"Because of the US's high taxes and cost/employee it is much cheaper to produce products overseas."

BS. You are correct that the USA may have the highest tax rate, but the tax rate means very little in the grand scheme of things. If the USA has a 35% corporate tax rate and Umbagoma has a 20% tax rate, but there are deductions that get taxes for most US corporations down to 10%, and no deductions in Umbagoma, that doesn't mean squat.

You need to look at the 'effective' tax rate in different countries (the taxes actually paid per amount of profit).

"Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes.

But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.

In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.

Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003.

The statistics are startling:

•Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $35.6 billion in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, totaling $12.6 billion. These companies' "negative tax rates" meant that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
•Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the three years, included, among others: Pepco Holdings (-59.6 percent tax rate), Prudential Financial (-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent), Unisys (-16.0 percent), Fluor (-9.2 percent) and CSX (-7.5 percent), the company previously headed by current Secretary of the Treasury John Snow.
•In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes. These 46 companies told their shareholders they earned U.S. pretax profits in 2003 of $42.6 billion, yet they received tax rebates totaling $5.4 billion. Almost as many companies, 42, paid no tax in 2002, reporting $43.5 billion in pretax profits, yet receiving $4.9 billion in tax rebates. From 2001 to 2003, the number of no-tax companies jumped from 33 to 46, an increase of 40 percent.
•In 2001, the Treasury paid corporations $40 billion in tax refunds, a third more than the 1998-2000 average.
•Then in 2002 and 2003, after the law was changed to expand tax subsidies and make it easier for corporations to carry back excess tax breaks to earlier years, corporate tax refunds skyrocketed to an average of $63 billion a year - more than double the 1998-2000 average."

Morsecode7, you really gotta quit crying for the poor corporations!

hugoct wrote:

QUOTE:
Kyle,
I would not have approved of that Joke if it had been about George Bush or Millard Fillmore.
My point was the Office of President is deserving of respect and good manners would also inform that behavior
We as a Country have gotten away from well informed and gracious discourse and are the lessor for it
Matbe it's all due to too much Jery Springer and the like

I agree with you about the lack of respect in our country, but I don't think its as bad as it seems. More and more I believe that there are a vast majority of really good folks out there that just go unnoticed, but our country's image is tarnished by a very ignorant and vocal minority. Not "minority" as in black or hispanic or whatever, but in numbers. When you really get out there and meet people, most are very courteous and respectful... they just tend to go unnoticed. Whereas the the ones who stand out as lacking decent manners and respect tend to get all the attention. They never put nice, decent, hard working folks on Jerry Springer...

Maybe I'm just being hopeful?

I probably shouldn't be voicing political opinions on a public forum and normally don't... but I have to admit that I have some really strong negative feelings about the current executive branch of our gov't and the direction they would like to take our country. It seems very un-American and I worry for the future for my daughters' sake.

Kyle#44x

hugoct wrote:

As far as the Rabbit, I have small ears and am not quite that hairy
[/quote]

Bill, Bill, Bill,

That one just smooth went over your Head didn't it?

I wasn't comparing you to the Bunny's Ears, It was the other
end I was Talking about.

Willard Kelley
aka
Wild Will
Sponsored By: Tom Laird Of L A Racing, Lincoln Nebraska
James Morelandt Of Bluebonnet Cycles, San Antonio Texas

in that case Willard you are way off the mark as I have way more hair on my butt than that rabbit (and I know you needed to know that )

Tor wrote:

QUOTE:
"Because of the US's high taxes and cost/employee it is much cheaper to produce products overseas."

BS. You are correct that the USA may have the highest tax rate, but the tax rate means very little in the grand scheme of things. If the USA has a 35% corporate tax rate and Umbagoma has a 20% tax rate, but there are deductions that get taxes for most US corporations down to 10%, and no deductions in Umbagoma, that doesn't mean squat.

You need to look at the 'effective' tax rate in different countries (the taxes actually paid per amount of profit).

"Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes.

But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.

In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.

Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003.

The statistics are startling:

•Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $35.6 billion in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, totaling $12.6 billion. These companies' "negative tax rates" meant that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
•Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the three years, included, among others: Pepco Holdings (-59.6 percent tax rate), Prudential Financial (-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent), Unisys (-16.0 percent), Fluor (-9.2 percent) and CSX (-7.5 percent), the company previously headed by current Secretary of the Treasury John Snow.
•In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes. These 46 companies told their shareholders they earned U.S. pretax profits in 2003 of $42.6 billion, yet they received tax rebates totaling $5.4 billion. Almost as many companies, 42, paid no tax in 2002, reporting $43.5 billion in pretax profits, yet receiving $4.9 billion in tax rebates. From 2001 to 2003, the number of no-tax companies jumped from 33 to 46, an increase of 40 percent.
•In 2001, the Treasury paid corporations $40 billion in tax refunds, a third more than the 1998-2000 average.
•Then in 2002 and 2003, after the law was changed to expand tax subsidies and make it easier for corporations to carry back excess tax breaks to earlier years, corporate tax refunds skyrocketed to an average of $63 billion a year - more than double the 1998-2000 average."

