Peter schiff: Congress Avoids the Cliff by Selling Us Down the River

 

 

 



By: Peter Schiff       

Thursday, January 3, 2013

 

With the possible exception of the New York Times’ editorial board (and the cast of The Jersey Shore), everyone on the planet understood that the United States Government needs to cut spending, increase taxes, or both. Instead, after months of political posturing and hand wringing, the Federal Government has just delivered the exact opposite, a deal that increases spending and decreases taxes. The move lays bare the emptiness of budget legislation, which can be dismantled far easier than it can be constructed.

One question that should be now asked is whether Moody’s Research will finally join S&P in downgrading the Treasury debt of the United States. After the Budget Control Act of 2011 (which resulted from the Debt Ceiling drama) Moody’s extended its Aaa rating, saying in an August 8 statement:

“…last week’s Budget Control Act was positive for the credit of the United States…. We expect the economic recovery will continue and additional budget deficit reduction initiatives will be put in place by 2013. The political parties now appear to share similar deficit reduction objectives.”

Now that Moody’s has been proven wrong, and the straight jacket that Congress designed for itself has been shown to be illusory (as I always claimed it was), will the rating agency revisit its decision and downgrade the United States? Given the political backlash that greeted S&P’s downgrade in 2011, I doubt that such a move is forthcoming.

For now, the real budget negotiations have been supposedly pushed later into 2013, when the debt ceiling will be confronted anew. But who can really expect anything of substance? The latest deal emerged from a Congress that is nearly two years removed from the next election. As a result, Congressmen were as insulated from political pressures as they could ever expect to be. Nevertheless, they still chose political expediency over sound policy. If Congressional leadership (an oxymoron that should join the ranks of “jumbo shrimp” and “definite maybe”) could not put the national interest in front of political interests now, why would anyone expect them to do so later? They will continue to ignore our fiscal problems until a currency crisis forces their hand. I expect deficits to approach $2 trillion annually before Obama leaves office. Unfortunately, at that point the solutions would be far more draconian than anything economists and politicians are currently considering.

In light of the extensions of the popular middle class tax rates, the loudly trumpeted tax increases on those individuals making more than $400,000 (and couples making more than $450,000) will not be enough to translate into higher tax revenues. Instead they will result in perhaps $60 billion per year in new revenue to the Federal government that will be more than offset by the new spending announced in the agreement. In fact, with the likely passage of the $60 billion Hurricane Sandy aid package, it will have taken Congress less than one week to spend all of the projected revenue.  

But the tax increases will push many individuals in high tax states like California and New York into paying more than 50% of their income in taxes. While many economists are cautioning that higher taxes on the wealthy will take a bite out of spending, in my opinion it is more likely to result in lower business investment, which is far more detrimental to the economy. When faced with diminishing discretionary income, most rich people would sooner cut back on savings and investment than they would on health care, education, home improvements and vacations.

But it should be clear that the rate increases are just the opening crescendo in a symphony of tax hikes on the nation’s entrepreneurial class. President Obama has recently stated that he will consider needed cuts in spending and entitlement programs only if they are coupled with additional tax increases on the wealthy. In other words, as far as the President is concerned, the hikes included in the budget agreement that was just passed didn’t count for anything. 

It cannot, or should not, be denied that Washington’s latest fig leaf will have a major impact on the markets. The New Year’s “relief rally” is understandable given the clear implications that the government will simply print its way out of trouble for as long as it can. In the past, fiscal profligacy was held in check by investors who would sell bonds and push interest rates higher whenever it appeared that the government was not serious about national solvency. But with the Federal Reserve now buying the vast majority of U.S. government debt, no such roadblock exists. With monetary and fiscal stimulus pushing up stock and bond prices, and no immediate fear of a rally-killing spike in interest rates, there is no reason to stay on the sidelines. Markets are now driven by stimulus, not fundamentals, and the stimulus is firmly at the wheel. (For more on this – see the article in the January edition of Euro Pacific’s Global Investment Newsletter). But it is important to look at the nature of the rally. Most significantly we would bring investors’ attention to the increase in gold and oil and other assets that are expected to outperform in an inflationary economy. Our new Newsletter edition also includes an analysis of some of the more promising overseas markets.

But by taking the nominal risk out of investing, the government is insuring that the risks to the U.S. economy will grow exponentially. We are now – and will remain – a debt-fueled economy for as long as the rest of the world permits this to continue. But this is no way to create real, sustainable economic growth. On the contrary, it will simply permit the growth of government, the depletion of economic vitality, and ultimately the collapse of the U.S. dollar.   

