Exxon made 45 billion in profit and paid $0 in federal income taxes.
 

In 2009 Exxon posted 45.2 billion dollars in profit. Forbes ranked it as the largest earning US company. Yet they paid $0 in federal income taxes because they filter their money through some 20 different offshore companies.

So after some stuff that came out last week we now know that 47% of all US workers don't pay any federal income tax and now the biggest company in the country doesn't either. There is another story linked there that shows a study found 2 our of 3 US companies from 1998 to 2005 didn't pay any federal income tax.

With numbers like these it is no wonder there are so many little taxes that get added to every little thing you buy or do.

Here are the articles if you want to read them.

Oh, and somehow I don't think we will be seeing the same level of outrage from the various Fox New pundits about Exxon paying nothing as we did last week when we found out nearly half of workers pay nothing.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-...e-taxes_2.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/bu...3tax.html?_r=1

whos ya daddy

Fuck big oil.. and exxon.. go electric.. my next car will be.

:2 cents::2 cents::2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

45 billion ...

when i hear news like this i LOL thinking about people who work making $1 banners here, etc

the rich get richer..america was build on the backs of the average wage earner who has no choice but to give up a % of his income.

Fine when they get round to making electric cars with a long range and a 5 minute way of recharging the batteries but you're going to be driving your Challenger for a while before an everyday electric car is really a practical choice.

I have no idea how much of America's electricity is from oil-fired power stations so you may only be shifting from burning it in your car to burning it in a power station and then still end up paying for it either way.

wonder what would happen if everyone refused to pay taxes until this was addressed

tax income not

Here's an interesting article on the "47 pct."

That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2009. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a popular talking point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/bu...e&ref=business

But it is still a vote with your spending dollar that will help trigger a change by showing consumer demand for electric or better yet other alternative powered vehicles such as Hydrogen. Have to start somewhere! :)

This is complete bullshit... Every study shows that poverty is not static for those willing to work. The rich get richer and the poor get richer... that's the REAL trend...

True poverty is virtually non existent in the United States today... just compare the poverty line with other countries in the world.

" In 1971, only about 32 percent of all Americans enjoyed air conditioning in their homes. By 2001, 76 percent of poor people had air conditioning. In 1971, only 43 percent of Americans owned a color television; in 2001, 97 percent of poor people owned at least one. In 1971, 1 percent of American homes had a microwave oven; in 2001, 73 percent of poor people had one. Forty-six percent of poor households own their homes. Only about 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities.

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Seventy-eight percent of the poor have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher."

I can cite plenty of facts to back up my claims...

No crime to use loopholes. When you employ as many people as Exxon you are doing good work IMO. Believe me, if they pay more in taxes, it won't mean you will pay less, it will just mean you pay more at the gas pump.

is there a way to find out how much other major corporations have paid?

wow those are amazing statistics for a country trillions of dollars in debts, along with the citizens

just because everyone has gucci doesn't mean everyone can afford it

Not true. they do have a choice. Taxes in the US are against the UN amended constitution.

Thank god they wrote it in pencil so it can be changes to suite the few.

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/...3125-10-042929

Income before income taxes 34,777
Income taxes 15,119

yup, no taxes paid indeed :thumbsup

turns out those taxes may not have been paid to the US, so nevermind :)

carry on :)

When thinking of the range of an electric car, you have to consider the average range that the average american drives per day is 30 miles. Only thirty miles. The current electric crop, like the Nissan Leaf for example, will go 100 miles on a full charge. It can charge overnight from normal 110 current, or you can get a fast charger installed. It will also be smart enough to charge during off-peak electric rate hours.

Another thing to consider is the trade off of burning gasoline in a car versus burning coal/oil in a powerplant that provides you the electricity.. You will no longer be spewing carcinogens directly into your neighborhoods, your front lawn, your curbsides where your kids stand.. etc etc etc. There's more carcinogens in a vehicle idling for one minute than in one million cigarettes. Yet we dont ban cars from where our kids play, only smoking. Look into it, it's a dirty little unknown detail nobody wants to talk about because it's not sexy and not trendy to want to ban vehicles from anywhere.

Dont forget it'll be 10's of times cheaper to operate, have less dirt and gunk to deal with constantly. No tune ups for filters and oils and plugs and other disposable parts.

the current poverty line for a family of 4 in the US is 22,000 per year.

great info tom!

thanks

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Who the fuck pays taxes? Set things up so that you can deduct nearly everything, then hide the rest.

