No US Corp Tax for Mr. Big: Your 2 Cents?

[Jinx]

So, Mr. & Mrs. Hard Working US Citizen, how does this make you feel when you hear that BIG BUSINESS, like Exxon, Google, and Microsoft escape (or virtually escape) paying their fair share in US corporate tax by incorporating in the Cayman Islands or Ireland? Don't you feel it is high time for these dead loads to pull their weight? Or, are taxes truly the burden of the little people?

[SmartAlecCat]

I think businesses should pay no taxes.

I think people should pay taxes on the income (including all capital gains) they get from those businesses.

I also think there should be no death taxes.

I also think all inherited wealth should be taxed as income.

[don't ask]

Originally Posted by Jinx

Or, are taxes truly the burden of the little people?

Yes. Corporations don't care about nation states. All they want to do is suck money from the workers while maximizing the return to their shareholders and executives. Its called capitalism.

[Laudenum]

Personally, I think it is fantastic.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Jinx

So, Mr. & Mrs. Hard Working US Citizen, how does this make you feel when you hear that BIG BUSINESS, like Exxon, Google, and Microsoft escape (or virtually escape) paying their fair share in US corporate tax by incorporating in the Cayman Islands or Ireland? Don't you feel it is high time for these dead loads to pull their weight? Or, are taxes truly the burden of the little people?

Microsoft is incorporated in the State of Washington.

Exxon Mobil is incorporated in the State of New Jersey, and headquartered in the State of Texas.

Google is incorporated in the State of California.

I would suggest that if you think this is a significant problem you might want to come up with some real examples.

[enomaj]

Originally Posted by SmartAlecCat

I think businesses should pay no taxes.

I think people should pay taxes on the income (including all capital gains) they get from those businesses.

I also think there should be no death taxes.

I also think all inherited wealth should be taxed as income.

Don't your last 2 statements contradict?

[IdahoMauleMan]

Originally Posted by enomaj

Don't your last 2 statements contradict?

They do.

I would also ask why he/she is in favor of taxing the income twice.

If I earn money as income, I pay taxes on it. I may or may not decide to spend it, and save it for my children. If I decide to do the latter, why should the government get a swipe at it again? They've already taxed it.

That's the same, by the way, with corporate dividends.

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

They do.

I would also ask why he/she is in favor of taxing the income twice.

If I earn money as income, I pay taxes on it. I may or may not decide to spend it, and save it for my children. If I decide to do the latter, why should the government get a swipe at it again? They've already taxed it.

That's the same, by the way, with corporate dividends.

In your example they are taxing your children, not you. More importantly, money gets taxed twice all the time (eg. Income tax and sales tax).

[elucidator]

Shame on you! Don't you realize that the upper echelons of corporate governance in America is largely populated by patriotic Republicans? They would rush to pay more taxes, do their part to support our heroes, and all that good stuff. But the liberals won't let them.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by SmartAlecCat

I think businesses should pay no taxes.

I think people should pay taxes on the income (including all capital gains) they get from those businesses.

I also think there should be no death taxes.

I also think all inherited wealth should be taxed as income.

I find myself in violent agreement. I think we should also eliminate sales and property taxes.

[IdahoMauleMan]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

In your example they are taxing your children, not you. More importantly, money gets taxed twice all the time (eg. Income tax and sales tax).

I know it gets taxed twice all of the time.

That's bad. That's a bad thing. The fact that it happens already is not justification for continuing to do it.

And I don't understand your "not taxing you, taxing your children" line. Income was earned. It was taxed. I made a voluntary decision not to consume, and instead decided to transfer the after-tax wealth to someone else.

So why does the government have the right to step in and take another swipe at that pile of wealth? Simply because I chose not to consume, and instead chose to save and invest?

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

They do.

I would also ask why he/she is in favor of taxing the income twice.

If I earn money as income, I pay taxes on it. I may or may not decide to spend it, and save it for my children. If I decide to do the latter, why should the government get a swipe at it again? They've already taxed it.

Are you implying that if I make a good salary, pay income taxes on it, and then hire a gardener to take care of my yard, that the government should not collect tax on what I pay him?

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

That's the same, by the way, with corporate dividends.