In the meantime, President Obama and Congressional leaders will take credit for a tax cut that is in reality a huge tax increase in disguise. Government spending is the real source of taxpayers’ pain and it is only a matter of time before the bill comes due in the form of inflation. See our Newsletter for fresh analysis as to why inflation may already be higher than you think. Because the deficits will grow even larger, more purchasing power will be lost in this manner than would have been lost had all the Bush tax cuts been allowed to expire. In addition, though entitlement cuts were taken off the table, the real value of benefits could be slashed, as cost of living adjustments fail to keep up with skyrocketing consumer prices. That’s a Fiscal Cliff that will not be so easy to avoid.

Read More by Peter Schiff

Warren Buffett profits from bailout, is AOK w/grandkids placed in harms way and now advocates paying more taxes

Warren Buffett who profited handsomely from the U.S. Government

placing the Wall Street bank Bailout burden on our grandchildren,

now believes he and his pillagers should pay more taxes.



The $50 Billion Man

New York Times Opinion Page
August 16, 2011
Warren Buffett (not to be confused with a long table full of food...that's a ONE T...aka 1 toddler...he is perfectly okay with dumping the debt on grandkids to make his profit and then op-ed about about paying guilt taxes...pathetic)

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.       

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.       

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.       

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.       

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.       

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.       

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.       

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.       

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.       

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)       

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.       

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances.

They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.       

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.       

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.       

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway....duh

John Chambers (Cisco) to fire 10,000 and still wants a tax holiday to create jobs

"Mamas Don't Let Your Babies

Grow Up to be Cowboys"

Make 'em be CEO's and politicians and such

Encourage and guide them to be CEO's of America's finest corporate institutions. You know, the ones that snuggle up to our D.C. elected "representatives" under the pretense of assisting them to write policies and tax code that will create investments and employment in the United States. You know, the pretty boys and girls paraded around the CNBC set talking the talk, pushing their agenda. The are the likeable ones and you never see the knife until it is planted deeply and firmly in your back. 

Welcome to the way America does business.  

Cisco Systems Inc. Chief Executive Officer John Chambers earned $18.9 million in total compensation in fiscal 2010, ($51,780 per day) more than double his earnings the previous year.



July 2011:
Cisco Systems has cut its income taxes by $US7 billion ($6.7 billion) since 2005 by booking roughly half its worldwide profits at a subsidiary at the foot of the Swiss Alps that employs about 100 people.

Now Cisco, the largest maker of networking equipment, wants to save even more by asking US Congress to waive most federal taxes due when multinationals bring such offshore earnings home.

John Chambers, has led the charge for the tax holiday, which would be the second since 2004. He says it would encourage companies to ''repatriate'' as much as $US1 trillion held abroad, spur domestic investment and create jobs.

Bloomberg July 11, 2011

Cisco Systems may cut as many as 10,000 jobs, or about 14 percent of its workforce, to revive profit growth, according to two people familiar with the plans.

The cuts include as many as 7,000 jobs that would be eliminated by the end of August, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the plans aren’t final. Cisco, based in San Jose, California, is also providing early-retirement packages to about 3,000 workers who took buyouts, the people said.

Eliminating jobs will help Cisco wring $1 billion in expenses in fiscal 2012, the company said in May. Cisco expects costs of $500 million to $1.1 billion in the fiscal fourth quarter as a result of the voluntary early retirement program, it said in a quarterly filing.

“We will provide additional detail on the cost reductions, including layoffs, on our next earnings call,” Karen Tillman, a spokeswoman for Cisco, said in reference to an earnings call scheduled for early August. She declined to discuss job cut figures.

Trimming about 5,000 jobs would reduce operating expenses by about $1 billion annually and boost 2012 earnings by about 8 percent.

United States of America is awash in wealth...BUT...(Institute for Policy Studies)

Reversing tax giveaways to the super-rich

and the nation's largest corporations

could raise $4 trillion within a decade

and avert possible government closures.

Institute for Policy Studies
By: Chuck Collins, Alison Goldberg
Scott Klinger and Sam Pizzigati
April 7, 2011


"We're broke."

Or so claim governors and lawmakers all over the country. Our states and our nation can no longer afford, their plaint goes, the programs and services that Americans expect government to provide. We must do with less. We need "austerity."

But we're not broke. Not even close. The United States of America is awash in wealth. Our corporations are holding record trillions in cash. And overall individual wealth in the United States, the Credit Suisse Research Institute reported this past fall, has risen 23 percent since the year 2000, to $236,213 per American adult.

