Locking Up Corporate Funds
Via Instapundit, Mark Perry notes:
In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).
Thats money being taken away from a company that has a proven ability to use money efficiently. I can only imagine how much of that money could have gone to development of innovation resulting in more wealth for everyone. Instead, its locked up by the state because some people honestly believe that 27 billion annually is better off in the hands of the likes to Ted Stevens, Tom Delay, and Nancy Pelosi.
Its astounding to think how stupid people who prefer public control over private control can be.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:37 am
They have proven to use their money efficiently? Is bribing people and paying money into corupt governments in Angola an efficient use of money or an illegal and immoral use of money? Just wondering what your summary judgement is there…..
February 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Gotta pay for that war somehow, eh? And considering our interests in the Middle East largely center around oil, I see no problem having the oil companies bear the burden.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Also, I flatly disbelieve the figures stated in this post (or at least how thye’re characterized). For starters, the bottom 50% in this country pay all their taxes in sales tax, medicare tax and social security tax, which I’m sure he’s ommitting. Also, how much of that %27billion does Exxon-Mobile get back from government subsidies/land-use rulings/no-bid government contracts?
February 8th, 2008 at 11:34 am
First of all, poor people pay income tax. More importantly is the fact that Exxon must pay sales tax just like anyone else. Its also worth noting that sales tax is a STATE tax and not a federal tax.
Medicare and Social Security are not taxes and in principle they are returned to the payer when they meet the requirements. Its a little surprising to hear you make this mistake and again I think reflects you ignorance on these kinds of things.
While your subsidy point is valid, one must wonder how much money the poor gets back in welfare subsidies.
If this the best you have, one must conclude that this is more or less a pretty fair comparison.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
What does Exxon pay sales tax on? I would imagine that most of their expenses are salaries, and buying things that are made overseas or something. Do you even know that they pay sales tax on things that they buy withing the US? I don’t know anything about how it works when one international corporation commissions another international corporation to build a fleet of ships, but I’m not at all sure they pay US sales tax (especially since, as you say, it’s a state-based tax). If you actually have knowledge on this let me know, but I doubt it.
I’m not sure what your definition of a tax is if it doesn’t include Medicare and Social Security payments- it’s money the government takes out of your paycheck to pay for government services. Sounds like a tax even if there’s some other buzzword for it.
Since your first sentence was ‘the poor pay income tax,’ I assume that means we’re ignoring people on welfare (because I’m pretty sure THEY don’t pay income tax).
But anyway, my point was just that I feel this is a misleading statistic. It’s designed to sound like Exxon-Mobile is paying as much to the government as the poorest 50% of our population, and clearly that’s not true. I think you agree that the statistic only works if you discount all the things I’ve said they’re discounting, in which case, I don’t findthe statistic to be very impressive any more.