Massive CEO rewards for tax dodging
 

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/execut...r_tax_dodging/

Add to this: a large number of those CEOs and other top executives "underpay" or avoid paying taxes on their income completely due to deferrals, hedge accounts, offshore accounts, the tax breaks generously awarded them by the Bush administration, etc. ...

The ability of these corpoartions and their executives to lobby for tax breaks is amazing; this has gone from "no taxation without representation" to "preferred representation with no taxation"...

Source is not European, but American. ;)

And maybe you remember my link/post of maybe 2-3 months ago where a US senator listed on his website all numbers of US corporations that avoided tax payment alltogether, or minimised them to ridiculous marginality. that guy, I can assure you, was no European trojan horse, but a real US senator indeed.

The thing is Sky these corporations are not dodging taxes like this very biased article implies. They are taking the deductions and exemptions allowed to them by law just like any of us would do, so to imply some wrongdoing on their part is, well, just wrong. I admit that I didn't read the link you're talking about but for a US Senator to badmouth people for just following the tax law that he and his fellow Congress critters wrote is pure hypocrisy.

As for how much CEO's are paid, again the article is biased and misleading. What a civilian company wants to pay it's employees, and that includes it's officers, is nobodies business except it's owners and shareholders. End of story. If we ever get to the point of the Federal government setting the pay scales for private citizens, like your article is basically advocating, that is the day it's time to follow Thomas Jeffersons "tree watering" advice.

It doesn't appear that you've read this link either, as it addresses your point.

That's what the argument is. The fact that corporations benefit from a taxpayer supported system without paying into it themselves is not fair. A corporation can be expected to use whatever profit-maximizing mechanisms they can. But the fact that they spend millions of dollars lobbying to keep their sweetheart deal going is indeed worthy of criticism.

The argument that CEOs can be paid whatever the shareholders want to pay them is fine and true, and it's also tired. What people are upset about is that these CEOs are taking advantage of worker productivity to enrich themselves and giving nothing back into the system in taxes that benefits everyone. I think it's a fair argument.

Nice theory. But I have a different one. And that is that things are totally off balance, and that this is not by random fault, but by wanted intention by some who have the power to legalise system deformations that way that they benefit from from abusing it. And all others have to pay for them.

To me, a law has a certain intentions or purpose. Trying to work around it, to bypass it, and trying to find an exit door in the point above the "i", is the same like openly violating it.

We talk about politics and private business being in bed with each other . Which is the death of any democratic regime.

And we talk about criminal energy to avoid taxes, too.

Maybe you would do that too, like you imply in your answer when saying "we all would do". But still is a viollation of the spirit and intention of certain rules and laws, and still it is simply this: "wrong". Excusing it by refering to others, does not change this fundamental fact.

Such corporations often are just this: a closed club of bosses who think the company is just there to fill their pockets, and so they agree to act by a rule of "You fill my pockets and I'll fill yours." All persons outside their club, are just human capital waiting to be exploited. And the society, community, nation - is just a possibility to externalise all internal costs.

It's not clever to excuse such a system. It is organisid gang crime, and comes at the cost of the vast majority of ordinary people, and the desintegration of national and social structures. Not oinly is it immoral - it is antisocial, and corrosive to the basic cement of communities and societies.

And no, that can never be the decision for just a board of directors deciding over the payment of their own club members behind locked doors.

Edit: P.S.
I posted it before, and do it again, third time I think:
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/n...4-a27f59d70de5

I also remind of the now known fact that many banks and investment companies payed their bosses hilarious bonusses in the wake of the crash 2009 - with money that just had given to them from the tax payers tpo bail them out and help repairing the system. Billiions got sunk in pirvate pockets that way. Billions that the poublic had to come up for, and that were meant to repair the system for the benefit of all (whter that is reasonable or desirable, is something different) - not just some parasites at the top.

More obviously blood-sucking parasitism cannot be practised.

Amen to the above!!... :up:

Nice bit of disinformation there Sky. Corporate profits go to their shareholders who pay income tax. What you're arguing for is basically double taxation. Taxing the same profit twice.

