer’s share would be $1,259/year. Still hate Exxon? Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million | Tax Foundation



4. " Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit" Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit - Forbes

No doubt you are the product of government schooling.

I have a couple of questions. If before the 89% increase in earnings between 2003 and 2007 Exxons net profits were 2% It appears that their new net profits after the 89% increase is still only 3.78% and it is still below the propaganda sites net profits. 100% of nothing is still nothing. The "know nothing about economics" crowd get my goat because they throw out meaningless stats and don't understand the significance of either.

 

[dnsmith35]

"Concept of morality" ?

Really ?

Yes. In other words, the difference between basic right and wrong.

Yep! And the inequality of income has nothing to do with it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One answer to that question is if you have children how do you feel about the fact that as a rule (not the exception) they probably will not earn as much as you have, and their children will not earn as much as they did, and so on. But there is a class of Americans who, as a rule, will continue to accumulate greater fortunes than their forebears.

In other words, we are presently witnessing the rise of a financial aristocracy in America, along with the emergence of an accompanying peasant class.

Presuming you are not among the One Percent, do you feel there is nothing wrong with this?

One answer to that question is if you have children how do you feel about the fact that as a rule (not the exception) they probably will not earn as much as you have, and their children will not earn as much as they did,

Why would that happen now, when it never did before in American history?

If you don't think that is happening now it's because you haven't been looking or because you are among the fortunate exceptions.

Wages in America have been stagnant for the past three decades and there is no sign of improvement in the future without radical Congressional intervention.

Wages in America have been stagnant for the past three decades

Keep letting in millions of illegals to compete with our unskilled workers, what do you think would happen to low end wages?

 

[initforme]

Punish those that will hire illegals then... shut them down. Right?

 

[boedicca]

Morality and capitalism cannot work together. Never have. The words pursuit of happiness should not be taken all that seriously. Its a dog eat dog throw your neighbor under the bus society. That's the way it has always been.

Oh blah blah blah.

Capitalism is the most moral way to organize an economy. It involves the VOLUNTARY exchange of value for value. Yes, there will always be fraudsters and criminals, but they are outliers who will exist in any system. At least in a free market, the Fraudsters & Criminals cannot use the government to mug their victims, as they do in Statist societies.

And don't bother throwing up the usual Prog Pablum about Wall Street etc. We no longer have a free market economy in the U.S.; we have Big Goverment Cronyism in which lobbying and regulatory capture enable Mega Institutions to rent seek taxpayer dollars.

That Is Not Capitalism.

 

[dnsmith35]

I'm pretty sure that how much I earn is in no way related to the morals of my adult offspring.

Just saying.

That part is true. But how about the third question, which you've ignored.

Considering how you earned your living, and/or how your father earned his. How does one go about "earning" fifty billion dollars?

By making good choices. By learning a good skill, or getting a good education, by motivation, ambition and incentive.

When we consider the emergence of the 1% vs the 99% within the past three decades of "Reaganomics," would you argue the concept of morality does not arise?

Absolutely! Reaganomics did not cause anyone to reject education or learning skills, or cause low motivation, ambition or incentive. We live in a democracy in which people have the right to succeed or the right to fail, and it seems too many people choose the latter.

For one thing, consider one's motivation to acquire that much money. How would you define it?

Good sense and good choices. Of course their are always some who cannot, that is why we spend $500 billion of safety nets every year.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Punish those that will hire illegals then... shut them down. Right?

Sounds good.

Make E-Verify mandatory.

Don't fine employers for firing (or not hiring) illegals.

Wages for unskilled Americans will rise.

 

[dnsmith35]

I like to approach this topic with three questions:


How much do you earn?

Over twice as much as my father did.

How much does (did) your father earn?Less than half of what I make.

How does one go about "earning" ten billion dollars? How about fifty billion?

I will answer that one with a link to an article discussing studies: Don?t blame the 1% for America?s pay gap - Fortune

The concept of morality becomes very relevant as we explore the issues prompted by these simple questions.