We have, these indicators of overall wealth suggest, survived the Great Recession quite nicely. So how can average families — and the national, state, and local governments that exist to serve them — be doing so poorly? Why do "deficits" dominate our political discourse? What explains the red-ink hurricane now pounding government budgets at every level?

This Tax Day report identifies two prime drivers behind our current budget "squeeze."

One, we have indeed become wealthier than ever. But our wealth has become incredibly more concentrated at our economic summit. U.S. income is cascading disproportionately to the top.

Two, we are taxing the dollars that go to our ever-richer rich — and the corporations they own — at levels far below the tax rates that America levied just a few decades ago. We have, in effect, shifted our tax burden off the shoulders of those most able to bear it and away from those who disproportionately benefit from government investments the most.

These two factors — more dollars at the top, significantly lower taxes on these dollars — have unleashed a fiscal nightmare. Can we wake up in time to avoid the crippling austerity that so many of our political leaders insist we must accept?

This report offers both an analysis of our current predicament and a series of proposals that can help open our eyes to a far more equitable — and brighter — future.

Key Tax Facts

• 15,753: The number of households in 1961 with $1 million in taxable income (adjusted for inflation).
• 361,000: The number of households in 2011 estimated to have $1 million in taxable income.
• 43.1: Percent of total reported income that Americans earning $1 million paid in taxes in 1961 (adjusted for 2011 dollars)
• 23.1: Percent of total reported income that Americans earning $1 million are likely to pay in taxes in 2011, estimated from latest IRS data.
• 47.4: Percent of profits corporations paid in taxes in 1961.
• 11.1: Percent of profits corporations paid in taxes in 2011.

Chuck Collins: If corporations and households with $1 million income paid the same levels as they did in 1961, the Treasury would collect an additional $716 billion a year.

Jon Stewart:GE's $14.2 billion profit and no federal income taxes and Steve Martin way ahead of his time

March 28, 2011

Jon Stewart on General Electric (GE) making $14.2 billion profit for 2010 and paid no federal income tax.  Jon also criticized Obama for saying he would stop corporations from profiting from outsourced labor when they pay no domestic taxes, but instead making GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt a chairman on his new economic council.

Ironically, Jeff "the jobs butcher" Immelt cut 1/5 of their American workforce during the prior 9 years.

January 21, 2011 (CNN)

President Obama announced the creation of an economic advisory council Friday that will be headed by Jeffrey Immelt, the chief executive and chairman of General Electric.

The President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness will replace the Economic Recovery Advisory Board that was headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

Volcker's board helped pull the economy "back from the brink," Obama said. Immelt's panel will be charged with "putting the economy into overdrive."

"Jeff's somebody who brings a wealth of experience to the table," Obama said. "We think GE has something to teach businesses all across America."

The Daily Show - I Give Up - Pay Anything...
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Steve Martin January January 21, 1978 (ahead of his time)

SNL Transcripts

You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You say.. "Steve.. how can I be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes?" First.. get a million dollars.

Now.. you say, "Steve.. what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, 'You.. have never paid taxes'?" Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: "I forgot!"

How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don't say "I forgot"? Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, "I forgot armed robbery was illegal." Let's suppose he says back to you, "You have committed a foul crime. you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, 'I forgot'?"

Two simple words: Excuuuuuse me!!"








The Daily Show

Bernie Sanders: Time for American Corporations to Pay Their Fair Share and give our grandchildren a break

Yes America, it pays well to have friends in high places

Jeff Immelt (General Electric CEO) and heading

President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness

Senator Bernie Sanders

BURLINGTON, Vt., March 27 - While hard working Americans fill out their income tax returns this tax season, General Electric and other giant profitable corporations are avoiding U.S. taxes altogether.

With Congress returning to Capitol Hill on Monday to debate steep spending cuts, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations must do their share to help bring down our record-breaking deficit.

Sanders renewed his call for shared sacrifice after it was reported that General Electric and other major corporations paid no U.S. taxes after posting huge profits. Sanders said it is grossly unfair for congressional Republicans to propose major cuts to Head Start, Pell Grants, the Social Security Administration, nutrition grants for pregnant low-income women and the Environmental Protection Agency while ignoring the reality that some of the most profitable corporations pay nothing or almost nothing in federal income taxes.

Sanders compiled a list of some of some of the 10

worst corporate income tax avoiders.

Time to remove corporations fair share

off the backs of our grandchildren

Vigilant Grandpa

1. Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2. Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3. Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4. Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5. Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6. Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7. Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8. Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9. ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10. Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Sanders has called for closing corporate tax loopholes and eliminating tax breaks for oil and gas companies. He also introduced legislation to impose a 5.4 percent surtax on millionaires that would yield up to $50 billion a year. The senator has said that spending cuts must be paired with new revenue so the federal budget is not balanced solely on the backs of working families.

