I'm not sure. I would hope so, considering they have been posting record earnings since late summer.

 

That doesn't change that they are dodging their contribution to society here in the states, while taking advantage of us. That they took the stimulus money and used it to aquire positions or control in other companies I don't really care about.

 

It is that they take the gains in this society and then don't pay back the taxes owed, instead using loopholes they fund the creation of to avoid contributing back to society.

 

Or is 1% too much in taxes for a major corporation these days? It is getting hard to tell.

Add on: I'm having a hard time finding a less biased or less right-leaning news source for the Bloomberg story. 

Nothing from CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Guardian or any other semi-reputable name I know. 

 

Let's not start sucking each other off yet.

Sure. Money was paid back, but 32:1 leverage is still unacceptable and should be uninsurable. Those swaps still exist to keep them afloat. All it did was pay their interest payment until they could create more investments to make the payment themselves. None of it is technically profit when there is still principal owed.

Hank Paulson was on all sides of this. Until someone can reassure me that son-of-a-bitch did not manipulate the entire thing all the way back to his time with Goldman Sachs, I'm considering it to be a bad situation swept under the rug. He was instrumental in the lifting of the capital requirements for companies like Goldman and the other now defunct investment firms.

If I loan someone $1,000, expect payments of $100 for 12 months, and buy insurance on $1,200 for $10 a month and the person defaults then should I get my $1,000 back at all? Guaran-goddamn-tee it doesn't happen like that for the rest of us no matter how much of a 'systemic risk' I am.

None of them is expected to repay the money they received from AIG in the form of insurance settlement money from the credit default insurance. That is just as much taxpayer money as TARP was. That's why they're down to ONLY being leveraged 32:1. They were 46:1 prior to receiving the money from AIG and the acquisition of Barclays troubled assets that are now seeing stimulus from European countries.

In a nutshell, they are the systemic risk that they pose to themselves and one way or another they're still getting bailed out by tax dollars better spent on the country as a whole.

I can't find the post now, but HisWillness and I pointed out that when they changed their status to bank holding instead of investment bank, they were going to get the tax breaks.

Let's also not forget that Paulson was in on the ARRA, including the section on tax abatement including asset deferral for up to five years. The section ARRTA in the stimulus bill allows them to closet their bad assets until needed for reporting up to five years. They still get to collect on the default insurance, but don't have to pay taxes on the money received from the insurance until they report the asset as in default to the government. It's free money short-term that they will use to try to accrue more debt to do it again or make the troubled assets profitable. Currently, we don't have the regulations in place to prevent them from doing the former. If I were a greedy capitalist(is there a different kind) and had five years to parlay my way into a sweeet retirement without fear of accountability then THAT is exactly what I would do...

go out and get another $1,000 loan to make a couple of months payments on the others and call the rest profit while buying insurance on myself for my expected/planned default for the rest of the loan.

Since I have all of the debt, I can declare it on my taxes as an operating loss even though my balance sheet just shows it as leveraged.

 

And their profits were what? Don't tell half the story.

OK, they're paying 27% on their revenue, I'm paying 25% on mine.

I still don't quite see a "fair share" being paid out on their end. Help me out?

Still not close to the 39% combined tax rate they are supposed to be paying.

But hey, corporations are people too, right?

ORLY?

And how low do you suppose corporate tax rates worldwide will be when these capital giants are finally satisfied that the puny people have learnt their lesson?

As opposed to the people, who sweat for the sake of the businesses, forcing the business kicking and screaming to let to let them thrive. Oh yeah, I can see how vital this argument is.

 

For 2006 it is 5,023,000 /14,560,000 = 0.345%

leaving $9,398,000 for 449,480,000 basic shares of stock, which is about $3.46 per share in Nov. 2006. Each share was about $200 then. So that's a wooping .017% gain per share if you bought it at the price.

http://tinyurl.com/ykr9r7y

 

61% - what's left after they pay the 39% tax rate they're supposed to

73-75% - what's left after they pay the 25-27% as currently paid.

I was using 2009 data - why are you working from old data?

So that means you keep 75% then right? Of course.

Is there something wrong with the stock holders sharing the 61% that is left? And I've shown that to be .017% gain per share.

You're cherry picking, so why can't I? Besides 2009 isn't over yet, so you must just calculating 1 quarter.

I'm calculating a year.

By the way, who are 'they' you keep referring to? The investors?

