These are the Federal Income Tax Rates for Corporations. 0 to $50,000.00 = 15%; $50,001 to
75,000 = 25%; 75,001 to 10 million = 34%; over
10 million = 35%. So the 46% that one person said Chevron paid could not have been. There may have been some other taxes added from accounting purposes. In the past, 1 out of every $4 F. Income tax collected came from Corp. F.I.T. now it is 1 out of $10. That means individuals are picking up more of the income tax paid to the Fed. Government. Just thought I would update those crying about Corp Taxes.
(number in thousands)
CVX had gross revenue of $220,904,000
It paid a total of $13,479,000
that is an "income" tax of 6.1%
Wish I could pay my income taxes on my gross revenue at CVX's rate!!!
Oh, I guess I can't write off my "expenses" (food, shelter, clothing)
like CVX can.
I don't think 6.1% tax rate is very high, we should bump it up some.
So here's a question. If graduated tax rates on people are fair, are they also fair for corporations?
I hope you're sitting down, because the improbable answer is that they're not fair.
Even if we enthusiastically embrace progressive income taxes on people, progressive taxes on corporations don't follow at all. In fact, it turns out today's steeply graduated corporate tax rates—eight brackets ranging from 15 percent to 39 percent—are unfair to a large number of low-income workers and consumers. And once you see why, you might find yourself whispering among friends that maybe, just maybe, the fairest corporate tax rate of all is zero percent.
Let's start with a simple example. Imagine two companies. One is a start-up that makes high-tech satellites. Like most start-ups, it's well-financed but earns no profits. It has rich customers, highly-paid employees, and very rich venture-capitalist shareholders.
Now consider a second company. It's a large big-box retailer. Like most big companies, it earns handsome profits. Most of its thousands of employees earn low wages, and so do its customers. Its stock is publicly traded, and shares are mostly held by mutual funds feeding 401(k) retirement plans of workers, many of whom fall in the middle of the nation's income distribution.
Question: which of these two companies should pay a higher corporate tax rate, given their ability to pay?
At first this seems easy. The one with higher profits should pay higher rates. But look closer. What do you mean by the company's ability to pay?
Every freshman economics class teaches companies can't bear taxes, only people can. Companies are just legal fictions that shove off taxes onto customers, employees and shareholders. The firm itself pays nothing. And so the age-old notion that we should hammer rich companies because "they can afford it" is really based on a simple misunderstanding.
Personally, I blame lawmakers for the mix-up. They notoriously preach the gospel of "tax companies, not people" with campaign promises to shift taxes from families onto businesses. But business taxes are just a tricky way of dumping tax burdens back onto different people. So in the world of corporate taxes, the right measure of ability to pay isn't the profits of the Fortune 500. It's our own pocketbooks.
Back in our two-company example, one earns zero profits but has well-paid workers, rich shareholders and wealthy customers. The other earns huge profits but has low-wage workers, poor customers and middle-income shareholders. How can a progressive corporate tax be fairly applied here? What's the logic in taxing poor folks who work and shop at profitable companies with a 39 percent rate, while rewarding wealthy employees and customers of unprofitable start-ups with a 15 percent rate?
Yet that's what our current tax code does. And that leads to our take-away point. Those buildings downtown don't pay taxes, we do. So progressive corporate tax rates that treat companies like people aren't just silly, they're unfair. And unfair in an especially capricious way that should infuriate people who really care about tax fairness.
If you can understand this simple argument, congratulations are in order. You understand something an army of Washington lawyers, economists and lawmakers who continually wring their hands about "companies not paying their fair share" do not. As if companies ever paid a dime. As if the only thing keeping Americans tethered to the yoke of taxation are those darn buildings, desks and cubicle dividers that won't pay their share of the tax bill.
Sam Walton was rich. But the poor families who bought jeans at Wal-Mart this morning aren't. Why soak them for shopping at a profitable company? Why not tax the Waltons directly, and forget the rococo con game of corporate taxes altogether?
If you can read and understand, my post was clearly about Corporate Federal Income Tax Rates. Did I ever say that Corporate tax rates should be raised? For your information, an oil company; one of the majors in Alaska pays over 50% in total taxes thanks to your poster girl Palin. Why don't you start with her about taxes on oil companies?
That's a myth. While the rates seem higher here, in reality they work out to be among the lowest in the world.
This is because there are so many loopholes in our tax code that most corporations pay nothing in the way of income taxes at all. So I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this. :)
According to the Government Accountability Office, 65 percent of US corporations and 68 percent of foreign-controlled companies operating here paid no US income taxes.
None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.
Here's the full report:
And here is that original post by djphillips on 11/17, which is absolutely correct and does NOT say federal income tax:
Chevron earned pre-tax profits of $35.7 billion and paid $16.6 billion in income taxes for the nine-months ended September 30 — an effective tax rate of 46.5 percent:
Chevron Corp does in fact pay 46.5% in TOTAL taxes. This is combined federal income tax, severence taxes, ad velorem taxes, state taxes, etc. Tax is tax, and Chevron pay 46.5 cents on every dollars it earns.