Even though Facebook (FB) reported $1.1 billion in pre-tax profits from U.S. operations in 2012, it will probably pay zero federal and state taxes—and even receive a FEDERAL TAX REFUND of about $429 million—according to a Feb. 14 statement from Citizens for Tax Justice.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-15/facebook-gets-a-multi-billion-dollar-tax-break
I personally think Obama should be railing about THIS particular tax loophole for the wealthy he so despises. Just Zuckerberg’s taxes alone, if he paid any, would allow Obama to add thousands more to the Democrat polling registers (and the government tit). If he played his cards RIGHT, the Dems could take Ohio completely out of the toss-up category next election day.
Darn shame the BSM (Bull Shit Media for those of you who don’t read me regularly) hasn’t picked this up. Those on the left that understand it would be thrilled, and the majority on the left wouldn’t be able to read the story anyway, so those low-income/no-income voters wouldn’t be pissed at this ‘filthy rich guy paying no taxes’…. The best of all worlds for the Libs and just another entry in a long list of examples of presidential hypocrisy unleashed.
As an aside, Facebook announced yesterday that they had been the target of sophisticated hackers in January – but they want to assure everyone that no data was compromised. Gotcha! Anyone wanna buy a bridge?
FIREBIRD: Thanks for calling attention to this. Although I was barely able to read, much less comprehend, the story (I’m a liberal, you know), and although according to you I’m supposed to be “thrilled,” I share your outrage at Facebook’s tax avoidance. It seems, though, that your real outrage is directed at President Obama, Democrats, liberals, the “BSM,” and “low-income/no-income voters” (of whom I am one). As far as your claim that “the BSM hasn’t picked this up,” I quickly found the story at Business Insider, Huffington Post, and Think Progress, among other outlets. I also had no trouble finding it on the nefariously leftist Thom Hartmann’s broadcast, where he denounced both Facebook’s tax status and its invasions of privacy. Mr. Hartmann encouraged folks who share his outrage–that is, people like you and me–to support the Senate’s “Sanders-Schakowsky” bill for “tax fairness”: Sanders and Schakowsky are both, of course, liberals, but you’re welcome to support their bill anyway. Finally, I’ll note that the report itself on which all these stories are based comes from the Citizens for Tax Justice, a technically nonpartisan group but one that is usually dismissed by conservatives as being “left-wing”. I get it that you don’t like Obama or liberals, FIREBIRD, but how exactly is this story damning to them in particular?
Dear Jack…. Yes, I surmised you are a liberal. As for my ‘outrage’ – I was told early on in my Alexandria days the I seemed to always be outraged, so what you read here is actually me holding it down. You’re new here, so just wanted you to know that. I also tend to throw in snippets of satire and a tongue-in-cheek comment from time to time. I have to smile at the ‘news outlets’ you say have picked up this story. HUFFPO? A news outlet? Are you forreal? And I’m sure Business Insider’s servers are not about to crash due to overload.
Having said that, I mean no insult to those liberals here who can/do read and think rather than spew the party line. Your suggestion that I support Sanders-Schakowsky nearly caused me to have an accident. I seriously doubt whether Bernie Sanders and I could agree that the sun is or is not shining, much less what is considered ‘tax fairness’. My tax fairness plan – EVERYONE PAYS FEDERAL TAXES… even if it’s only the cost of a carton of cigarettes or a month’s cellphone bill (either of which most America’s ‘poor’ can easily pay)
As for my post here – I’m sure Zuckerberg has tax attorneys making sure his stock options are handled legally. I DO have a problem with a company or CEO not paying IN but getting back $429 mil. But hey – that’s America, and neither you nor I wrote the tax laws. But surely, even a liberal, can see the hypocrisy of a president who demagogues the rich like Barry does, while sucking up to them. Another example of this comes to mind….. denying the Keystone pipeline so his a/h buddy Warren Buffet grows richer by the day from hauling oil on his railroad lines.
“Do as I say and not as I do.” B.H.Obama
“I get it that you don’t like Obama or liberals….” Duh…. You’re quick like that! ;-)
My tax fairness plan – EVERYONE PAYS FEDERAL TAXES… even if it’s only the cost of a carton of cigarettes or a month’s cellphone bill (either of which most America’s ‘poor’ can easily pay)
And, once again, I ask you what the freaking point of taking that money out of the Social Security Disability moneys that my mentally retarded brother in law receives would be.
Why not just go ahead and reduce the money he gets from the Federal Government by that much seeing as how the amount of money it would cost to process that tax “payment” would cost more than the amount of moneys sent back to the federal government if that pittance is so damned important to you?
