Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much
 

By Travis Waldron on Jul 20, 2012 at 5:00 pm

Over a four years period from 2008 to 2011, Corning Inc. was one of 26 companies that managed to avoid paying any American income taxes, even though it earned nearly $3 billion during that time. In fact, according to Citizens For Tax Justice, the company received a $4 million refund from 2008 to 2010. That didn’t stop Susan Ford, a senior executive at the company, from telling the House Ways and Means Committee this week that America’s high corporate tax rate was putting her company at a disadvantage:

American manufacturers are at a distinct disadvantage to competitors headquartered in other countries. Specifically, foreign manufacturers uniformly face a lower corporate tax rate than U.S. manufacturers, and virtually all operate under territorial systems which encourage investment both abroad and at home.

Ford told the committee that Corning paid an effective tax rate of 36 percent in 2011, but as CTJ notes, she is counting taxes on profits earned overseas that haven’t yet been paid and won’t be unless the company decides to bring the money back to the United States. Corning’s actual tax rate in 2011, according to CTJ’s analysis, was actually negative 0.2 percent.

The territorial system Ford testified in favor of would actually encourage the offshoring of profits earned by American companies, thereby reducing the amount they pay in taxes even more. And rather than helping remove a disadvantage that prevents companies from creating jobs, an economic analysis of such a tax system found that it could actually cost the United States as many as 800,000 jobs.

The United States does, indeed, have one of the highest marginal corporate tax rates in the world. In reality, however, few corporations pay it, and the nation’s effective tax rate is far lower than the rate in other developed countries.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...oo-much-in-tax

Actually it’s worse than that. Over the 2008-2010 period, Corning paid a higher effective corporate income tax rate (8.6% of it’s foreign profits) to foreign governments than it paid to the US government. Also, the 3M exec. made a similar claim and they too paid a higher effective corporate income tax rate to foreign governments than they paid to the US government between 2008-2010 (23.8% on its US profits in corporate income taxes and 27.1% on its foreign profits in foreign corporate income taxes.)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...oo-much-in-tax

I have this funny habit. I tend to do research before I open my mouth. Maybe that's why I have been successful in life and as an investor.
I am not now nor have I even been on owner of Corning stock, but I looked it up. Their combined profit before inetrest expense and taxes over the last three years combined was $859 mill. No wonder I don't own any.
That's audited data BTW. They received a substantial tax credit in 2010 but did pay taxes in 09 and 11.

Maybe he should start reading thinkfacts.org instead.

lolz....

Rich people convincing poor people to vote for people to keep the rich's taxes down in hilarious.

Red State morons....

and yet the sheeple swallow it whole.

Like poor folk who haven't seen an iota of change or cause for hope who will vote 'D' anyway... I hear ya. Sheeple.

I am not a big fan of the president but whether you like it or not, the health care law is a major change. And it does give hope to the 44 million Americans with no health insurance.

Corning like other US companies are discouraged from operating in the US because of our high corporate taxes. That's why they keep reinvesting their money in overseas plant and equitment and paying taxes overseas.

If you are a multi national corporation the last place you want to have profits is in the US. It simply doesn't pay to have earnings here.

The 44 million # has always been a lie-it counts illegals and those willfully uninsured. But keep repeating it like a dummy anyway.

Yeah! Who knew a blue state co. could be so needy!

Haven't you heard? The "rich" are the only ones who are supposed to put the welfare of this country ahead of their own. Everyone else gets to stand there with their hand out and complain when not enough is put in it . . .

fixed :yes:

So there only 37 million uninsured actual Americans instead of 44. Wow, that makes everything all better. Nothing to worry about. Time to move on to the conservative agenda and what really matters to the average American; lets invade Iran without money to pay for it.:yes: :zzz:

Why would the average American be upset? :confused:

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploa...-Lounsbury.png

http://unfinishedbusiness.org/wp-con...-Gap-graph.jpg

There is a difference between income inequality and income mobility. The world wide the ranks of the middle class are growing rapidly even while structural employment in the developed world is changing.

How does bad tax policy help income mobility? How is a person going to go from a vulnerable laborer to a business owner if you want to confiscate their money when they save and invest it for their own future? How is tax policy that punishes savings that create the base of financing economic growth going to create opportunity for that mobility?

It's easy to have income equality if you simply are going to redistribute earnings and savings. What happens when you have a spiral down of income? How are we going to move forward when we are focused on income equality instead of achievement and income mobility and have the economic growth that can actually reward that achievement?

You cry about injustice but your only answer is redistribution. It's getting a little tired particularly if you look past your nose and see the billion people in the third world who are now part of the middle class.

thinkprogress

LMAO

I do not want redistribution; I do want wealthy corporations to pay their fair share of taxes and not game the system. I agree that there needs to be intelligent changes made to the tax system that does not punish the wealthy for their success because capitalism can work. But it only works in a mixed economy where there are smart regulations to avoid disgraces like Enron, as an example.

The problem is that unfettered, unchecked greed has taken over and been excused as merely capitalism. And now the flock wants to deny the existence of greed as an idea. But how much is enough? 23% profit is not enough if you can make 38% profit by laying off 500 people or by relocating so that you don't have to offer decent wages or benefits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SicFn8rqPPE

Capitalism is wonderful; It should be a perk for the successful people to enjoy the finer aspects of life; expensive cars, houses, clothes etc etc. These items help to inspire some to work harder and achieve.

But basic life necessities should not be a perk only for the successful or the children born into success. And I believe decent health care is absolutely a life necessity, as an example.

OP bombs own thread with giant, simplistic macro.

You're a regular maverick, IJF.