"We have a deficit problem. It has to be addressed," Sanders said, "but it cannot be addressed on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the poor, young people, the most vulnerable in this country. The wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country have got to contribute. We've got to talk about shared sacrifice."

Change We Can Believe In (including changing your mind): Obama ready to cut deal on Bush Tax Cuts

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN
11/11/10 
Politico

The White House signaled Wednesday that President Barack Obama is ready to cut a deal on the Bush-era tax cuts – accepting a temporary extension of the cuts for the wealthiest Americans to win renewal of tax breaks for middle-class taxpayers.

Such a deal would run counter to one of Obama’s longest-standing and most often-repeated promises from the 2008 campaign – that he would end the tax cuts for wealthier individuals.

But Obama’s top political adviser, David Axelrod, said Wednesday that the White House has to deal with “the world of what it takes to get this done” – a signal to Democrats that they don’t have the votes to kill the high-end tax cuts in the face of a new Republican House majority and resistance from Democratic moderates in the Senate.

“We have to deal with the world as we find it,” Axelrod told the Huffington Post.

Axelrod’s remarks confirmed what many on the Hill had long suspected, that lingering concerns over the weak economy and the political aftershocks of last week’s election would compel the president to accept a temporary extension of the high-end tax cuts.

The White House did not attempt to walk back the comments Thursday morning, arguing that Axelrod was echoing what the president already stated in his weekly address Saturday.

“The President has been clear that extending tax cuts for middle class families is his top priority and he is open to compromise to get that done,” White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in an email. “He has also expressed concern about the cost of making the highest income tax cuts permanent and is looking forward to discussing this and other issues with bipartisan congressional leaders next week.”

The nod to political reality is the kind of signal Democrats on the Hill have been seeking as they open negotiations next week with Republicans during the lame duck session of Congress.

But it is already being interpreted by the progressive base as a cave-in. They see little reason to cede ground to Republicans because polls show voters don’t favor renewing tax cuts for the wealthy. They say they want Obama to hold firm to his long-time campaign pledge to let those high-end tax breaks expire.

Jane Hamsher, a frequent White House critic, posted reaction last night to Axelrod’s comments under the headline, “Obama Twists Own Arm, Says ‘Uncle’ to Extending Bush Tax Cuts.”

“If he’s the ‘political genius’ guiding the Democrats these days, they should consider themselves lucky it wasn’t 100 seats” that they lost in the House, Hamsher wrote on her blog FireDogLake.

In his weekly address last week, Obama reiterated his campaign pledge of protecting the middle class tax cuts. He also said the country cannot afford to permanently renew the high-end tax cuts, which would cost $700 billion over the next 10 years.

He appeared to outline the shape of a potential deal: A temporary extension for wealthier taxpayers and at least a temporary extension for the middle class.

The tax cuts expire Dec. 31, placing pressure on Congress to strike a deal on an extension during the lame duck session.

"We don't want that tax increase to go forward for the middle class," Axelrod said. "But plainly, what we can't do is permanently extend these high income taxes."

Welcome to the Banana Republic: The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976

C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies

earned an average of 42 times as much

as the average worker in 1980,

but 531 times as much in 2001.

By Nicholas D. Kristof
The New York Times
11/6/10

In my reporting, I regularly travel to banana republics notorious for their inequality. In some of these plutocracies, the richest 1 percent of the population gobbles up 20 percent of the national pie.

But guess what? You no longer need to travel to distant and dangerous countries to observe such rapacious inequality. We now have it right here at home — and in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, it may get worse.

The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.

C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.

That’s the backdrop for one of the first big postelection fights in Washington — how far to extend the Bush tax cuts to the most affluent 2 percent of Americans. Both parties agree on extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of incomes, even for billionaires. Republicans would also cut taxes above that.

The richest 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a tax cut of $61,000 from President Obama. They would get $370,000 from Republicans, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And that provides only a modest economic stimulus, because the rich are less likely to spend their tax savings.

At a time of 9.6 percent unemployment, wouldn’t it make more sense to finance a jobs program? For example, the money could be used to avoid laying off teachers and undermining American schools.

Likewise, an obvious priority in the worst economic downturn in 70 years should be to extend unemployment insurance benefits, some of which will be curtailed soon unless Congress renews them. Or there’s the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which helps train and support workers who have lost their jobs because of foreign trade. It will no longer apply to service workers after Jan. 1, unless Congress intervenes.