John….. why is it MY responsibility, as a taxpayer, to take care of your brother? Why? I’m not saying I object, but there was a time when his family would have taken care of him. Why is that now the responsibility of the government? Which amendment made that law?
I would also ask you – have you SEEN how many people are now on disability? I would wager 99% of those that have become ‘disabled’ in the last two years are crippled by their expired unemplpyment eligibility.
Why is it my responsibility as a taxpayer to pay for the benefits given to the family of a dead soldier?
And you know frigging well I was NOT talking about your brother! I’m saying – when EVERYONE has skin in the game, they give a shit about how THEIR MONEY is spent AND HOW IT’S WASTED! So do NOT go there with me! We have too many people riding in the GD wagon already and they couldn’t give a shit less how the money is spent because IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY!
When you say EVERYONE in all caps, then you are darned well talking about him.
And you have yet to answer the question of what the social benefit is of having the Federal Government send the money and then have him – or in this case, us, fill out the paperwork and send back $50 or whatever the amount you think appropriate, to the Federal Government.
Once again, she doesnt think about this stuff. What she wants is for everyone to pay income taxes. Almost everyone already pays some taxes. Those who dont pay income tax are largely the disabled, the elderly and the young making minimal wages. If she wants these people to pay income tax, she needs to mostly eliminate the personal deduction. It wont gain us much tax revenue, but it seems to satisfy some emotional longing.
Steve
Those who dont pay income tax are largely the disabled, the elderly and the young making minimal wages.
Are you telling me that 46% of the adults in this country are either disabled, elderly or making minimuum wage? Because 46% are NOT PAYING FEDERAL INCOME TAX
According to new data from the Tax Policy Center, this year 46.4 percent of tax filers will have no federal income tax liability. [http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/ ] From the New York Times – a noted CONSERVATIVE rag! hahaha!
It wont gain us much tax revenue, but it seems to satisfy some emotional longing.
It would satisfy an emotional longing point out that your remark is a condescending P.O.S. You have not answered my previous question. Why is it my responsibility to take care of your brother (in-law)?
Don’t confuse my remarks with Steve’s remarks, okay?
Thanks.
26 corporations earning about $200 billion over a period of 4 years have paid zero taxes. In fact, they have gotten money back. The list is at the link. #0 companies paid none for three years. Is there a reason to single out Facebook? Most of the companeis on the list are energy, health care or GE. Just so you know, many people have railed about the stock option payments.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/notax2012.pdf
Steve
Oops, should 30, not #0.
Plus, George Soros made another billion dollars and billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg keeps going after our 2nd amendment rights, soda pop and, now, styrofoam.
Yet, somehow, the Republicans are the party of the rich white guy. Guess they need a “people of color” puppets like the Democrats have.
The wealthy tend to vote Republican.
http://andrewgelman.com/2012/11/richer-people-continue-to-vote-republican/
Steve
All you’re saying is that the rich white Democrats are better at fooling the poor folks and minorities. Poor folks and minorities and poor folks vote Democratic is huge numbers and Democrats have not lowered the poverty rate overall or for minorities. According to the liberal Urban Institute: 2008 – 13.2%; 2011 – 15%</a..
As noted here:
Politicians will tell you they have been waging “War on Poverty” since the 1960s. But the fact of the matter is that for politicians, poverty is a tried and true friend, and they have no intention of ever reducing – much less ending – it. Consider all the advantages for politicians of having poor people.
First, you have a ready-made constituency who will uniformly and reliably vote for you if you just promise them more government handouts or if you portray your opponent as willing to cut the handouts they are already getting. You don’t even have to deliver on your promises; all you have to do is make them. Next, you have the benefit that comes from non-working poor with lots of spare time, since they are often willing and able to staff your campaigns or show up at rallies.
But maybe the most important consequence of having lots of poor people is that they give politicians control over billions of dollars. Without the poor, the nearly $2 trillion dollars now in the federal budget to “help” the poor would disappear, along with the power and influence it gives the politicians who control it.
This ignores the well known fact that the poor are less politically involved and much less likely to vote. Also, could you please show me where in our budget we spent $2 trillion on the poor?
With some exceptions, the party in power gets voted out if the economy is bad.
Steve
The poor and mnorities still vote in large enough numbers that it makes a significant difference. Denial is not a river in Egypt.
As for the $2 trillion, they’re probably counting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP and safety net programs, which in my book is not an honest figure as they’re implying it’s all to help the poor. Not all SS goes to the poor.
Also, could you please show me where in our budget we spent $2 trillion on the poor?