Tax system is beautiful. Only idiots pay taxes.

I <3 Tesla Motors.... As soon as I can afford one, I'm buying one. I like all electric and their cars look damn slick and perform well. Not because I believe in global warming but because I believe in slowing down natural resource consumption and increasing cleaner energy usage :D

I think the technical term is.. All Ships Rise with the Tide. And it couldn't be more true. Poverty is a sliding scale. You want poverty? Go to sub-saharan Africa.

Here's a good take on the rich vs. poor discussion :)

:( no wonder i didn't get a refund this year...

thats not good...

That is the most whacked stats I have ever heard. Those claims are total shit. They claim nothing except that with new technology the price gets a lot cheaper over time. How much was the first microwave in 1971, how much do they cost now? I can get 1 for $29 from walmart. Same thing for DVD players, and everythng else.

In 1971 1% of homes had a microwave lmao... because there was probably only a couple thousand made at the time. I remember getting a microwave in the early 80s and most people I know didn't have them then.

All of the "shit" color tv, microwave, dvd player, etc... was very expensive when it came out and hard to get, YEARS later it is dirt cheap. That is why everyone has one now, because they are extremely cheap today, non that we were in poverty years back but not now.

Why not say only 1% of the people had cell phones in 1980, look today 86% of people have cell phones, blah no such thing as poverty. In 2000 only 2% of the people have flat screen tvs, and today 65% have them... why? because the same flat screen that cost 8K in 2000 now cost about $500. nothing to do with poverty, just how technology is as expensive as shit when it first comes out.

too funny. the way people grab stats and try to twist it to their agenda.

well...to a point....if you have 45 billion in profits...you should be paying tax

the only reason you aren't paying tax yourself...is you are writing off nearly all your revenue as part of your business expense

I like it because I believe in making oil worthless so the middle east can choke on it and can't fund terrorists any more.

"hide the rest" you are a fool. That method only works till you get audited. then they will find it and nail your ass to the wall.

the "deduct everything". not everything can be deducted, and with that logic you have to spend nearly 3x more than you make to be able to deduct enough to not pay taxes...

I love the people who come up with the "oh people who pay taxes are stupid logic". :upsidedow it's not that easy if you want to not end up in jail or owned by the irs.

That NYTimes article was obviously very left of center oriented, but it doesn't change the fact that the number of wage-earners not having a Federal INCOME tax liability at all, was 47%. It doesn't mean they didn't pay taxes at all, they just did not have to pay an income tax on what they earned.

I'm sorry, but that's disturbing to me. A dollar is a dollar, regardless of who you are. It should be treated equally across the board.

That kind of thinking however, doesn't garner votes, so it will never happen. TAX THE OTHER GUY!!!! YEAH, THE ONE WITH LOTS OF MONEY!!! We want all the benefits we can get, but fuck em... we don't want to contribute in an equal way.

I'm not sure what these stats prove. All of the things you list are things even poor people have. People are not supposed to be considered poor or even middle class if they have a dishwasher or A/C? Hmm..these sound like the exact people I was talking about, wage earners who will typically be born middle class and remain middle class. These people get their taxes deducted straight from their pay, they don't have the option to stash money offshore, etc.

I think he was viewing "wealth" not as financial wealth, but more of a "quality of life" wealth... so even though the "poor" may not earn as much, they are actually wealthier in "quality of life" sense...

the whole concept of money is abstract to begin with... $20k/year or $50k/year etc means nothing... all that counts is how much stuff you can buy, and how comfortably you can live... so sure, a poor person may earn less than before, but they can buy more stuff than ever, and be able to live more comfortable lives than ever...

Exactly, thank you...

For anyone that thinks the poor in this country are poor... you need to do some traveling.

The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of "rich" people even when defined as "millionaires" are self made. This is the land of opportunity and many people would trade their left arm for an American Passport... I have a hard time having sympathy for people that don't help themselves. I work a full time job and then work in my off time. I try and take one day off a month but that's my choice. The majority of people in poverty do not work multiple full time jobs or try to start their own company...

But "quality of life" is also changing. Per his argument, the people with color tv's had a better quality of life than the ones with just black and white sets. Well today, the ones with HD flat screens have better quality of life vs just old picture tube color tv sets.