Thus far I see nothing about your questions that relate to morality; success and failure? Yes! Morality? No!

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people.

I hope that one day you at least try to understand economics.

I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

Wrong! If you earn $1 million it is paid to you from those for which you worked, or through investments you made by improving the productivity of the investment you chose to make. YOU DID NOT TAK THAT MONEY FROM ANYONE. INCOME IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. Increased productivity creates wealth and your investment contributed to that increased productivity.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

You did not get their money. You earned money for your contribution to productivity which increased wealth by the amount of your production.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

Bullshit! The rich earning honest money has taken nothing from the less wealthy. Your ignorance of economics is showing.

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

More bullshit, spread by people who don't understand economics.

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

As a liberal (who happens to have an MBA with a major in Economics) I despise the RW pundits as much as I despise the left wing extremist pundits who put out the drivel you are preaching.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

Unholy horseshit

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. [/quote]Corporate income is determined by demand for the products and services they produce. It is not finite and can go up or down as proved by variations in business cycles.

The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less.

Wow, and I thought you were just ignorant of economics. Obviously you don't understand anything about Corporate success. After I finished my MBA I went on to get an Ed.S in psychology, because human behavior is the basis upon which good economics are determined. I spent almost 20 years as a consultant to businesses both as an employee of a consulting company and then as my own business. My specialty was working with management to ensure happy employees, which meant wage, benefit and conditions of employment. Paying more money to create happy employees increases profit, contrary to the left wing propaganda that low wages make more profit. It is gained primarily by worker retention and productivity. If anyone tells you different, laugh in his face because he is an economic illiterate.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

%er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution

Though Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board. Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism – often called “trickle-down economics” – saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying “These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.”

You need to get a new source of propaganda because the ones you use are lying to you. The fact is, ALL WAGES ARE TRICKLE DOWN. Unless you own your own business you get "trickle down" income. Who was the modern believer in Supply Side (trickle down) economics? It was JFK, who by reducing the top bracket marginal rates by 21% and reducing corporate taxes successfully brought our economy out of a recession. (He died before his proposals went into effect, but LBJ made in happen in the tax legislation of 1964. You really should try to learn that of which you speak because it shows your lack of knowledge of the events. The links were of no value to anyone, left or right.

 

[initforme]

"Oh blah blah blah.

Capitalism is the most moral way to organize an economy. It involves the VOLUNTARY exchange of value for value. Yes, there will always be fraudsters and criminals, but they are outliers who will exist in any system. At least in a free market, the Fraudsters & Criminals cannot use the government to mug their victims, as they do in Statist societies.

And don't bother throwing up the usual Prog Pablum about Wall Street etc. We no longer have a free market economy in the U.S.; we have Big Goverment Cronyism in which lobbying and regulatory capture enable Mega Institutions to rent seek taxpayer dollars.

That Is Not Capitalism

I agree. Letting corporations run amok is not capitalism. As far as regulations... don't touch my clean air or water... if you do... the company should be SHUT DOWN. Yes... shut down. Costs zero to have clean air and water. ZERO.

 

[dnsmith35]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

Are you proud to identify yourself as a moron?


1. Should we go after the owners of Exxon with pitchforks an firebrands?
Better not, after all they is us! “Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html



2. And, of course, the antibusiness crowd loves stories about how much Big Oil is stealing from the American people! On the contrary, in 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxon’s earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Businessweek - Business News, Stock market & Financial Advice


3. The non-thinking segment of the public has been conditioned to hate the oil industry. Very few realize the extent to which they are subsidized by this industry.
“According to the [Exxon] company's income statement, the amount of taxes it paid in 2008 was 2.5 times as much as its net profit. The $45.2 billion profit figure makes a snappy headline, but the $116.2 billion in taxes that it paid is relegated to a footnote—if that. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion.” Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills - US News


If Exxon’s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer’s share would be $1,259/year. Still hate Exxon? Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million | Tax Foundation



4. " Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit" Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit - Forbes




No doubt you are the product of government schooling.

