LOL.............for one I didn't interject the word "lazy" into this piece, the original, or one who is passing themselves off as original is. Read the EndNote.

if the shoe doesnt fit , dont wear it

I was just making reference to the title of the thread

That rediculous. Name one, for profit business that pays no tax.

http://www.alternet.org/story/152958/37_giant_corporations_paid_0_in_taxes_last_year_--_who_are_the_cheats

Nice blog. Well writte opinion
Baseless.
Pero, FAUX report.

guess these are all merely 'opinion' as well

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558


http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=d715c70d-f0d0-4474-8223-2949588e90f6


http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/31/news/economy/ge_jeffrey_immelt/index.htm

I would like to see your source or link for the business owners that pay 0 taxes. "Quite a few" is such a broad statement.

All business owners I know DREAD quarterlies! So if they are paying taxes again what business pay no taxes? GLOBAL ONES MAYBE....

Andy, you are killin me.

Forbes

Beltway
What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes
Christopher Helman, 04.01.10, 03:00 PM EDT
How can it be that you pay more to the IRS than General Electric?
image
In Pictures: What The 25 Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes

HOUSTON -- As you work on your taxes this month, here's something to raise your hackles: Some of the world's biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do--that is, if they pay taxes at all.

The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.
Article Controls

Emailemail

imageprint

imagereprint

imagenewsletter

imageshare

Avoiding taxes is nothing new for General Electric. In 2008 its effective tax rate was 5.3%; in 2007 it was 15%. The marginal U.S. corporate rate is 35%.

In Pictures: What The 25 Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes

How did this happen? It's complicated. GE's tax return is the largest the IRS deals with each year--some 24,000 pages if printed out. Its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission weighs in at more than 700 pages.

Inside you'll find that GE in effect consists of two divisions: General Electric Capital and everything else. The everything else--maker of engines, power plants, TV shows and the like--would have paid a 22% tax rate if it was a standalone company.

It's GE Capital that keeps the overall tax bill so low. Over the last two years, GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. (posting a $6.5 billion loss in 2009), and make lots of money overseas (a $4.3 billion gain). Not only do the U.S. losses balance out the overseas gains, but GE can defer taxes on that overseas income indefinitely. The timing of big deductions for depreciation in GE Capital's equipment leasing business also provides a tax benefit, as will loan losses left over from the credit crunch.

But it's the tax benefit of overseas operations that is the biggest reason why multinationals end up with lower tax rates than the rest of us. It only makes sense that multinationals "put costs in high-tax countries and profits in low-tax countries," says Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. "When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries," says Hodge. In contrast, China's rate is just 25%; Ireland's is 12.5%.

Corporations are getting smarter, not just about doing more business in low-tax countries, but in moving their more valuable assets there as well. That means setting up overseas subsidiaries, then transferring to them ownership of long-lived, often intangible but highly profitable assets, like patents and software.

As a result, figures tax economist Martin Sullivan, companies are keeping some $28 billion a year out of the clutches of the U.S. Treasury by engaging in so-called transfer pricing arrangements, where, say, Microsoft's ( MSFT - news - people ) overseas subsidiaries license software to its U.S. parent company in return for handsome royalties (that get taxed at those lower overseas rates).

Page 2 of 2

"Corporations are paying lower amounts of their profits in taxes now than in the past," says Douglas Shackelford, who teaches tax law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Other countries have been lowering their rates, but not the U.S."

Mind you, not all global megacorps enjoy such low tax rates. Try to muster some pity for Big Oil. ExxonMobil ( XOM - news - people ) in its 2009 annual report to the SEC, recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year, some $17.6 billion, or 47% of pretax earnings. Exxon's peers Chevron ( CVX - news - people ) and ConocoPhillips ( COP - news - people ) likewise recorded similarly high effective tax rates. The oil companies are oddities among the multinationals because many of the oil-rich countries where they do business levy even higher taxes than the U.S.
Article Controls

Emailemail

imageprint

imagereprint

imagenewsletter

imageshare

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. Exxon has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S.

Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a "substantial 2009 tax liability." How substantial? "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we."

Naturally the Obama administration wants to put an end to this. It has proposed doing away with tax deferrals on overseas income. If the plan passes, a U.S. company that pays a 25% tax on profits in China would have to pay an additional 10% income tax to Uncle Sam to bring it up to the 35% corporate rate. "Eliminating deferrals would put U.S. companies on an unlevel playing field," says the Tax Foundation's Hodge, "especially if competing with the likes of Germany, which only taxes companies on domestic operations."

Hewlett-Packard ( HPQ - news - people ) and others among the top 25 state in their annual reports that if Obama's tax measures pass it would mean a certain tax hike, probably amounting to billions of dollars.

Would no more tax holiday for GE really end up helping Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer? Doubtful. "The average Joe should be in favor of lower corporate taxes," says Hodge, "because ultimately they are paying the corporate income tax. Either as workers, getting lower wages and fewer jobs, or as consumers, paying higher prices, or as retirees, getting lower dividends and earnings on their investments."

In the same vein, JPMorgan Chase ( JPM - news - people ) Chief Executive Jamie Dimon has spoken out against an Obama proposal to levy a special tax on banks to recoup bailout costs. "Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea," said Dimon. "All businesses tend to pass costs on to customers."

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_2.html

Of course the meme of the "feed me" monster of corporate greed is not what I would want to pass on but it does show the rates of 0 or less taxes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11#corning-1

these thirty paid less than zero



But I know personally small business owners who, by the way, are voting for Obama because they have had good tax breaks and paid zero in taxes these last couple of years.

That is because they are rare.

In general, people become rich by working their butts off while taking risks and making wise decisions. Often, the difference between a wealthy person and a poor person is that the wealthy person made wise decisions and took risks that others were not willing to take.


Even people who benefited from attending good colleges (such Governor Mitt Romney) work long hours and take risks in order to earn what they have.

Granted, there are people who inherit their wealth (such as the late U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy) and people who marry into wealth (such as U.S. Senator John Kerry). However, those people aren't necessarily lazy.

If it is wrong to accuse poor people of being lazy without supporting such an accusation with evidence, then it is wrong to accuse rich people of being lazy without supporting such an accusation with evidence.

If it is wrong to "look down one's nose" at poor people, then it is wrong to covet what wealthy people have to the point that one makes unproven negative claims about wealthy people.

As it is written in the Tanak book of Psalms, "There is none who does good, not even one."* Every time that you point an accusing finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at you.

[*Psalms 14:3 (ESV)]

Except for those like Romney born with the silver spoon in their mouth. They can be extremely rich and extremely lazy if they so desire.

Wow, you really don't know much about Mitt Romney. The money that he has now is the result of his own work. He actually went out and earned money, which he then invested. In case you missed it, there is a risk to making an investment, because an investment can go bad.

LOL, he wasn't poor to start with. If you have money it is always easy to make more money. It is getting the capital to begin with that is hard. Mitt never had to do that.

Oh yea I have seen how much running they have to do for those investments and how hard it is to pick up that phone and call that broker and say sell. Whew, stressful...

That is where you are mistaken. He had to get a job and earn a living. The money that he invested is the money that he earned.

That is not true. He was not poor to start with.

Maybe.

Uh, you are getting capital gains tax confused with income tax. They are not the same.

Romney currently receives money from capital gains, and he pays the same capital gains tax that everyone else pays. When Romney earned a salary (which he then invested), he paid the same income tax that everyone else pays.

By the way, investing money in businesses does result in the growth of those businesses, and when businesses grow, they add jobs.

Romney's parents had the money needed to send Romney to college. However, after graduating from college, Romney had to go out and earn his own money.

shhhhh! Don't let MsHarmony know this.