US is the most competitive nation in the world for the first time in a decade.

NACl H2O Luvr

Bwahahaha.....

This would be like someone winning the gold medal at the Olympics, and a hater shouting "what about the folks who came in 2 thru 10 place"....LOL, Internet loudmouths are so silly.

cadman

I guess the question got answered. 

sjm1582002

I do not fail to realize anything as the article Kell posted merely buttresses my claim that US corp's faced some of the highest corp tax rates in the world ----- however you'd care to measure or label them.

Futhermore, if the top rate is so "meaningless" and "unreal" then why bother lowering it? To become more competitive?

Now, let's talk about something that really is false, such as the blazing headline of an article claiming "Amazon paid zero federal taxes in 2017" which Tarp posted.

Did Amazon have employees in 2017? Of course they did, a lot of them.

Are employers required to match and pay to the US government an amout equal to the employee's FICA that's deducted from each of their paychecks? Last time I checked they were.

Would Amazon risk the IRS's wrath by not paying their matching FICA taxes to the US government? Not if they wish to stay in business they wouldn't.

So, Amazon did in fact pay "federal taxes" to the tune of +-6% of their payroll and that headline is a poor, and deliberate, attempt at deception.

If Amazon is abusing the R&D tax credit in order to extinguish CIT then that is a matter for the IRS and you can bet that Trump will not like them going easy.

Tarponator

Futhermore, if the top rate is so "meaningless" and "unreal" then why bother lowering it? To become more competitive?

To line the pockets of corporations and their shareholders, to laud the gains in the stock market that result as this tax boon is priced into their earnings and stock price.  Competition had little to do with it, that's just the talking point you were fed.

As for the rest of your post:  You really have no idea how corporate taxes work -- which have nothing to do with FICA -- so please stop. 

Amazon is taking advantage much more than just the R&D tax credits, as are every single multinational corporation in the US.  That's how all of them pay far lower than the marginal tax rates you posted.   Taxes are a drain on profits and if you think that corporations aren't extremely aware of how to skirt them to pay the lowest tax possible, then you are sadly mistaken.  All of them are good at this, and Amazon is but one glaring example.

Don't believe me?  Cool, name the company and I'll show you their effective tax paid -- it's in their quarterly reports in black and white.  And what you will see is that NONE of them pay anywhere near the tax rate you posted.

Sorry, you are simply wrong.

mplspug

Ok,  Hostess Brands Inc

Do other countries have Corporate loopholes?

Tarponator

Yes, they do, just not as large, typically.

Give me a moment to track down TWNK.

Tarponator

Looks like last quarter it was 0.8%.

https://csimarket.com/stocks/singleProfitabilityRatios.php?code=GRSHU&itx

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180807005799/en/Hostess-Brands-Announces-Quarter-2018-Financial-Results

The decrease in the Company's effective tax rate from 28.6% to 0.8% was primarily attributed to a discrete tax benefit of $5.0 million resulting from a change in the Company's estimated state tax rate based upon adjustments to the Company's state apportionment factors. The lower federal statutory rate enacted by the legislation commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“Tax Reform”) also impacted the effective tax rate for the quarter.

Again, Amazon is not a red herring here.   Every single multinational plays this game, and plays it effectively.

sjm1582002

The headline says "federal taxes".

There is no mention of "corporate taxes".

It was false and misleading.

You should know better than to post such tripe

nuevowavo

Actually, it should have said "Federal income taxes".

Reptile Dysfunction

Tarponator said:

Most competitive economy, you mean.  Here's the list:

1. US
2. Singapore
3. Germany
4. Switzerland
5. Japan
6. Netherlands
7. Hong Kong
8. UK
9. Sweeden
10. Denmark

Anyone want to guess what the other 9 of the top 10 have that we don't?

Interesting, I would have thought Sweden would be up there.

Tarponator

It's a subjective list.  The relative rank is similarly subjective.  I suspect strongly there's not really a huge difference in competition between the top and bottom of the top 10 (i.e. Sweeden only checking in at #9) -- which is part of the reason why our reaching the top of this list isn't really the achievement some of you seem to think it is.

Finfinder

nuevowavo said:

We've been in the top three (with Switzerland, Germany and/or Singapore ) for years.

Interesting comment from the report:

" At a time of escalating trade tensions and backlash against globalization, the report reveals the importance of openness for competitiveness: more open economies are more innovative and their markets more competitive. However, while openness has been a ‘win-win’ between countries it is at times a ‘win-lose’ within countries. Attempting to address inequality by reversing globalization is counterproductive for sustained economic growth. Policies should, therefore, focus on improving the conditions of those specifically impacted by globalization rather than favouring protectionism."

That is exactly what we are doing.   We finally have someone who understands the leverage we hold and has the courage to use it despite short term pain.    Free trade is the end game and free trade benefits the world.  

Tarponator

sjm1582002 said:

The headline says "federal taxes".

There is no mention of "corporate taxes".

It was false and misleading.

You should know better than to post such tripe

Frankly, SJM, It's only false and misleading if you're not familiar with how corporations work.  The article is hardly tripe, and neither is the fact that they don't pay federal income taxes at the rate you seem to think they do.

cadman

sjm1582002 said:

I do not fail to realize anything as the article Kell posted merely buttresses my claim that US corp's faced some of the highest corp tax rates in the world ----- however you'd care to measure or label them.

Futhermore, if the top rate is so "meaningless" and "unreal" then why bother lowering it? To become more competitive?

Now, let's talk about something that really is false, such as the blazing headline of an article claiming "Amazon paid zero federal taxes in 2017" which Tarp posted.

Did Amazon have employees in 2017? Of course they did, a lot of them.