Morsecode7, you really gotta quit crying for the poor corporations!

Tor, two things here.

One - When you copy/paste your information please don't forget to copy/paste the source also as I would like to be able to look a little deeper into your so called "facts" to see how you are distorting the truth. In the info you pasted.

Your pasted info from 2003 talks about 82 of the 275 fortune 500 companies that made a profit. What about the other 193 companies? What about state taxes? BS you say? You never mentioned anything about cost/employee.

Two - Speaking of the past, your post references nothing later than 2003. The economy was doing pretty well in '03 as I recall. Let's talk about Obama raising taxes now. In this economy, not 6 years ago.

<<One - When you copy/paste your information please don't forget to copy/paste the source also as I would like to be able to look a little deeper into your so called "facts" to see how you are distorting the truth. In the info you pasted.>>

Sorry about that. Usually I do.

<<<Your pasted info from 2003 talks about 82 of the 275 fortune 500 companies that made a profit. What about the other 193 companies?>>>

You need to read a little more carefully:

"But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.

In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS."

Tor wrote:

QUOTE:
<<One - When you copy/paste your information please don't forget to copy/paste the source also as I would like to be able to look a little deeper into your so called "facts" to see how you are distorting the truth. In the info you pasted.>>

Sorry about that. Usually I do.

<<<Your pasted info from 2003 talks about 82 of the 275 fortune 500 companies that made a profit. What about the other 193 companies?>>>

You need to read a little more carefully:

"But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.

In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS."

I read it fine. What's your point?

My point is still the same. Your post talks about 275 companies that made profit. What about the rest of the fortune 500 companies? The point is your facts distort the big picture to suit your angle.

While you were trying to pick apart the little details of my post you seem to have completely missed the point. What's new?

I can only go on what you type. You originally typed that my info only talked about 82 of the 275 companies that made a profit. I replied that it talked about all 275 of them, and gave examples.

Now you agree that it talked about 275 companies, but ask what about the rest? Those were the ones that did not make a profit, and therefore paid no taxes on profits, or there was insufficient data. (underlined in previous post to help you see it)

<<<The point is your facts distort the big picture to suit your angle.>>>

That is nothing more than a bad assumption on your part.

Tor wrote:

QUOTE:
I can only go on what you type. You originally typed that my info only talked about 82 of the 275 companies that made a profit. I replied that it talked about all 275 of them, and gave examples.

Your post did talk about 82 of 275 companies.

QUOTE:
The statistics are startling:

Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003.

Your like talking to a government agency, round in circles and getting nowhere.

I wrote:

"Because of the US's high taxes and cost/employee it is much cheaper to produce products overseas."

You wrote:

"BS. You are correct that the USA may have the highest tax rate, but the tax rate means very little in the grand scheme of things."
___________________________________________________________________________________________


Tor, If it's such BS, why don't you explain how it's not cheaper to produce things overseas?

What about cost/employee?

I say it's high taxes and high payroll that make it more expensive to produce anything in this country.

Your dodging the point and taking shots, but you are not making any point.

Carry on.

...and round, and round...

Of course it's cheaper to make things overseas, you pay people penny's a day and have no regulation, but how does that improve the American way of life? If Americans don't wake up and start demanding made in USA we are on a downward slope and the middle class is a thing of the past. I would gladly pay more for products to keep jobs in the US.

RM53 wrote:

QUOTE:
Of course it's cheaper to make things overseas, you pay people penny's a day and have no regulation, but how does that improve the American way of life? If Americans don't wake up and start demanding made in USA we are on a downward slope and the middle class is a thing of the past. I would gladly pay more for products to keep jobs in the US.

I will continue to buy American as well, so long as I have the money to do so.

Morse,

It is cheaper to produce things overseas. But so what? It doesn't make them cheaper for us, it just puts more money in the fat cats pockets.

If you don't get the point about statutory tax rates and effective tax rates, you don't get it. Nothing more I can say on the point.

You also have to understand that wages are tied to productivity. If high wages are balanced out by high productivity, the wages themselves have little to do with the cost of the product.

How's that offshoring of labor working out for the USA, anyway?

I have a choice of a few different brands of drawer slides for the cabinets I build. One brand is built in Europe, one usta be built in the USA, now is built in China at a factory with terrible worker safety. Which one is cheaper???

Nope....they still both cost the same.

The difference, besides the workers in Europe being protected by regulations while the children working in the plant in china lose their hands and arms immediately before losing their jobs, is that the execs from K&V can make more money.

They still cost me the same amount.

My customer base shrinks every time an American job goes overseas.

You still want to come on here blaming union workers and high taxes for our problems, saying that getting out from under those things will fix the problem of high costs. That is corporate propoganda brought to you by the multimillionaires that you are listening to on TV and the radio. Open up your eyes.