Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes

February 27, 2011
Buddhist Hell via J TAYLOR

Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said. via reuters.com

the way Google does it is called the Double Irish to Ireland and Holland. Corporations don’t get taxed… only the middle class does.. (the middle class that provides 95% of jobs in the United States and are technically called millionaires). Ever wonder why GE financed MSNBC before they let go to Comcast or why most media companies have no worries about taxes. if you are in the media your main interest is in defying eminent domain and getting friendly with government who makes those decisions. Honest corporate executives unlike Bill Gates who is a fraud and a liar know that taxation does not effect them… especially if the majority of the revenue is from advertising or if they are practically the government already… aka Time Warner…  Time Warner… hmm Time Magazine? CNN? hello? wake up LIBERALS!

The problem with guys like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul… (who are really one and the same internationalist agenda… one for corporatist internationalism and the other for socialist internationalism) is that it doesn’t matter what they say. They hurt the reputation of the average American and they don’t represent local interests. The modern debate over government is based on offering Americans a choice between two minority monopolies of power. Government controlled corporations or corporate controlled government. Two extremes, both of which monopolize power in the hands of a small number of powerful and influential people. And deprive ordinary citizens of their rights. Because a tyranny of the minority is still a tyranny– regardless of what its guise is. And either corporate controlled government or government controlled corporations mean a totalitarian state serving the interests of a small group. The only debate is over which small group will benefit the most from the oppression of the majority. The debate between government controlled corporations and corporate controlled government is mostly irrelevant. Because we have both.

Google’s income shifting — involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” — helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries. 


Viral Marketing

October 21, 2010


Supreme Court ruled corporations can campaign for candidates

January 27, 2010

Unions can now literally buy elections now? Soros is happy. he won this. We bought his rhetoric that large companies are on the right. Large corporations go right to the left. this is a red herring. you threw out your rights on a technicality and the left is laughing their asses off at you and your orthodoxy. When you think only in terms of what binary political poles you are given it is very easy to be deceived. People that take advantage of you count on you to be so dogmatic. Corporations are not people. this isn’t baseball. Conservatism isn’t a sports team… it is merely a mind set that sometimes is just and sometimes is not good for the people.

  • Reversing 63 years of restrictions on free speech, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could, indeed, directly campaign for the candidates of their choice, causing Obama – clearly not one of the candidates of most of their choices – to term the ruling “devastating.”

  • The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that union membership in the U.S. had plummeted a staggering 10 percent in 2009, bringing it to an all-time low of just 7.2 percent of all private sector workers – and further debasing the value of Obama’s cozy relationship with union bosses.

At issue is whether corporations, unions and issue advocacy organizations should be allowed to use unlimited amounts of money from their treasuries on independent political expenditures in support or opposition of a candidate.

Today’s oral arguments focused, in part, on the tension between the First Amendment freedom of speech rights and congressional efforts to limit the influence of special interests that have millions of dollars to spend on speech. While corporations and unions are prohibited from making independent political expenditures, individuals may freely do so.

“Robust debate about candidates for elective office is the most fundamental value protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech,” said Theodore Olson, the lawyer for the conservative nonprofit corporation Citizens United and former President George W. Bush’s solicitor general, during oral arguments. “Yet that is precisely the dialogue that the government has prohibited if practiced by unions or corporations, any union or any corporation.”

The first big impact of the Supreme Court’s decision lifting restrictions on certain corporation campaign spending may be at the American Civil Liberties Union, which, after years of opposing restrictions on free speech grounds, is considering whether to reverse course and endorse government limits on money in politics.

The ACLU has long opposed government limits to how much a donor can give to a political campaign or spend airing advertisements on an issue during an election. On this point, the ACLU has been in agreement with conservative organizations that believe money contributions are a form of political speech and deserving of First Amendment protection. It has been at odds with many liberal organizations, which have argued money in politics must be strictly limited so that rich organizations and individuals don’t wield outsize influence.

But Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, which would enable corporations to spend freely on political causes, is forcing the ACLU to address what one internal memo describes as a “Skokie moment,” a reference to the controversy in which the organization defended the right of American Nazis to march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie. The moment is often seen as one of the acid tests of the ACLU’s willingness to stick to its First Amendment principles.

The First Amendment, opening article of the Bill of Rights, says that Congress “shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .” It was cited in Thursday’s Supreme Court’s decision, which was is in accord with the ACLU’s traditional position that the government should keep out of regulating money in politics. The organization had filed a brief in support of the winning side in the case. But concern that the Supreme Court ruling will fundamentally alter American democracy has ignited within the union an intense debate that was aired on Saturday at the regular quarterly meeting of the 83-member board of directors and in interviews with this reporter. The board on Sunday sent the issue to its special committee on campaign finance to mull the impact of Citizens United.

“The ACLU’s version of democracy is from the ground-up,” one civil rights lawyer, David Gans, on Saturday told the ACLU’s board, which was assembled downtown at One New York Plaza. “Now Exxon Mobil can spend 2% of its money and blow that all up.”

Mr. Gans was one of several attorneys invited to the board meeting to debate whether the ACLU should change its position on money in politics. Another, Burt Neuborne, also urged the ACLU to change its policy, saying that any effort to salvage campaign finance regulation in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling would face trouble “if the ACLU says it’s against the First Amendment.”