Taking into account all companies, including small corporations--many of which may not have earned any profits--the GAO found that "in each year between 1989 and 1995, a majority of corporations, both foreign- and U.S.-controlled, paid no U.S. income tax." The GAO defined a company as large if in 1995 it had assets of at least $250 million or sales of at least $50 million.
So, even if a company doesn't turn a profit, they should still have to pay income tax on...what? The profit they thought they would make? Let's say I come up with a business plan. We'll call it "Justin's Sweet Time Travel Delivery Service: Tomorrow's Packages Yesterday!" Now, let's pretend that I get a group of Angel Investors to drop several million dollars on my business idea, because I think it should make, like, a gajillion dollars. So we do the research, burn through the initial investment money, all to find out that the laws of physics preclude us from being able to deliver packages by using time travel. As a result, my company doesn't turn a profit, but according to you it should still pay taxes. Please explain.
The GAO report also found that large foreign-owned corporations operating in the United States are doing a much better job of evading taxes than U.S.-owned companies. In 1995, where large U.S. companies paid more than $15 in taxes for each $1,000 in sales, foreign-controlled companies paid barely half that.
Wait, I thought you said that they weren't paying
any taxes?! I'm going to make a wild assumption here, and assume that this is with regard to taxes on corporate profit. Somehow I kind of doubt that any of these companies avoided paying taxes on capital expenditures for equipment, supplies, and services purchased within the United States. And even if they did, it gets back to the question of what constitutes a "fair share" of taxation.
Also, I will note that the source for your information has the following listed on their
Tiny Print Section:
EAT THE STATE! is a shamelessly biased political journal. We want an end to poverty, exploitation, imperialism, militarism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, environmental destruction, television, and large ugly buildings, and we want it ????ing now. We are not affiliated with any political group or party. We publish EAT THE STATE! as a not-for-profit way of sharing information, resources, opinions, and hopefully inspiring ACTION in our community. Please help!
Hardly a neutral source.
see that is the big debate, which i know i cant win. 1st, i dont see it as punishment. i pay taxes, there are roads for me to drive my truck on.
You know, if we were all just equally sharing the burden of road construction, I seriously doubt that the taxation levels in this country would be anywhere as offensively high as they are.
n a perfect world, people would just tithe and we would have no trouble,
It's called the Free Market. There is no US Department of Buying Justin an xBox. There is no bureaucracy dedicated to making sure there's food in my fridge or a full tank of gas in my car. Yet somehow those things are there. Call me a wild-eyed dreamer, but people tend to pay for those goods and services that they want. Even in a totally unregulated system, it can quite rationally be argued that people would be willing and able to pay for road use as an out of pocket expense, and it would probably be cheaper than the current system. However, that's a tangent for another day.
but also what no one here seems to get at all is the money only exists because we have the govt.
Only partially right. Money exists as a way to easily facilitate the trade of goods and services among willing individuals and groups. Without money we'd be stuck back with the barter system. Somehow I kinda doubt that Dell wants me to pay for a new notebook computer with a bag full of chickens.
how do we pay for military? by donations?
Ok, so you've got the military, and roads. But as an openly avowed leftist, what are your views on the military? How do you feel about the invasion of Iraq? Or the fact that a B2 Stealth Bomber costs multiple tens of millions of dollars? Quite frankly, there are very, very few services that are so cost prohibitive that society as a whole must pay for them. However, the military, insofar as any nation needs one, is probably one of those costs.
Also, I will note that thus far in the debate, you've hardly addressed even 1/3 of the points I've brought up.