Can’t do it….. we haven’t had a budget in 4+ years!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-expanding-welfare-empire/
MEDICAID: $275 BILLION ANNUALLY; Then there is federal housing assistance, totaling $77 billion in 2010; The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion; Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion – AND THAT WAS 3 YEARS AGO – I CONTEND THAT NUMBER HAS NOT DROPPED…. Over the 10 year period from 2009 to 2018, federal and state welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion. This does not include Obamacare’s massive expansion of Medicaid, or the massive new entitlement providing subsidies for families making close to $100,000 per year, and beyond. Together, this abusive entitlement spending will add trillions more.]
DADvocate: I especially like the point in the quoted passage about “You don’t even have to deliver on your promises; all you have to do is make them.” That’s no doubt because of the short-term memory problems that poor people notoriously have–they won’t even remember that you promised them stuff but then didn’t deliver, and they’ll keep voting for you anyway! So, just to make sure I understand: liberals ply the poor with handouts, except it turns out the “handouts” are actually empty promises, but poor folks can’t tell the difference? The good news, I guess, is that empty promises, unlike actual handouts, won’t add to the deficit. I’d also like to say that,in fairness to the Republicans, they’ve done their best to use the “puppets of color” strategy: Condi Rice, Michael Steele, Colin Powell, Alan West, Herman Cain–sadly, the GOP puppets either trip over their own strings or get them snipped by party leaders who don’t find them acceptable.
First, you have a ready-made constituency who will uniformly and reliably vote for you if you just promise them more government handouts or if you portray your opponent as willing to cut the handouts they are already getting. You don’t even have to deliver on your promises; all you have to do is make them.
I’ll note that the same argument applies for abortion, the GOP, and Social Conservatives.
And the debt. They talk about reducing it, but actually increase it.
Steve
NO one is reducing the debt – they can’t even seem to REDUCE THE RATE OF GROWTH of spending… I say, the sooner we crash as a nation, and funding to the takers dries up, and they disappear for whatever reason….. the quicker we can rebuild…
I am still unclear what Facebook not paying taxes has to do with investing in Obama.
Steve
Obama has not once mentioned the loophole that allows his buddy Mark to escape paying taxes… yet he wants to take away the mortgage interest deduction for millions of middle income WORKING AMERICANS who couldn’t afford their homes without that deduction …. it’s good to be best buds with the king
FIREBIRD: I don’t know anything about the specific tax loophole that “the king” wants his “best bud” Mark to keep, but I’d be very surprised if you could show me that Republicans have been any more interested in closing that loophole (or any tax loopholes at all) than have Democrats. While you’re at it, perhaps you could also show me where Obama has proposed “to take away the mortgage interest deduction for millions of middle income WORKING AMERICANS,” as opposed to people at the top of the income scale. (BTW, you surely do a fine job of getting folks here all stirred up. Is it your frequent use of all caps, do you think? And thanks for acknowledging my “quick” grasp of your political stance; I tend to use understatement the way other folks use hyperbole.)
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/mortgage-interest-deduction-once-a-sacred-cow-is-seen-as-vulnerable/
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-05/the-liberal-plan-to-end-the-mortgage-interest-deduction
Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction will kick in the ‘law of unintended consequences’ far more Bush 41′s Luxury Tax did in 1991. The luxury tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million. This also showed the government that the rich didn’t get that way by being stupid. They either inherited it or earned it. They bought their luxury items outside the country to avoid the tax. Sorta like John Kerry saved nearly half a mil by docking his recently purchased yacht in Rhode Island rather than in Mass.
If you think that tax was a disaster, just wait until you see what happens to the struggling housing industry if the mortgage interest deduction is taken away from those who buy the high dollar homes.
Home building contributes to the national economy. There are people employed in actually building the structure. Jobs are generated in the industries that produce and distribute lumber, concrete, lighting fixtures, heating equipment and other products that go into a home. Growth in the furniture industry is directly proportional to growth of home construction. Additional jobs are generated for professionals such as architects, lawyers, lenders, real estate agents and others who provide services used by home builders.
The wages and salaries earned in the jobs generated by home building are subject to income and Social Security taxes. Profits earned by owners of the businesses are similarly taxed. Beyond this, states often impose sales taxes on materials sold to home builders, and many local jurisdictions levy fees for approving building permits, extending utility service and for school-related or other impacts attributed to residential construction. [1]
[1] National Association of Home Builders website
Without the tax deduction, how many of those homes won’t be sold? How many won’t even be BUILT? As the housing industry goes, so goes the national economy. Again, you’ll see the wealthy with a condo in NYC and maybe another condo in Florida…. and a luxury home in the Cayman Islands.
Unintended consequences.
