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 Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (108229)	1/26/2012 2:55:54 PM
From: brushwud	Respond to of 149317

*Actual taxes paid by consistently profitable Fortune 500 companies now is less than half the statutory rate* Not quite sure how you can say "now", since the data on that page is from 2001-2003. 2002 in particular was a very unusual year. There was an anti-drug-industry email going around a few years ago claiming that the drug industry on its own made more than the whole Fortune 500 in 2002. It sounded incredible, but turned out to be true. As I recall, one telecom company reportedly lost over $100 billion that year, which exceeded most of the profits of the other 499. Also as I recall, the corporate income tax rate is somewhat progressive and the 35% rate only kicks in over $1 million. mindmeld probably knows better than I do. That's one reason why I've been saying 30%. And there are cases of huge companies like GE paying no corporate income tax (and I don't know the particular reasons for that anomaly). You're right that it would be helpful to know what is the average rate for all corporations, or even the Fortune 500. But it would be far more interesting to know for 2009-2011 than 2001-2003. My argument that it would be better to make dividends deductible to corporations than giving them a preferential rate on individual tax returns doesn't depend on actual corporate tax rates.