Weird, you bring up all the numbers THEN conflate it with individuals who don't pay INCOME taxes that are only 42% of federal revenues? lol

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY tool conservatives EVER have


In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%, based on their U.S. pre-tax income of $7.5 billion. Literally half the standard corporate tax rate. Worse yet, in 2009, Exxon Mobil paid no U.S. federal income taxes. That‟s right, 0%.


This is because they took advantage of the federal subsidy that allows them to take foreign tax credits on royalties disguised as income taxes. These royalties are not taxes but are in exchange for the right to produce oil.


Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact

OK, you gave us some statistics. Do you understand what they mean? If you did, you wouldn't be making such ignorant noises. Money spent to make money is deductible. When there is no net profits, THERE ARE NO TAXES. Royalties paid to produce are part of the costs of production and are reasonably deductible. Can you understand that simple truism? Instead of believing the propaganda of sites which tell you only part of the truth, you should research the why those statistics are what they are. You haven't, you just repeated left wing extreme propaganda.

 

[boedicca]

"Oh blah blah blah.

Capitalism is the most moral way to organize an economy. It involves the VOLUNTARY exchange of value for value. Yes, there will always be fraudsters and criminals, but they are outliers who will exist in any system. At least in a free market, the Fraudsters & Criminals cannot use the government to mug their victims, as they do in Statist societies.

And don't bother throwing up the usual Prog Pablum about Wall Street etc. We no longer have a free market economy in the U.S.; we have Big Goverment Cronyism in which lobbying and regulatory capture enable Mega Institutions to rent seek taxpayer dollars.

That Is Not Capitalism

I agree. Letting corporations run amok is not capitalism. As far as regulations... don't touch my clean air or water... if you do... the company should be SHUT DOWN. Yes... shut down. Costs zero to have clean air and water. ZERO.

Clearly, your reading comprehension is a faulty as your ability to use the quote feature.

 

[dnsmith35]

...and you're full of shit.

1) The rich pay the majority of taxes in this country, so whining about their tax rate is ludicrous.

2) Rich people will invest their money into the economy which creates jobs. Poor people can't create jobs with their minimal contribution to the economy via welfare and food stamps.

Someone like me with a BA in Economics and MBA get sick of you bed-wetting scum talking out your ass on subjects you are clueless about.

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

MORE right wing nonsense./ I'm shocked. No seriously, I am


Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


The Republican sham of lower taxes and less regulation doesn't help anyone but the richest Americans and Big Business and kill jobs and opportunity for almost everyone, especially in the middle class and poor.



The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.



CONservative economic theories have never worked and never will. You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk.



Total U.S. taxes are barely progressive, as shown in this table and chart from Citizens for Tax Justice. The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice.

• The share of total taxes paid by each income group is similar to that group’s share of total income.


Who Pays Taxes in America? | CTJReports

Federal income taxes are progressive. Most state income taxes are progressive. Only sales taxes are regressive and I believe they should be tax neutrally transferred to progressive income tax. FICA collections are actually premiums, and unless you want to eliminate FDR's social security program I would think we should keep them.

It is obvious you know nothing about economics, taxation, wage determination and wealth. So why should I bother? I doubt you have learned anything today.

BTW, I am Dad to 6 grandfather to 14 and great grandfather to 7. Of my children, 3 have retired, 1 has chosen a 2nd career, and 1 has his own business, one will retire with almost $100K a year in December, and the other (my baby girl of 49) is doing well with her husband who is also retired.

 

[Dad2three]

I sort of get the safety net argument, the notion that we have a moral responsibility to care for those who fall through the cracks. I'd still argue that government isn't the right tool for that job, but at least the idea has merit. But I don't really see moral justification for taking money away from people simply because you think they've accumulated too much. Can someone here advocating "wealth redistribution" address that?

WE TRIED YOUR MODEL BEFORE WE HAD THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD, REMEMBER THE POOR HOUSES AND ABJECT POVERTY FOR 95% OF US?

How can you remember something that never happened? The standard of living for the average American was far above what his counterpart in Europe enjoyed.