No, at least in my opinion. This in my mind is different as dividends are payouts on an investment. But I do think that we should eliminate corporate taxes and just tax individuals on the income they derive in dividends or salary from said the corporations. This would also potentially make an end run around the whole corporations are people with all the associated rights bullshit.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

And I don't understand your "not taxing you, taxing your children" line. Income was earned. It was taxed. I made a voluntary decision not to consume, and instead decided to transfer the after-tax wealth to someone else.

Because the government didn't tax you when you had the money. They taxed your children when they received the money.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

I would also ask why he/she is in favor of taxing the income twice.

Suppose you collect your salary and pay income tax. You make a lot of money so you hire a butler. Are you saying that his income shouldn't be taxed because you already paid the tax on that money when you received it as income?

[IdahoMauleMan]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

P1. Are you implying that if I make a good salary, pay income taxes on it, and then hire a gardener to take care of my yard, that the government should not collect tax on what I pay him?

P2. No, at least in my opinion. This in my mind is different as dividends are payouts on an investment. But I do think that we should eliminate corporate taxes and just tax individuals on the income they derive in dividends or salary from said the corporations. This would also potentially make an end run around the whole corporations are people with all the associated rights bullshit.

P1. Not really. The income tax is baked into the supply/demand equation of employing someone. If the gardener's service is worth $10 to you, and you're willing to pay $10 for it, and it's worth $9 to him to do it, and the gubmint decides to take 10% in the middle, then the transaction will occur. If the gubmint decides to take 50% of his income, but you aren't willing to pay more than $10, and he isn't willing to take $5, then the transaction will not occur.

But I think your question gets into a broader philosophical question about where the government has a right to step in and say "Hey, I get a piece of that".

There are income taxes. There are payroll taxes. There are sales (consumption) taxes. There are taxes on wealth and property.

I personally find the inheritance tax extremely distasteful. You may disagree.

I am choosing to go without in the present, and avoid consumption with my after-tax dollars, to give my children a leg up in the world as much as I possibly can. Primarily, by helping them save for their education, and perhaps to start their own families.

For the government to step in and say "Nope, I get some of that" when they've already taxed it, is infuriating to me. So now I spend some more of my money setting up trusts and other vehicles to shield them from that as best as possible.

P2. I pretty much agree with this.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

I know it gets taxed twice all of the time.

That's bad. That's a bad thing. The fact that it happens already is not justification for continuing to do it.

And I don't understand your "not taxing you, taxing your children" line. Income was earned. It was taxed. I made a voluntary decision not to consume, and instead decided to transfer the after-tax wealth to someone else.

So why does the government have the right to step in and take another swipe at that pile of wealth? Simply because I chose not to consume, and instead chose to save and invest?

I have a hard time with the whole inheritance tax thing. On the one hand I see your point: if on my death I transfer my wealth to my kids (whether that wealth is in the form of a box of baseball cards, a mid-sized house in the city, or in 10,000 shares of AT&T), I don't see why the government should treat the assets differently. When viewed from this perspective, inheritance taxes are clearly wrong to my mind. But there are just so many problems with how capital gains are treated today that inheritance taxes are almost necessary. The whole thing where the basis is reset when stocks are willed is just wrong and the paltry 15% capital gains rate is almost criminal. That I, who works hard 40-60 hours a week pays a larger share of my income in taxes than my uncle who lives on the dividends of the investments his parents made strikes me as unfair. And while I understand that there is "double taxation because the companies are also paying taxes", many corporations in America pay very low taxes or even no taxes at all because of the convoluted tax structures we have in this country.

I would be willing to give up taxing inheritance tax as income if we would just clean up the whole capital gains thing.

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by Jinx

So, Mr. & Mrs. Hard Working US Citizen, how does this make you feel when you hear that BIG BUSINESS, like Exxon, Google, and Microsoft escape (or virtually escape) paying their fair share in US corporate tax by incorporating in the Cayman Islands or Ireland? Don't you feel it is high time for these dead loads to pull their weight? Or, are taxes truly the burden of the little people?

Corporations do NOT pay taxes anyway. The burden is split between consumers, employees, and shareholders. A corporate tax is nothing more than a tax on yourself.

