25 Companies who pay their CEO's more in wages then they pay in Taxes

[crownjules]

Flat tax, everyone pays, no exceptions.

The flat tax is a huge joke. It increases the tax burden on the lower and lower middle class while reducing it on the upper middle and upper class. Exactly what doesn't need to happen.

Upper classes have a huge array of options available to them by virtue of their money. They can afford to part with a few percentage points more of it in exchange for the wonderful perks society gives them in return and give the poor a few extra hundred dollars to buy basic necessities.

All that being said, in regards to the OP I don't think it's necessarily wrong that a company pays more to a CEO than it does in taxes. However, using loopholes and tax shelters to avoid taxes is a problem. While a company has an obligation to make as much profit and return an investment to its shareholders, it shouldn't do so at the expense of the obligation it has to help maintain the society that helps foster and grow that business.

 

[BoberFett]

Really? According to numbnuts like you, the wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income than their employees, meaning a flat tax would make them pay more.

So which is it? Were you lying before or are you just stupid now?

I'm still waiting for an answer. You can feel free to answer as well crownjules.

I thought the wealthy paid a lower percentage of their income as taxes, or so the Democrats seem to continually whine.

Also, what kind of loopholes do you want to eliminate? The kind where companies get tax credits for being "green"?

 

[werepossum]

The flat tax is a huge joke. It increases the tax burden on the lower and lower middle class while reducing it on the upper middle and upper class. Exactly what doesn't need to happen.

Upper classes have a huge array of options available to them by virtue of their money. They can afford to part with a few percentage points more of it in exchange for the wonderful perks society gives them in return and give the poor a few extra hundred dollars to buy basic necessities.

All that being said, in regards to the OP I don't think it's necessarily wrong that a company pays more to a CEO than it does in taxes. However, using loopholes and tax shelters to avoid taxes is a problem. While a company has an obligation to make as much profit and return an investment to its shareholders, it shouldn't do so at the expense of the obligation it has to help maintain the society that helps foster and grow that business.

I tend to agree with that last bit, but I see two problems. First, as BoberFett points out, many of these tax breaks are to encourage companies to do something that as a society we think is important, like green practices. I think far too often the good to society is judged far too much by the good to important Congress Critters, but the principal is there.

Second, corporations don't really pay taxes. A tax on a corporation must either be passed on to its customers (a hidden tax on consumers) or deducted from the dividends paid to (or the share price increase for) its shareholders. There's a benefit to government in that corporate profits get double taxed, but this also makes American corporations less profitable and less attractive investments - as well as making it more important for corporations to inject money into our political system to get those tax breaks.

 

[Icepick]

LOL! It sounds like those CEOs are earning every penny of their money by saving the company money. Silly class warfare, apply some logic and basic business sense.

Oh, and life isn't fair, get over it.

LOL. Not sure if serious...

 

[Icepick]

But but but If you raise taxes on corporations and cut the salaries of the CEOs then they'll stop creating jobs and we'll plunge into a recession!!!!

Oh, wait...

 

[spidey07]

LOL. Not sure if serious...

If you structure your capital investments and business to minimize tax burden and increase profit, then the CEO is doing a good job. Absolutely serious. It's basic business sense. You do understand that a CEO has the power to do such a thing, correct? Or possibly he beefs up the finance/accounting department to find more with less regarding accounting/taxes?

And this article and others have been shown to be bunk because of what Fern posted, they pay a lot more taxes than reported in financial statements.

 

[mwtgg]

Book Income != Taxable Income

I'm glad an accountant came in here to sort out this ridiculous thread. Then again, what he said was mentioned in the actual article. Glad to see everyone read past the headline.

 

[spidey07]

Book Income != Taxable Income

I'm glad an accountant came in here to sort out this ridiculous thread. Then again, what he said was mentioned in the actual article. Glad to see everyone read past the headline.

This was even picked up by the AP and has been spread around other outlets with the same class warfare. Buried deep in these articles is something like "based on financial statements". The entire purpose is to mislead and fuel class warfare.

Look to Obama to mention this false claim in his jobs fiasco speech - "Companies and CEOs, millionaires and billionaires aren't paying their fair share. We need shared sacrifice" Bet on it.

 

[Craig234]

That is a problem with the law then. If they are not committing some act of fraud than they technically can't be prosecuted. You act as if anyone making millions of dollars is doing something wrong. For some of it is well deserved for others it should be downright illegal.