Thanks to progressive policies, conservative policies ONLY benefit the 1%ers

But you don't remember America BEFORE the progressive period? Where almost all the gains were TAKEN by a few at the top? Oh right, being your usual conservative willful ignorant!

 

[Dad2three]

...and you're full of shit.

1) The rich pay the majority of taxes in this country, so whining about their tax rate is ludicrous.

2) Rich people will invest their money into the economy which creates jobs. Poor people can't create jobs with their minimal contribution to the economy via welfare and food stamps.

Someone like me with a BA in Economics and MBA get sick of you bed-wetting scum talking out your ass on subjects you are clueless about.

MORE right wing nonsense./ I'm shocked. No seriously, I am


Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


The Republican sham of lower taxes and less regulation doesn't help anyone but the richest Americans and Big Business and kill jobs and opportunity for almost everyone, especially in the middle class and poor.



The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.



CONservative economic theories have never worked and never will. You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk.



Total U.S. taxes are barely progressive, as shown in this table and chart from Citizens for Tax Justice. The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice.

• The share of total taxes paid by each income group is similar to that group’s share of total income.


Who Pays Taxes in America? | CTJReports

It is obvious you know nothing about economics, taxation, wage determination and wealth. So why should I bother? I doubt you have learned anything today.

You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

One policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on?

 

[dnsmith35]

Dumbfuck.....there will always be rich/ruling class.

Even socialism/communism the political elites and their friends still hoard all the resources from the masses and the masses have no chance to ever acquire wealth themselves.

In our economic system, someone can grow up in the ghetto and become rich from their talents in the classroom or sports venues.

Idiots like you whining about rich people passing on their wealth to their "family" is ludicrous. Why shouldn't we come take your family's resources under the same premise.....nobody owns anything, oops that is your socialism.

One answer to that question is if you have children how do you feel about the fact that as a rule (not the exception) they probably will not earn as much as you have, and their children will not earn as much as they did, and so on. But there is a class of Americans who, as a rule, will continue to accumulate greater fortunes than their forebears.

In other words, we are presently witnessing the rise of a financial aristocracy in America, along with the emergence of an accompanying peasant class.

Presuming you are not among the One Percent, do you feel there is nothing wrong with this?

Social Immobility: Climbing The Economic Ladder Is Harder In The U.S. Than In Most European Countries


The report finds the U.S. ranking well below Denmark, Australia, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain in terms of how freely citizens move up or down the social ladder. Only in Italy and Great Britain is the intensity of the relationship between individual and parental earnings even greater.

Social Immobility: Climbing The Economic Ladder Is Harder In The U.S. Than In Most European Countries



The Loss of Upward Mobility in the U.S.

The Loss of Upward Mobility in the U.S. | TIME.com

Having lived in Europe for 16 years I can attest to the fact that you are wrong about European upward mobility. Europe has more social programs which "elevate the living conditions of all the citizens" but only in the context of high taxes to level out the entire society of the welfare states. Again, as someone else pointed out, you are surfing propaganda sites and have the audacity to believe their crap.

 

[dnsmith35]

I'm college educated on the subject, you're a kook that surfs kook websites that create your false reality, then you come here spewing your bullshit like we are impressed with your GED.

MORE right wing nonsense./ I'm shocked. No seriously, I am


Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


The Republican sham of lower taxes and less regulation doesn't help anyone but the richest Americans and Big Business and kill jobs and opportunity for almost everyone, especially in the middle class and poor.



The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.



CONservative economic theories have never worked and never will. You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk.



Total U.S. taxes are barely progressive, as shown in this table and chart from Citizens for Tax Justice. The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice.

• The share of total taxes paid by each income group is similar to that group’s share of total income.


Who Pays Taxes in America? | CTJReports

Yes, my Cal Poly degree with a minor in history means nothing

I have to agree with your sarcasm. You may be a great engineer, but you know nothing about economics.

You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

JFK'S tax cuts which went into effect in 1964.

 

[Dad2three]

Are you proud to identify yourself as a moron?