[The Second Stone]

It kinda makes people, the human being kind, the slaves of corporations, the real people according to the USSC in Citizens United. Government is already run for the benefit of the economy in large part, and that economy benefits large businesses and the very wealthy first and foremost. Why they are not required to pay taxes is because they have all the power. It's facism pure and simple.

[Little Nemo]

I just don't understand the whole inheritance tax controversy. It's income. Why should I pay taxes on the money I receive because I work a job and somebody else should receive their money untaxed because they inherited it? And I'd ask the same question about people who receive their money from investments.

Of course, I do understand what's going on. Look at the people who inherit money and the people who collect stock dividends and the people who collect wages. Which group has the least political influence? The people who work are supporting the people who are wealthy.

Okay, there's probably never been a time in history when the wealthy didn't have a disproportinate share of political power. But they use to have to at least struggle for it. I'm amazed that we've now got a system where the people who aren't wealthy are arguing we should be giving money to the wealthy. We've become serfs who are demanded the nobles take more from us.

[SmartAlecCat]

Originally Posted by enomaj

Don't your last 2 statements contradict?

Nope. Once you die, you shouldn't have any additional taxes on money you've already paid taxes on. No death taxes. If you leave a billion dollar estate, fine -- no taxes on that estate.

If you leave it to charity, foundation, whatever, no taxes.

If you list 100,000 people who each get 10,000 from that estate, fine. Each of them adds the $10K to their income and pays the appropriate tax. If they have no other income, then they might not owe any taxes at all on it. The person receiving the money pays any taxes as income regardless of how that money came to them.

If you hire someone and pay that person $1B, they would have to pay taxes on that as income. If you pay that money to a friend for no work, or to a child just for being your child, I'd just treat it all the same. It is income for that person.

Tax money only when it moves from person to person. I don't think anyone should get a break just because they were born into a rich family.

Likewise for businesses. Don't tax them at all. Just tax the money when it comes out of the business into someone's pocket. If it just stays in the business doing good for the economy or just sitting under the business' mattress, fine. Just leave it there. It only gets taxed once someone receives that money.

[SmartAlecCat]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

I know it gets taxed twice all of the time.

That's bad. That's a bad thing. The fact that it happens already is not justification for continuing to do it.

And I don't understand your "not taxing you, taxing your children" line. Income was earned. It was taxed. I made a voluntary decision not to consume, and instead decided to transfer the after-tax wealth to someone else.

So why does the government have the right to step in and take another swipe at that pile of wealth? Simply because I chose not to consume, and instead chose to save and invest?

No double taxation. Don't tax my estate just because I died. Don't tax my business, then tax me again. Don't tax me if I choose to give the money to whomever I please.

Tax all money once and only once, when it moves from someone/something that isn't me into my pocket.

That could be a business giving me a salary check. It could be a friend giving me a gift check. It could be my parent's estate giving me an inheritance check. It could be selling my interest in a business or equities or whatever. Treat it all the same. Tax it once, when it becomes income to me.

[SmartAlecCat]

I'm also fine with the estate money staying in the estate untaxed. If I leave a large estate, and it hangs around, paying my child $xxx each year, that child just adds the $xxx to their income that gets taxed each year.

I could even live on that all my life and pass on control of my parents estate to my children. None of the money would get taxed until someone received it from the estate.

If my parents own a small business or a farm or whatever, and die and pass on ownership of that business or farm to me, fine, no taxes at all when they die and pass that business or farm to me.
I only get taxed when I pull an income or dividend or capital gain or whatever out of that business.
Whatever form it takes, it just gets added to my income and I pay the same income taxes that working stiffs pay on it.

[Markxxx]

Remember the episode of the Beverly Hillbilies when Mr Drysdale tries to explain to Jed why making him a corporation is in his interest.

Mr Drysdale) This way you'll pay less taxes

Mr Clampett) Why wouldn't I want to pay taxes? This country has been good to me?

Mr Drysdale) The government doesn't want you to pay any more taxes than you need to

Mr Clampett) Is that right?

Miss Jane) Mr Clampett it is legal to AVOID taxes so long as you do not EVADE them

[msmith537]

Let me inject a dose of reality into the discussion. Jinx, according to their financial statements, the companies you mentioned payed the following in taxes last year:
Microsoft (MSFT): $6.253 billion
Exxon (XOM): $15.119 billion
Google (GOOG): $1.861 billion

And Rickjay already pointed out where these companies are incorporated.