FIREBIRD: I’m not disputing the consequences, unintended or otherwise, of ending the mortgage deduction,nor did I take a position on doing so; nevertheless, thanks for the documentation about the dire consequences of such a move. I asked you for evidence that Obama was proposing to “take away the mortgage interest deduction for millions of middle income WORKING AMERICANS”. You kindly linked me (1) to a NY Times article that simply said changes to the deduction were being considered, and specifically said that Obama suggested capping total deductions for upper-income earners ($250,000 and up), not for “middle income WORKING AMERICANS”; and (2) to a Business Week article about a proposal from the Center for American Progress (not endorsed by the White House, though allegedly similar to the administration’s thinking on the issue) that would (according to the article) shift benefits from the mortgage deductions “down the income scale” and away from the wealthy. Also, the proposal would be phased in gradually to minimize its effect on the housing market. Now, it may be that none of those ideas would be good policy, but I just don’t see where Obama has proposed doing what you say he wants to do–unless you’re one of the folks who claims that $250,000 a year is only “middle income,” in which case I’ve got a bridge (as they say) to sell you…
Most of the companies on the list that have not paid taxes for years a re energy companies, long supporters of the GOP. Why would Obama want to help them? Your argument makes no sense. What does make sense is that this should go away. Eliminating the home mortgage deduction is mostly a libertarian/conservative argument, though it has gained ground on the left.
Steve
Don’t confuse my remarks with Steve’s remarks, okay?
Thanks.
Oh my! I’m sorry – my bad!
No problem, we all get a little hot under the collar when we tear into these things.
I truly AM sorry – I was scrolling up and down this page and just got lost – it happens a lot! Thanks…
I know Firebird – please don’t worry about it.
JohnE said: Why is it my responsibility as a taxpayer to pay for the benefits given to the family of a dead soldier?
Ummmm…. YOU don’t pay anything. ‘Survivor Benefits’ are a type of life insurance, and the service member pays premiums, just like a civilian would for a life insurance policy.
Members are automatically insured under Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) for the maximum amount of $400,000 unless an election is filed reducing the insurance by $50,000 increments or canceling it entirely.
You might want to read this: http://www.military.com/benefits/survivor-benefits/servicemembers-group-life-insurance.html
Any so-called ‘benefits’ to the surviving family are based on a contractual obligation between the service person and the federal government, much the same as your employer would provide ‘benefits’ to your family if you were killed in the line of duty.
When my husband was killed in Afghan, I got a lump-sum survivor benefit and Tri-Care medical insurance until I remarried. I could also continue to use the Commissary and PX. Whoopie.
Well, you’d know more about it than I would, but don’t those payments come out of the General Fund, ultimately, in the same sort of way that Social Security payments do? I have line item labelled FICA and the story is that those payments go to fund my eventual Social Security benefits, but the reality is that the money goes into the Treasury, gets spun around in a big mixer that anonymizes all of those funds, and then dollars go out that aren’t traceable back to who put them in.
And to tie the above back to your original question – the reasoning as I understand it, behind Social Security Disability Payments to folks like my BIL is that his parents paid into the Social Security system and that these outgoing payments are a defined benefit of the Social Security Insurance Plan.
Will have to trust you on the SSDI, but what you say makes sense.
To answer your question – money from most every source goes IN to the treasury and then goes God knows where… FICA is designated by law to go into a certain pot, but we all know how THAT works..
In the case of your brother-in-law, the government – in its largesse – has deemed that one service of government is to provide a safety net for people unable to take care of themselves. I agree that this is an appropriate function of government. What I do NOT agree with is what that safety net has been expanded to include.
As far as the military goes – the government (like civilian counterparts) needs X number of employees and wants Y qualifications for those employees, so the government must provide Z benefits to entice people to come work for them. It is a contract like any civilian contract. And since the government does not generate a profit with which to pay its employees, and only takes money from working, tax-paying people, the salaries and benefits due in accordance with said contract technically come from you and me. (Back when we had a military populated by drafting, benefits were minimal. With today’s volunteer military, the benefits must necessarily be competitive.) Military salaries are part of the defense budget.
The SGLI payouts WOULD be comprised of tax dollars plus the premiums paid by the members. The biggest difference between the ‘benefits to survivors’ and Social Security would be…. Everyone who pays FICA, and many who do not, will one day be eligible to collect SSI. Not true in the military – the vast majority of military members do NOT die on active duty (thank God), so they pay into SGLI for the duration of their service, and then walk away with nothing (or go thru the process of converting SGLI to a term policy as part of exiting the service)
What I do NOT agree with is what that safety net has been expanded to include.
Well, I’m with you on that.
LOL – then I’m gonna end on that one! Good night!