1. Should we go after the owners of Exxon with pitchforks an firebrands?
Better not, after all they is us! “Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html



2. And, of course, the antibusiness crowd loves stories about how much Big Oil is stealing from the American people! On the contrary, in 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxon’s earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Businessweek - Business News, Stock market & Financial Advice


3. The non-thinking segment of the public has been conditioned to hate the oil industry. Very few realize the extent to which they are subsidized by this industry.
“According to the [Exxon] company's income statement, the amount of taxes it paid in 2008 was 2.5 times as much as its net profit. The $45.2 billion profit figure makes a snappy headline, but the $116.2 billion in taxes that it paid is relegated to a footnote—if that. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion.” Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills - US News


If Exxon’s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer’s share would be $1,259/year. Still hate Exxon? Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million | Tax Foundation



4. " Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit" Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit - Forbes




No doubt you are the product of government schooling.

Weird, you bring up all the numbers THEN conflate it with individuals who don't pay INCOME taxes that are only 42% of federal revenues? lol

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY tool conservatives EVER have


In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%, based on their U.S. pre-tax income of $7.5 billion. Literally half the standard corporate tax rate. Worse yet, in 2009, Exxon Mobil paid no U.S. federal income taxes. That‟s right, 0%.


This is because they took advantage of the federal subsidy that allows them to take foreign tax credits on royalties disguised as income taxes. These royalties are not taxes but are in exchange for the right to produce oil.


Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact

OK, you gave us some statistics. Do you understand what they mean? If you did, you wouldn't be making such ignorant noises. Money spent to make money is deductible. When there is no net profits, THERE ARE NO TAXES. Royalties paid to produce are part of the costs of production and are reasonably deductible. Can you understand that simple truism? Instead of believing the propaganda of sites which tell you only part of the truth, you should research the why those statistics are what they are. You haven't, you just repeated left wing extreme propaganda.

"This is because they took advantage of the federal subsidy that allows them to take foreign tax credits on royalties disguised as income taxes. These royalties are not taxes but are in exchange for the right to produce oil."




The Joint Committee on Taxation found that the second-largest deduction was for “modifications of foreign tax credit rules applicable to major integrated oil companies which are dual capacity taxpayers.” This provision is worth $7.5 billion over 10 years. Seth Hanlon, former Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress, best describes why this tax break is unwarranted:

Our tax system allows companies that do business abroad to reduce from their tax bill any income taxes paid to other governments. The rules are supposed to prevent oil companies from claiming credit for royalty payments to foreign governments. Royalties are not taxes; they are fees for the privilege of extracting natural resources.

… oil companies have been permitted to claim credits for certain payments to foreign governments, even in countries that generally impose low or no business tax (suggesting that these payments, or levies, are in fact a form of royalty). Dual capacity taxpayer rules, therefore, are a subsidy for foreign production by U.S. oil companies.


With Only $93 Billion in Profits, the Big Five Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks | Center for American Progress


HONESTY, TRY IT BUBBA!


Foreign Governments have changed the term “Royalty” to “Income Tax.


https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3704

 

[Dad2three]

I'm college educated on the subject, you're a kook that surfs kook websites that create your false reality, then you come here spewing your bullshit like we are impressed with your GED.

I have to agree with your sarcasm. You may be a great engineer, but you know nothing about economics.

You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

JFK'S tax cuts which went into effect in 1964.

You mean LBJ's tax cuts? Show the job creation? AND it was a demand side tax cut, getting rid of loopholes and lowering the top rate to 70%. You think 70% works? lol

 

[dnsmith35]

All that shows is that some people made better choices, got better job training, had more motivation, ambition and incentive, in addition to being willing to take risks of investment. The fortune 400 had a 98% turn over in a decade. The money was not inherited or given to them. THEY EARNED IT WITHOUT TAKING A PENNY FROM THE LESS FORTUNATE LIKE YOU.

BTW, had you looked a little further you would have found out, IT ISN'T THE 1%, it is really the .01% which skews the 1% and makes it clear they account for a very small % of our total population, and they never took anything from you.