[pinkyvee]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Of course, I do understand what's going on. Look at the people who inherit money and the people who collect stock dividends and the people who collect wages. Which group has the least political influence?

The group that fails to vote.

The people who work are supporting the people who are wealthy.

My Dad inherited a little bit of $ when he was in his 40's.
He taught himself how to invest wisely, and he did quite well with his little bit of inheritance.
He collected stock dividends, especially significant amounts in his latter years.
Dad also worked. He was a wage earner, not a business man. He was a mail carrier.

So, during my Dad's time on Earth, he fell into all 3 of your categories.

Dad died, in his late 80's, this fall.
He left an estate worth just above a million US $.

Dad was not an enemy of the working man just because he was smart, worked hard, paid for things instead of borrowing money, and managed to accumulate a fair amount of $.

He earned his wealth.

Your division of 3 types of people who make money by "inherit" "stock dividends" or"wages" is not based in the real world.
People, ordinary people, can do all three.

Dad's generation did not spend a lot of time whining about what other people were doing.
They went to work, got down to business, and took self responsibility.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by enomaj

Don't your last 2 statements contradict?

I've been beaten to the punch but I think I can simplify the explanation a little. A death tax is tax on the estate. When someone inherits, that inheritance becomes their income and is taxed as such. I think there should be a substantial annual allowance for each inheritor. Say the first $500K per year you inherit is free of tax; the rest is taxable. This way there is an incentive to spread the wealth around, rather than keep it concentrated.

[Chronos]

See, IdahoMuleMan, this is why sensible people have a hard time taking conservatives seriously. You say that you're all for people making their way through life by the sweat of their brow, and getting rich because they earned it through their own self-reliance, but you're opposed to taxing people on wealth they gained just by sitting around and waiting, without doing anything at all to earn it? If conservatives really believed in the principles they claim, they'd want estate taxes to be a lot higher, and for government to be primarily supported by estate taxes.

And the whole business of "double taxation" is garbage. There's no such thing as double taxation in this country. Not because it's too many times to tax, but because it's not enough: Near as I can figure, every dollar is taxed about 50 times, and that number will only increase as time goes on. Government can't run without multiple taxation, and I don't just mean you'd have small government, I mean you'd have Somalia.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Chronos

See, IdahoMuleMan, this is why sensible people have a hard time taking conservatives seriously. You say that you're all for people making their way through life by the sweat of their brow, and getting rich because they earned it through their own self-reliance, but you're opposed to taxing people on wealth they gained just by sitting around and waiting, without doing anything at all to earn it? If conservatives really believed in the principles they claim, they'd want estate taxes to be a lot higher, and for government to be primarily supported by estate taxes.

Nope. The proposition is that you own what you make, and the government doesn't get to claim it when you die. You get to pass it on to your heirs. It's not about protecting the playboy heir's ability to live the cushy life. It's about protecting his parent's ability to decide where the property they accumulated is going to go.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Originally Posted by SmartAlecCat

No double taxation. Don't tax my estate just because I died. Don't tax my business, then tax me again. Don't tax me if I choose to give the money to whomever I please.

Tax all money once and only once, when it moves from someone/something that isn't me into my pocket.

That could be a business giving me a salary check. It could be a friend giving me a gift check. It could be my parent's estate giving me an inheritance check. It could be selling my interest in a business or equities or whatever. Treat it all the same. Tax it once, when it becomes income to me.

This is exactly what an estate tax is. So where's the problem?

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Nope. The proposition is that you own what you make, and the government doesn't get to claim it when you die. You get to pass it on to your heirs. It's not about protecting the playboy heir's ability to live the cushy life. It's about protecting his parent's ability to decide where the property they accumulated is going to go.

The government doesn't claim it when you die. The government taxes the transfer of the estate to heirs, like it taxes most transfers of money.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party

The government doesn't claim it when you die. The government taxes the transfer of the estate to heirs, like it taxes most transfers of money.