You just can't use technology as "proof" of anything except it is always getting better, the newest stuff is super expensive and the stuff thats been out for 10-15 years becomes dirt cheap.

The existing electric cars that we have now or soon will have will work for about 90% of the people. Many of these cars have a range of around 200 miles per charge. Most people don't drive more than about 50 miles per day. Even if you commuted 50 miles each way to work (which very few people do) you will still have 100 miles left each day to run your errands and you can charge it up at night.

Sure, you can't take it on a long road trip or a vacation that you have to drive a long way on. But how often does the average person do that? Most people see 200 mile range and they instantly think of the one trip they took three years ago where they had to drive 1000 miles. For that they could rent a car, but that never occurs to them so they just dismiss the electric car as useless.

Wealth is all relative. In America, poor is not being able to buy a new car. In other countries, its not being able to buy your next meal. Regardless, even using your situation as an example, chances are even if you do make enough money to not need your regular job chances are you will not get "rich" off what you are doing in your lifetime. The system is set up to keep people where they are for the most part. Some people will make it, the majority won't despite their efforts.

The 47% number is true when referring to INCOME taxes. Some people have selective reading. Idiots come back and say "well those people pay this tax and that tax" yeah sure but that's not what was said. No said 47% paid no taxes at all. They said 47% pay no INCOME TAX which is in fact true. Once people get that then a serious intelligent discussion can be had.

Here's the problem let's say the government made Exxon pay say 25% of that in income taxes. Well Exxon will just raise the price of gas. Make wal-mart pay income tax well if they don't raise prices they'll just cut benefits, pay or hours of their workers or just fire some. Then those left will have to work twice as hard for the same pay.

They shifted their earnings over seas. Have you ever heard of business moving over seas, this is what they are talking about. Lower the tax rate and they will shift their money back here. This is the Laffer Curve in real time. If you close this loophole they will just completely move their companies out of the US.

The easiest solution, not to mention the solution that would bring in more money, is to lower the taxes below those other countries. We would see more businesses moving here and employing more Americans.

Or just getting rid of corporate income tax all together.

Just because someone has a color TV or a DVD player (I can get a color TV off of Craiglist for $30 and a new DVD player for the same) and has a microwave doesn't mean the poor is getting more wealthy. It means these things are becoming more affordable.

Take for example the VCR. I was in grade school when they first came out and they were anywhere from $1500-$2000. That is a lot of money now, even more so back then. Almost nobody had them. As they got cheaper and cheaper more people got them.

Here are some real numbers.

From 1980 to 2007 the average household income in the US went up $7804. That is an average of $289 per year or about .6% increase each year. Average inflation during those years was anywhere between 1%-2% with many years in the early 80% near 10%. This means that over the last 27 years the average US wage earner has not even seen their wages increase at the rate of inflation. So cost of living is actually outpacing wage increases.

Meanwhile the top 1% saw their personal wealth increase 232% during that same time period.

I'm not begrudging the top 1%, I'm just pointing out that during a time when the average wage earner wasn't even keeping pace with inflation the richest 1% saw their average income nearly triple.

Well yeah Im all for that. :thumbsup

I won't argue this. A lot of poor people have cable, computers, internet and live decent lives. Poverty in our country is nothing like poverty in many other countries. You go to many countries and those who live in poverty live in little shacks that might not even have electricity and they scrounge for food.

When I was growing up we were pretty poor and there were some years we were on food stamps or got food from food banks. There were some nights we went to bed with little to eat, but we always had a warm, dry home to live in, went to school and almost all of the time had enough food to go around.

One of my best friends is a cop and he says almost without fail when he goes into a poor person's place they are smokers and drinkers. My mom admits now that when my brother and I were little and she was struggling so much she still smoked and that ate through a bunch of her money. She didn't know it then, but she was depressed and smoking was the only thing that could help her deal with the stress of raising us on her own. Had she not smoked a pack a day it would have been another $20-$25 a week she would have had to spend and this was in the 70's when she was making $3 per hour so $25 per week ends up being a lot of money

All of the taxes is the reason why those big corporations don't pay them. We're supposedly a capitalist economy and almost entirely socialist(as far as social programs anyway) countries have lower corporate taxes than us by a huge margin.. like Sweden and France.

Oh and income tax is stupid anyway.

he's talking about relative poverty.