Those numbers are BS. Let's do a tax example:

Let us assume that a profitable company that is in some service industry is based entirely in Pennsylvania (so different state income taxes won't be accessed for various parts of the company in various states). This means that they will be paying the flat 9.99% Pennsylvania corporate income tax. Separately from that, they will be paying the 35% flat federal corporate income tax for service industry companies. If they weren't a service industry company, their federal income tax would be likely between 34% and 39% for various brackets of their income unless they made less than $100,000 a year. The federal tax is levied separately from their state tax and they can not reduce either tax burden based on how much the other tax has cost them. This means that the two tax rates are additive. So, this company will be paying a 44.99% corporate income tax (let's call it an even 45% for simplicity). So they keep 55% of their profits and turn over 45% to their state and federal government. Since they are a service industry company, their state and federal taxes are flat taxes. So this example covers a tiny mom-and-pop joint and super-rich corporate fat cats making profits in the tens of millions. This 45% tax rate is brutal. And that doesn't include the other taxes and fees that they would have to pay to keep a business open. This punishing assault on their business would make them do every legal thing within their power to shirk paying their taxes. If they were wise and it was feasible for their business, they could open up offices in Ireland or Hong Kong and keep corporate profits earned there away from the extreme 45% tax rate that we would rape them with.

This is why capital flight exists. This is why money and corporate headquarters are moved out of the US and certain high-tax-rate European countries. We strangle the life out of them as hard as we can and then we get mad when they flee to a more business-friendly land. So yes, jcgadfly, we are punishing them in my opinion. We punish them so hard that it is very easy for other countries to undercut us and take our businesses. The higher our corporate tax rates are, the wiser it will be for US companies to shelter their income in tax havens or move their headquarters overseas.

 

 

I suppose that you are talking about employee compensation. A business could have great employee compensation and very low tax rates. Or they could have terrible employee compensation and very high tax rates. I think that employees should be well rewarded for their efforts and I have never said otherwise. Legally shirking tax duties is an entirelyseparate matter from paying employees reasonable wages and allowing them to thrive.

What's the investment?  

Not only. I'm also referring to public services, resources and assets that are not in the business interest.

Blind faith, Jormangunder. In reality businesses are all about profit and you, more often, get poor employee compensation regardless of tax rates. Finding a way to skimp on employee benefits and conditions is a way to maximise profit, there's no denying that, taxes have absolutely zip to do with corporate businesses skimping on employee conditions. What a vicious lie.

 

Tax is is for public use to build the infrastructure of the community. You know, infrastructure, the stuff society needs to actually function as, among other things but of most interest to corporations, a consumer group, but businesses are loathe to invest in - even though its the very lifeblood they depend on for existence.

Why is it capitalists are so hell bent on this strange delusion of tax as some massive black hole into which profits sink for no reason? That's not what it is.

It is debatable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

 

It looks like most of the critisim is hindsight

What's debatable? It's debatable that some people in society should be totally reckless create havoc and then in a completely asymmetric relationship with the rest of the economy be bailed out with public monies while everyone else loses their fuckin house, car, and job? That's debatable?

To defend which stuff? The tax situation and the bailout are two unrelated matters. I'm not mad that they are paying little taxes. I am, on the other hand, against their ever recieving any form of bailout. I would have prefered that they go out of business and be replaced by others who would hopefully make better decisions. Aren't they falling back into their old habits? I believe that they will have another easily foreseeable crisis in their future and I believe that they will again be rewarded for their failure by another bailout. But, as much as I am opposed to the bailouts, I am glad that they paid the government back with interest and I have no opposition to how they are legally handling their taxes.

No problem. I just wanted to make sure that these were seen as two separate issues.

 

I would go so far as to say that any strong proponent of capitalism should be opposed to corporatist bailouts. I suppose that socialists and capitalists can agree that corporatism is something that shouldn't be engaged in.

 

To claim the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act caused the problem is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
It could have been caused by something else or from a combination of things.

 

The bailout was a big mistake. But let's not forget the crisis was brought on largely by 'compassionate' leftists that believed it was unfair that low income people couldn't get huge mortgage loans they could never afford to repay. So the free market had to be fucked with by massive government intervention.

This just proves my point of how irrational income and profit taxes are. People can find a way to hide this income. If taxes were only for natural resource and service usage, it would be pretty difficult to get away with not paying.

We already have a black market economy for hiding income with a semi-capitalist system. Just think how much more of a black market we would have if we became more socialist. The only way to prevent the black market would be to let big brother run everything. We'd be constantly spied upon in our homes and offices.