I was not speaking about what actually happens, but what "conservatives" think should happen. Many don't think the government should be able to tax that transfer. But it's not about protecting the kids' right to get the loot and live like playboys. It' s about the parents' right to dole it out.

[amarone]

Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party

This is exactly what an estate tax is. So where's the problem?

The problem is that it is not "exactly what an estate tax is". An estate tax is tax on the money in the estate. The amount of tax is based on the amount in the estate.

SmartAlecCat was suggesting that the tax be paid by the recipient. The amount would then be based on the recipient's tax circumstances.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party

This is exactly what an estate tax is. So where's the problem?

Because the tax is paid by the payer - the estate - not the recipient.

[IdahoMauleMan]

Originally Posted by pinkyvee

Your division of 3 types of people who make money by "inherit" "stock dividends" or"wages" is not based in the real world.
People, ordinary people, can do all three.
.

Yes, but having them agree to that premise would destroy the victimization culture, and the rationale they have for expropriating their fellow citizens' property.

1. That guy over there seems to have it pretty good.

2. He has it better than me.

3. The differences between him and me can't be anything to do with me.

4. Therefore, I'm a victim. The world is unfair. The world is unfair to me.

5. Therefore, I vote for the guy who will use force to take from him, and give to me.

[gonzomax]

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002020005 The difference between statuatory and effective tax rate. America is far from the top actually behind China, japan, Germany and others.
As far as inheritance taxes, you are not double taxed. You are dead. The people who have not been exciting and great entrepreneurs will get the money. Why should they get it for free? What have they done to earn it? How has Paris Hilton earned a few billion dollars of hotel money ?
Oh yeah, she was born.

[The Second Stone]

The highest taxes are on people who make the least amount of money. They pay the social security tax and their employer matches it. If the point of not taxing businesses (practically limitless deductions) is to encourage business, isn't a good economy based on encouraging everybody to work? It's amazing how few advocates the little guy has compared to business until you consider that only big business has a voice that is heard.

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002020005 The difference between statuatory and effective tax rate. America is far from the top actually behind China, japan, Germany and others.
As far as inheritance taxes, you are not double taxed. You are dead. The people who have not been exciting and great entrepreneurs will get the money. Why should they get it for free? What have they done to earn it? How has Paris Hilton earned a few billion dollars of hotel money ?
Oh yeah, she was born.

Would you listen to what you are saying? What have they done to earn it? What has the government done to earn it? Our wealth, and the wealth we pass on to our heirs, does not belong to the government by default. Your thinking is backwards.

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

The highest taxes are on people who make the least amount of money. They pay the social security tax and their employer matches it. If the point of not taxing businesses (practically limitless deductions) is to encourage business, isn't a good economy based on encouraging everybody to work? It's amazing how few advocates the little guy has compared to business until you consider that only big business has a voice that is heard.

Have you considered how a higher corporate tax affects the "little guy"? Lower wages and higher prices on necessary items. The corporate tax is a back door tax on the individual.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

....Therefore, I vote for the guy who will use force to take from him, and give to me.

Nonsense! We will simply bring our fellow ciitzens to understand the inherent value of sharing. In some cases, this will require several months at the Jane Fonda Aerobics and Self-Criticism Camp.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by yorick73

Have you considered how a higher corporate tax affects the "little guy"? Lower wages and higher prices on necessary items. The corporate tax is a back door tax on the individual.

Yes I have considered it, and it isn't oppressing any living person more than real taxes oppress real living people. What you are saying is that taxes on the legal fiction of a corporation are heavier on real people than real taxes on real people. Your method inherently values fictitious people in the form of corporations greater than real people. What you have done is dehumanize humanity in favor of corporations because the three card monty of corporations has dazzled you. Don't feel bad, it has dazzled most people. Corporations in their original form and intent were designed to do two things: raise capital and limit responsibility. Under the current tax system which considers virtually everything a business expense, they also avoid most taxes. In my view, real people should be allowed to deduct everything a corporation can deduct. Government exists to serve the needs of people, not for people to serve government so that corporations can flourish. People should flourish and enjoy the fruits of liberty. I don't give a damn about the liberties of corporations, they aren't people: they are liability limiting, capital raising and tax avoiding entities. That some of their activities please people, either directly or indirectly is utterly irrelevant. I don't want to live in a country that values corporations above individuals.

