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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
NM…to antagonistic. Can you give a list of companies who have used this method to avoid taxes?
-XT
I’m not the guy who said it was a myth.
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
So the left wing myth is corporations move their place of incorporation to a jurisdiction that taxes them less? Either to another US state or to a nation other than the US? The reason I ask is that I want to know where the goalposts are so that when you move them we can all laugh.
It’s easy to look up companies on the SEC website and see how much they pay in taxes. Here’s Google’s filing of their annual report from 2009: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312510030774/d10k.htm
It appears that their “provision for income taxes” was $1.8 Billion in 2009.
HOWEVER, it’s unclear to me from the report (unless I searched improperly) which countries are the recipients of the taxes.
I find it ironic (to put it mildly) that you shift the goal posts and then say that you are waiting for me to shift them so ‘we’ can all laugh. I’m wondering if anyone other than me finds this absolutely hilarious already…
-XT
So, what are the left wing myths?
That US corporations don’t pay taxes, and that they do so by moving to foreign countries. Such as the examples in the OP, i.e. ‘Cayman Islands or Ireland’ which, last time I checked aren’t US states (yet…I’m sure it will happen any day now).
While I’m sure there are examples of a US flagged company changing it’s incorporation to a foreign country to get out of paying US taxes, the myth is that this is the norm, or even that it happens frequently, instead of the reality, which is that it’s so rare that I have yet to see an example of a major company doing this and getting out of paying taxes in the US completely. However, if you would like to list a few examples I’m all ears. Fight my ignorance and all that jazz…
-XT
So, if I have this right, you are saying that the left wing myth is that it is the norm for US companies to move to non-US jurisdictions and that this is done so that they don’t pay any taxes?
see the “any” added on edit.
That seems to be what the OP is saying, though you can substitute ‘virtually none’ for ‘any’, if you want to stick to what the OP is asserting.
-XT
Well, then this can be resolved by determining the definitions of “norm” and “virtually” are.
Does this happen? I think we all agree that reincorporating offshore happens. How much we don’t know. I don’t know how much it affects taxes, but I am informed that reducing taxes is the reason it is done, so how much.
It sounds like you mean exaggerating or overstating when you say “myth”.
I’m gonna go with the first option. And, no, this has absolutely nothing to do with what either of us thinks is important. Corporate taxes simply are not paid by corporations. Plain and simple. Individuals pay.
Corporations pay taxes out of bank accounts that are opened and maintained in the name of the corporation, and checks are signed by the appropriate corporate officer. There are penalties for not doing it the correct way. That is the way it happens. I understand this as a legal fiction, but it does work that way. So yes, what we have here is a failure to understand the nature and functioning of the corporate shell. Without that understanding, it is not possible to understand more than that it is abused. The understanding is necessary to understanding how it is abused.