A and B each borrow money from Wells Fargo.

A gives money to B (for whatever reason perhaps to buy a car) B pays off loan to Wells Fargo.

Now only A owes any money to Wells Fargo.

This is a normal business transaction.

Tuesday morning a commentator on CNBC stated that AIG ‘borrowed’ 180 billion. The USA now owns 80% of AIG. Goldman Sachs owes nothing.

 

I must admit that I find it annoying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't read their own sources. Do you realize that the link you posted says this:

So you disagree with nobel prize-winning economists because what they say is in hindsight, but you bring up that Carter Glass supposedly thought the act was too harsh after it was passed (in hindsight). He obviously didn't try too hard to repeal it; he was a member of congress for another 12 years until he died and it was considered to be the greatest achievement of his career.

And it's not just those guys. I could give you a list of more than a dozen of the worlds top economists who say that these insolvent bank should be broken up.Of course now I know that it would be a waste of my time because you're just quote mining and being contradictory, probably in an attempt to defend some sort of misguided political views. I hope you know that the current president of the US who's not even an economist disagrees with you about the repeal of Glass–Steagall, and before you ask me for a source on that look at the link you posted yourself.

Your comments about depositors still being protected and the relevant provisions still being in place are too vague to even comment on (and right now I assume nothing more than ill-informed assumptions on your part).
 

Look, I'm not trying to blow things out of proportion but it's kind of a hassle for me to investigate links that people put up just so I can read 40 paragraphs of some boring shit about how I'm wrong supposedly. If it was Reuters then I could say at least I was reading Reuters but it was wikipedia. But I'll accept your insincere and sarcastic apology anyway even though you made me read garbage you wouldn't bother reading yourself.

I didn't claim or pretend to be an expert in economics or US government I'm just one of the probably billions of people in the world who hates banks and bankers.

I hate them because they come in with these arcane systems that people don't really understand, have regulations and laws removed that prevent the banks from becoming systemic risks, then when the things happen that the regulations were put in place to prevent they come back like hijackers and say "Now if the bank fails the whole economy will fail. GIVE US MONEY!" And because people are corrupt they collude with the banks instead of just breaking them up and putting the regulations back in place so a bunch of old vultures can come in like pirates and loot entire nations.

All I was saying from the beginning was that if I could have the laws of nations changed when I wanted to break them then I could say I've never done anything wrong either.

 

EDIT: I also believe you're not representing Rodin very well quite frankly. That guy was a genius. His sculptures were so life like that he was accused of using molds of live models. He deserved better than this.

La Danaïde

At least ten states in the US are on the verge of bankruptcy and they're going to start to sell and lease their infrastructure to these banks who'll come in just like AIG did in Kentucky , to buy utilities and raise the price of water by more than 50%. Yeah...water. But I guess there's nothing wrong with them taking the bailout money and making a profit even if they're making a profit by fleecing the people who have to pay for the bailout with their tax money right?

This one's NYT just off the top of my head: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/business/17tax.html

And the study report, PDF on bottom of page: http://www.uspirg.org/news-releases/product-safety2/product-safety-news2/washington-d.c.-new-study-highlights-100-billion-a-year-hidden-in-off-shore-tax-havens

You are not "having a hard time", you are just fucking ignorant. You are about as informed on the core issues as an average monkey. Must be a fun world from up there, swinging from tree to tree, never bothering with purpose and granularity of complex systems. I envy people like you sometimes.

 

Dude. The times article read as biased to me.

AND the pdf took forever to open and when I read it, I felt like I was being proselytized. Just because an organization says it is 'unbiased' or even 501(c)3 doesn't mean it adheres to the rules of being either.

I am afraid it is you that is exhibiting ignorance. You posted two links declaring them to be unbiased and yet they are closer to political documents than mein kampf.

The 'tax burdens shifted to the states' tables on page 7(10) of the pdf were calculated using THEIR OWN ESTIMATIONS NOT ACTUAL SUMS DOCUMENTED ANYWHERE ELSE!

Why is that? Because, dumbass, we don't know exactly how much money falls into this category. Nor do we know how much US money is held in offshore banks because of the confidentiality agreements with the account holders.

Now before you get all mad and cry while trying to type telling me that you think these are unbiased reports concerning the OP and anyone's response, I want to ask in a sincere manner "What the fuck is wrong with you?"

Sapient stays as or better informed than any of my friends and thank goodness I know some smart people. You aren't included in that list, ZuS.

Please read your own siggy too.