[XT]

So, is the debate now 'left wing myths and why they persist despite being shown to be myths repeatedly'? I find it ironic on a message board presumably about fighting ignorance, and one who's members will gleefully leaps on the various right wing myths like a pack of starving wolves on a baby lamb, that almost no one has addressed the actual OP...save for the two posters that have shown this to be a myth and who's posts have been basically ignored.

-XT

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by xtisme

So, is the debate now 'left wing myths and why they persist despite being shown to be myths repeatedly'? I find it ironic on a message board presumably about fighting ignorance, and one who's members will gleefully leaps on the various right wing myths like a pack of starving wolves on a baby lamb, that almost no one has addressed the actual OP...save for the two posters that have shown this to be a myth and who's posts have been basically ignored.

-XT

Well, hell, the thread isn't discussing the OP at all anymore.

[The Second Stone]

And what left wing myths are those? I'm more than happy to reconsider the sacred cows of the left. I happen to like the ability to form corporations, part of what I do for a living is just that. But like many other people who understand the usefulness of corporations, I also understand their dangers. The tighty righties dismiss the dangers of corporations. The rich can and should (and in many instances do) pay all of the same taxes as the poor, and at a higher rate. Taxes are one of the two bad certainties in life, the other being death. But death doesn't get worse for poor people every time Congress meets. Since the Reagan ear taxes for the rich and corporations have plummeted. They've gone down for the poor too. But here is the rub: every deficit is a tax on the future, and taxes in the future fall far, far more heavily on the poor than they did in the past. That should appall anyone who considers themselves decent. Most conservatives recognize that as a bad scenario. But American conservatives don't seem to make the connect about who is always controlling the executive branch when the deficits run wild. They don't see it because they don't want to see it.

[yorick73]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

Yes I have considered it, and it isn't oppressing any living person more than real taxes oppress real living people. What you are saying is that taxes on the legal fiction of a corporation are heavier on real people than real taxes on real people. Your method inherently values fictitious people in the form of corporations greater than real people. What you have done is dehumanize humanity in favor of corporations because the three card monty of corporations has dazzled you. Don't feel bad, it has dazzled most people. Corporations in their original form and intent were designed to do two things: raise capital and limit responsibility. Under the current tax system which considers virtually everything a business expense, they also avoid most taxes. In my view, real people should be allowed to deduct everything a corporation can deduct. Government exists to serve the needs of people, not for people to serve government so that corporations can flourish. People should flourish and enjoy the fruits of liberty. I don't give a damn about the liberties of corporations, they aren't people: they are liability limiting, capital raising and tax avoiding entities. That some of their activities please people, either directly or indirectly is utterly irrelevant. I don't want to live in a country that values corporations above individuals.

I don't think you really understand what you are talking about. Surely you can understand that corporate taxes result in increased cost in addition to taxes already paid by "real people". This has nothing to do with valuing corporations over "the little guy" or vice versa. This isn't about justice. This is common sense.

[The Second Stone]

It is entirely possible that I don't understand what I am talking about. Or it could just be that I don't understand what is important in the same way that you understand what things are important.

[XT]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

And what left wing myths are those?

BIG BUSINESS, like Exxon, Google, and Microsoft escape (or virtually escape) paying their fair share in US corporate tax by incorporating in the Cayman Islands or Ireland?

Two...two...two myths in one! Double word score! Myth one...corporations don't pay taxes (though I note the weasel words 'virtually'). Two, that they do so by incorporating in the Cayman Islands or Ireland.

I'm more than happy to reconsider the sacred cows of the left.

Somehow this rings less than true, considering that these have already been put to rest yet you need to have them pointed out to you again.

-XT

[elucidator]

So, this whole thing about American corporations relocating offshore to avoid taxes, that's all just a liberal myth, then? It never happens? Or just these aforementioned companies didn't do it?

[XT]

NM...to antagonistic. Can you give a list of companies who have used this method to avoid taxes?

-XT

[elucidator]

I'm not the guy who said it was a myth.

[XT]

I can't prove a negative either. The corporations listed are all US incorporated corporations, so...

(and they all pay billions in taxes each year as well)

-XT