Are employers required to match and pay to the US government an amout equal to the employee's FICA that's deducted from each of their paychecks? Last time I checked they were.

Would Amazon risk the IRS's wrath by not paying their matching FICA taxes to the US government? Not if they wish to stay in business they wouldn't.

So, Amazon did in fact pay "federal taxes" to the tune of +-6% of their payroll and that headline is a poor, and deliberate, attempt at deception.

If Amazon is abusing the R&D tax credit in order to extinguish CIT then that is a matter for the IRS and you can bet that Trump will not like them going easy.

Amazon spends zero dollars on R&D according to their financials, not sure how they get an R&D credit. The fact they paid zero taxes had nothing to do with R&D credits, It was due to stock based compensation deductions and changes made in the 2017 tax act that allowed them to defer some taxes. 

Once they lower the top tax rate, they also changed the lower rates, The new rate is a flat 21% whereas the old rates were 15%, 25%, 34% and 35%. So, every corporation got a lower rate except a few C-corps making less than $50,000, which don't really exist. I would guess most in that income group are S-corps which use pass through income. 

You are correct that they would have paid matching FICA and also fed unemployment tax. They also paid any other excise taxes that would have been due on some products they sell. 

Amazon allocated $769 million in corporate taxes in 2017 on their financials. 

sjm1582002

nuevowavo said:

Actually, it should have said "Federal income taxes".

"Federal corporate income tax".

Screaming Amazon "paid no federal taxes in 2017" sounds a lot more inflammatory and suits an agenda.

Truth and accuracy are necessary casualities.

Tarponator

If you only read the headline.  Clickbait titles are just that.

And none of that changes the fact that no corporations really pay the income tax like you seem to think they do. 

Of course, you've figured that's wrong if Cad, Keller, and I all agreeing wasn't proof enough, so perhaps a focus on the title one way to come to grips with that.

sjm1582002

Tarponator said:

sjm1582002 said:

The headline says "federal taxes".

There is no mention of "corporate taxes".

It was false and misleading.

You should know better than to post such tripe

Frankly, SJM, It's only false and misleading if you're not familiar with how corporations work.  The article is hardly tripe, and neither is the fact that they don't pay federal income taxes at the rate you seem to think they do.

I posted a graph which showed that the USA had the highest "statutory corporate income tax" in the industrialized world.

That is not a false statement as some have alleged (unlike the claim that "Amazon paid no federal taxes in 2017").

What Amazon, or any other corp's, may or may not have paid in CIT for a particular year is an entirely different issue.

Please stop trying to confuse the two.

Tarponator

And you have had it explained to you three times what that "statutory corporate income tax" is an incomplete picture, and nobody said it was incorrect.  Of course it's correct, but it's not the whole picture.

Outside of looking solely at the clickbait article's title,  nobody except you is confusing the two.

I'm done repeating myself, so you can get the last word in if you so choose.

sjm1582002

cadman said:

sjm1582002 said:

I do not fail to realize anything as the article Kell posted merely buttresses my claim that US corp's faced some of the highest corp tax rates in the world ----- however you'd care to measure or label them.

Futhermore, if the top rate is so "meaningless" and "unreal" then why bother lowering it? To become more competitive?

Now, let's talk about something that really is false, such as the blazing headline of an article claiming "Amazon paid zero federal taxes in 2017" which Tarp posted.

Did Amazon have employees in 2017? Of course they did, a lot of them.

Are employers required to match and pay to the US government an amout equal to the employee's FICA that's deducted from each of their paychecks? Last time I checked they were.

Would Amazon risk the IRS's wrath by not paying their matching FICA taxes to the US government? Not if they wish to stay in business they wouldn't.

So, Amazon did in fact pay "federal taxes" to the tune of +-6% of their payroll and that headline is a poor, and deliberate, attempt at deception.

If Amazon is abusing the R&D tax credit in order to extinguish CIT then that is a matter for the IRS and you can bet that Trump will not like them going easy.

Amazon spends zero dollars on R&D according to their financials, not sure how they get an R&D credit. The fact they paid zero taxes had nothing to do with R&D credits, It was due to stock based compensation deductions and changes made in the 2017 tax act that allowed them to defer some taxes. 

Once they lower the top tax rate, they also changed the lower rates, The new rate is a flat 21% whereas the old rates were 15%, 25%, 34% and 35%. So, every corporation got a lower rate except a few C-corps making less than $50,000, which don't really exist. I would guess most in that income group are S-corps which use pass through income. 

You are correct that they would have paid matching FICA and also fed unemployment tax. They also paid any other excise taxes that would have been due on some products they sell. 

Amazon allocated $769 million in corporate taxes in 2017 on their financials. 

Well then you better let these folks know they are wrong.
-----------
"Tech companies claimed the top five spots in the U.S. for research and development spending again last year, investing a combined total of $76 billion. Amazon was at the top of the list, spending $22.6 billion in 2017, 41 percent more than in 2016 (when it also topped the list)."

https://www.recode.net/2018/4/9/17204004/amazon-research-development-rd
----------
https://quotes.wsj.com/AMZN/financials/annual/income-statement
------------
"The figures by Amazon’s SEC filing reveal a R&D spending of a whopping $22.62 billion in 2017, way up compared to its spending of $12.54 billion and $16.08 billion in 2015 and 2016 respectively. The figure makes 12.7% of its net sales, higher than 11.7% and 11.8% in 2015 and 2016 respectively. Amazon’s research and development expense is set forth within “technology and content” in the financial statement."

https://m.nasdaq.com/article/6-companies-spending-the-most-on-rd-cm1004333
-----------

cadman

That is odd, here is the Nasdaq financials and it says Zero.

https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/amzn/financials?query=income-statement

Tarponator

Now you know the games that corporations play.  R&D spending is but one of many.