Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (456281)	9/10/2003 3:29:43 PM
From: laura_bush	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Yes. Bill's dogged argument is absurd on the face of it. lb

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (456281)	9/10/2003 4:27:02 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Oracle paid more than ONE BILLION in corporate income tax last year. You are way over your head.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (456281)	9/10/2003 10:31:22 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Respond to of 769670

I'll grant you the point about SS taxes. If a job is eliminated in the U.S., then the government will not recover this amount. However, to the extent that the reduction in salary expense drops to the corporation's bottom line as "pure profit" (as opposed to being re-invested in the business in other ways), then the government will recover the amount that would have been paid as income taxes (not counting SS) by the employee as extra corporate income tax instead (on the higher amount of pre-tax profit reported by the corporation). In the example with Oracle, I think I managed to illustrate that the corporate tax _rate_ is at least comparable to the individual income tax rate. In Oracle's case, the rate is over 30%, which is an average rate that is higher than the average rate for most individuals. So, what do you mean by "the most successful U.S. companies pay only one million in taxes"? Either the corporate rate is comparable to the individual rate, or it is not. Are you claiming that it is not?