So we face a choice. Is our economic priority the jobless, or is it zillionaires? Banana Republic Continued

Nicholas Kristof Blog

Amazon hit with $269 Million Texas tax assessment over sales

By Wallace Witkowski
10/22/10

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Amazon.com Inc. said Friday the state of Texas alleges the online retailer owes $269 million in uncollected sales taxes, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing Friday. The assessment covers sales that occured between Dec. 2005 and Dec. 2009. "We believe that the State of Texas did not provide a sufficient basis for its assessment and that the assessment is without merit," Amazon said in the filing. "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter."

Google Tax Rate 2.4%, Q3 September 30, 2010 Net Income $2.46 Billion

Google's Tax rate on $2.46 billion of net income is 2.4%. Google's income shifting costs the U.S. government as much as $60 billion in annual revenue.

A Married couple filing jointly will incur a 10% IRS tax rate on adjusted net income over $0.00 and not over $16,750. Google makes almost $2.5 billion in a single quarter with a tax rate 1/4 of a married couple making $15,000 per year!

Grandpa is not suggesting a Robin Hood sequel however this is fair how.....?? Oh that's right, it has nothing to with being fair. Dine on government resources, walk out on the bill and tell your server that someone else's grandchildren will pick up the tab.

By Jesse Drucker
10/21/10
Oct. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.

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.

“It’s remarkable that Google’s effective rate is that low,” said Martin A. Sullivan, a tax economist who formerly worked for the U.S. Treasury Department. “We know this company operates throughout the world mostly in high-tax countries where the average corporate rate is well over 20 percent.”

The U.S. corporate income-tax rate is 35 percent. In the U.K., Google’s second-biggest market by revenue, it’s 28 percent.

Google, the owner of the world’s most popular search engine, uses a strategy that has gained favor among such companies as Facebook Inc. and Microsoft Corp. The method takes advantage of Irish tax law to legally shuttle profits into and out of subsidiaries there, largely escaping the country’s 12.5 percent income tax. (See an interactive graphic on Google’s tax strategy here.)

The earnings wind up in island havens that levy no corporate income taxes at all. Companies that use the Double Irish arrangement avoid taxes at home and abroad as the U.S. government struggles to close a projected $1.4 trillion budget gap and European Union countries face a collective projected deficit of 868 billion euros.

Countless Companies

Google, the third-largest U.S. technology company by market capitalization, hasn’t been accused of breaking tax laws. “Google’s practices are very similar to those at countless other global companies operating across a wide range of industries,” said Jane Penner, a spokeswoman for the Mountain View, California-based company. Penner declined to address the particulars of its tax strategies.

Facebook, the world’s biggest social network, is preparing a structure similar to Google’s that will send earnings from Ireland to the Cayman Islands, according to the company’s filings in Ireland and the Caymans and to a person familiar with its plans. A spokesman for the Palo Alto, California-based company declined to comment.

Transfer Pricing

The tactics of Google and Facebook depend on “transfer pricing,” paper transactions among corporate subsidiaries that allow for allocating income to tax havens while attributing expenses to higher-tax countries. Such income shifting costs the U.S. government as much as $60 billion in annual revenue, according to Kimberly A. Clausing, an economics professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, and other politicians say the 35 percent U.S. statutory rate is too high relative to foreign countries. International income-shifting, which helped cut Google’s overall effective tax rate to 22.2 percent last year, shows one way that loopholes undermine that top U.S. rate.

Two thousand U.S. companies paid a median effective cash rate of 28.3 percent in federal, state and foreign income taxes in a 2005 study by academics at the University of Michigan and the University of North Carolina. The combined national-local statutory rate is 34.4 percent in France, 30.2 percent in Germany and 39.5 percent in Japan, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Arm’s Length

Income shifting commonly begins when companies like Google sell or license the foreign rights to intellectual property developed in the U.S. to a subsidiary in a low-tax country. That means foreign profits based on the technology get attributed to the offshore unit, not the parent. Under U.S. tax rules, subsidiaries must pay “arm’s length” prices for the rights -- or the amount an unrelated company would.

Because the payments contribute to taxable income, the parent company has an incentive to set them as low as possible. Cutting the foreign subsidiary’s expenses effectively shifts profits overseas.

After three years of negotiations, Google received approval from the IRS in 2006 for its transfer pricing arrangement, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The IRS gave its consent in a secret pact known as an advanced pricing agreement. Google wouldn’t discuss the price set under the arrangement, which licensed the rights to its search and advertising technology and other intangible property for Europe, the Middle East and Africa to a unit called Google Ireland Holdings, according to a person familiar with the matter.  Link to complete article