Like I said. The Federal government has no right to regulate the pay of private citizens. You want to talk about the death of a democratic regime, there it is.

the question is, how much of those "income taxes" are never paid because the super rich (who own a large chunk of stocks) are dodging taxes as much as they can too. In a perfect world, sure, all us little guys who pay what we are supposed to pay because we can't hide our boats in the virgin islands, or live in Monaco tax free for long enough not to pay us taxes, would give a lot of money back in taxes. The sad part is, with our tax system...that is not the case. Besides, If they are supposed to pay taxes they should. why pass off the bill on somebody else because corporations hate paying their share like they do giving their workers a decent wage?

now, in this climate of Cut, Cut, Cut, Cut, us the little guys keep getting asked for more and more, either through program cuts or tax hikes on subtle things, while The super rich get away with paying lower tax rates than many middle class brackets.

No, a large majority of profits are paid to CEO's, not shareholders and mass amounts of profit sit in overseas tax shelters. Just compare your average shareholders worth compared to the CEO's.

Capitalism doesn't equate you do what you want. We built the strongest middle class in history based on a high corp. tax rate, fair regulation and trade laws, thanks to Bush and others those no longer exist and now 10% control 80% of all wealth. It will be the ruin of this nation as we move into a two class society where rich CEO's have no loyalty to any nation in the global economy, but it will still eventually ruin them as well.

Most studies show another 20 MILLION US jobs will be either moved overseas or simply hired overseas in the next 10 years by US corporations if current trends continue.

I'm not even sure why we call them US corporations anymore.

Gimpy if you have proof of an individual evading their taxes then you should report it. Otherwise it's just more meaningless partisan rhetoric from you.

For instance you should quit equaling the taking of legal deductions with "dodging taxes". Apples and oranges.

Besides. The "chunk" of stock that the "super rich" own is not by any means the largest chunk. If you shake down these companies it will just be passed on to all of us in the form of higher prices and reduced dividends. Don't you realize that the retirement funds of millions of Americans in all economic classes are dependent on those corporate profits that you want to hijack?

You also seem to forget that you could pool the ENTIRE net worth of every one of the super rich and it wouldn't even come close to paying off the Federal deficit let alone the retirement funds of all those "little guys" you claim to want to turn our system on it's ear to help.

so any argument is invalid i say unless I have detailed financial information on all of the top % of earners...how convenient for you...

I'm not talking about legal things. I'm talking about sleazy tactics like hiding yachts in tax free zones, or putting your profits on overseas accounts to deliberately have no taxes on them. But I may add, a lot of the "legal" deductions have been put in place by the greasing of many palms by a swarm of lobbyists

http://static8.businessinsider.com/i...0004/chart.png

whoopty freaking dee! so this fact is supposed to make it okay to let these people live tax free and pampered, when everybody else is supposed to be tightening their belts due the the financial crisis that was caused largely by said group?

Personal worth means nothing toward making your point. How do you know he didn't inherit it? How do you know he didn't marry his money like my good Senator John Kerry?

Besides, show me the business big or small that doesn't pay it's employees more than it pays it's shareholders and i'll show you the business that can't afford the talent needed to survive.

As for overseas tax shelters like I just told Gimpy if you have any kind of real proof of someone breaking the law then you ought to report it or you're just spouting political hot air.

Bull. We built the strongest middle class in history when we abolished the monarchy. In the 20th century the definition of middle class was artificially increased to include the factory workers and other lower class jobs. That has proven economically unsustainable not helped at all by the increasing fiscal demands of those lower class workers.

The loss of jobs overseas is a concern to me as well but until the worlds standard and cost of living evens out everywhere on earth the only way to stop it is by becoming economically isolationist. No matter how much you tax corporations you just can't compete with a person to whom the good life is a regular supply of rice and electricity most of the time. He'll outbid the American union member who thinks his assembly line job makes him "middle class" every time.

Every argument of yours is invalid as long as you continue to lay in the partisan rhetoric bed that you yourself have made. Sorry.