The $104 Billion Refund
from the fun-with-tax-law dept
theodp writes "Getting a nice tax refund this year? You're not alone. Slate reports that some of America's largest corporations have been reporting their own hefty tax windfalls, thanks to an absurd provision of the American Jobs Creation Act. A case in point is IBM, which reaped $2.8B in savings by paying a low 5.25% tax rate on $9.5B in repatriated profits while shedding 5M sq ft of space in the U.S. and increasing head count in India to 40,000. Another example? National Semiconductor, who on the same day it announced it was cutting 6% of its workforce, boasted it was repatriating $500M under the Act." Of course, you can't blame the companies for taking advantage of these laws. It's yet another example of politicians passing laws that sound good on the face of it, without anyone bothering to care about the second level effects that are so obvious, it would be unfair to refer to them as "unintended" consequences.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Buy yourself a clue if you can afford more taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No Company ever pays taxes!!!!!!!!!!!
The raise the cost of the goods/services they provide to YOU!!! and YOU pay their taxes for them. It all just a big number shuffle to say that a company pays taxes.
see www.taxfreedom.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
let's look at, for instance, General Motors. sure, if GM pays less in taxes, the company might decide to make up the difference by charging more for cars. (of course, the company might also decide to reduce benefits for employees, buy cheaper toilet paper for company bathrooms, etc., but let's leave those possibilities out of the equation.)
but let's say i don't buy a GM car. (in fact, i don't even drive.) so if the taxes GM doesn't pay cause the cost of GM cars to go up, consumers who buy GM cars will be affected, but others in the US will not (at least not directly).
contrast that with scott's statement. if GM pays less in taxes at a time when the country is running a deficit, either others are paying more in taxes to cover the $ GM didn't pay, or the US is borrowing to cover the "missing" GM taxes (which means that future USA taxpayers are paying, plus interest). either way, taxpayers end up having to pay more to cover the taxes not paid by GM, even though most taxpayers do not (directly) benefit from GM's products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But you're right, no company ever pays taxes. If you charge them higher taxes, they raise their prices...and who pays higher prices? You and I, the consumers. So, what's the best option to fix this? The FairTax.
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/sma rt/faq-main.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Looks like dirt struck a nerve....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, we know. And....?
about how badly they are underpaid and how their geek lives won't ever achieve success because their personalities are spent online commenting on shitty techdirt.com articles instead of doing business.
Hello, Pot. My name is Kettle. Pleased to meet you. Thanks for dropping in :-)
Oh, dear, I think I hear your Mama calling you. Run along, now, or you'll be late for dinner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you find fulfillment in trashing the ones you mentioned? Boy, that sure does put you soo much higher on the food chain, doesn't it. (And just in case you missed it, that was sarcasm.)
If you don't like it, quit reading it and find a place for news and stories you like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly as Intended
In summary: cynical Washington "pork" that slightly boosts the economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yep
Course I'm no longer sure there is a 'right man/women'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uh, not exactly, cyberry...
Since GM does not print money, they have to make money by selling goods. People buy goods, and people - albeit indirectly - pay the taxes. That was the point that Benny was trying to make.
The only source of wealth building - and the eventual source of ALL taxes - is earned income - if not from customers then from shareholders or employees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Economics disagrees
That only applies to indirect taxes, though. Direct taxes, like on profit etc., aren't so easily shunted on to the consumer. Ideally, firms will always maximize profit, so whatever taxes they have to pay will cut into that because changing the price will cost them even more.
In practice it works the same way. Whenever a firm has to pay taxes, it has to figure out how it can still be profitable, and being profitable does not involve jacking up prices. So saying that firms don't play taxes is quite simply wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Economics disagrees
That's not true. No corporation would have any money to pay for the taxes unless someone paid them for their products or services. The money for all corporate taxes comes from the price consumers pay. Now of course if a company has a 10% profit margin and the gov't increases taxes to the company they may decide that they could get by on 8% so they might not raise their price, but still the money to pay their taxes is coming from the price paid by the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]