I am all for bringing back laws like Glass-Stegal and other legislation that would eliminate conflicts of interest but it is Congress's fault not the corporations (as long as they are not doing something illegal). Congress sets the rules and corporations maneuver within the letter of the law. That is the way it has always been and that is the way it should be. You can't blame corporations for the lack of oversight from Congress and the executive.

Right, when corporations use their vast amounts of money to by our government and then lobby for these changes, they're not to blame at all.

They had nothing to do with it! Why, Congress just forced the changes on them that the corporations wrote for them to pass.

I'll repeat my original response you should re-read about 'high risk high reward'.

It's got nothing to do with 'high risk'. What's their risk? Get fired? Who wouldn't take the 'risk' to earn hundreds of millions, they can have that downside for $10/hours.

'High risk high reward' is nothing but an empty ideological propaganda phrase, it means nothing really. It's about concentration of wealth and corrupting the system.

When these corporations get so big, it's easy to overpay executives, and executive are happy to make that a priority.

An executive doing the exact same thing at a $100 million company as a $1 billion company might make 1/10 the reward - it's not for 1/10 the 'earning'.

Phrases like 'high risk, high reward' are rationalizations for imbalanced looting.

I suggest you read about the Korean families who had too much power and corrupted the economy to protect their wealth. I am having a hard time remembering which book had a good chapter on this - I thought it might be 'Griftopia', but I'm not sure.

 

[mwtgg]

This was even picked up by the AP and has been spread around with the same class warfare. Buried deep in these articles is something like "based on financial statements". The entire purpose is to mislead and fuel class warfare.

The left spins it on way. The right spins it the other. The bottom line is, when you use the tax code to tinker with business and economic decisions, you can't deride those companies/individuals who use these incentives.

I see many companies who pay their executives more than they pay in federal income taxes. Let me share a real world example. We have a client whose book income was $830k on an accrual basis. After the wonders of enhanced bonus depreciation and Section 179 expensing, taxable income dropped to $140k. Not to mention there was an accrual to cash basis conversion for the tax return. Oh, did I mention the executive made just over $500k in compensation?

The company in question paid zero taxes, but that's only because it's an S-Corp. The sole shareholder paid nearly $180k in Federal taxes.

 

[AreaCode707]

This article is completely spurious. CEO pay and US taxes have no connection to each other whatsoever.

If a company is paying their taxes according to the letter of the law, they can throw ever other cent they have at the CEO for all I care.

If a company isn't paying taxes to the letter of the law, prosecute them. If they are and you don't like how much they're paying, change the tax law. CEO pay has nothing to do with either of those options.

So WTF is this article about?

 

[spidey07]

This article is completely spurious. CEO pay and US taxes have no connection to each other whatsoever.

If a company is paying their taxes according to the letter of the law, they can throw ever other cent they have at the CEO for all I care.

If a company isn't paying taxes to the letter of the law, prosecute them. If they are and you don't like how much they're paying, change the tax law. CEO pay has nothing to do with either of those options.

So WTF is this article about?

Class warfare and attack those who make more than you. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[BarneyFife]

Corporations are people too.

 

[Eos]

It could also be an article by which the completely foreign methods businesses use for income and tax reporting is compared to the rest of us.

 

[mchammer187]

Right, when corporations use their vast amounts of money to by our government and then lobby for these changes, they're not to blame at all.

They had nothing to do with it! Why, Congress just forced the changes on them that the corporations wrote for them to pass.

I'll repeat my original response you should re-read about 'high risk high reward'.

Again if they are not doing anything criminal than that is a problem with the laws. Its not a corporations fault Congress is corrupt they only play the game. What is your solution to everything sit in your little corner and cry about everything.

So you are saying anyone can do what Steve Jobs has done for Apple? He has earned is weight in gold for the company and then some. I didn't say everyone did but SOME certainly deserve it.

I was saying that people that break the law should go to jail and face restitution however your solution is to cry about their salaries and ramble on about high risk high reward.

I said before the risk should be seizing their assets or jail time because the "risk" side is out of whack if you read all of my previous posts before but apparently you didn't read.

 

[nobodyknows]

NOOOOO!!!!!!!

If these corporations have to pay a single cent in taxes they'll instantly go under and every employee will have to be let go! Of course, the executives will first be given handsome separation packages for their humble service.

 

[Todd33]

Oh, and life isn't fair, get over it.

So I bet you are for eliminating the bush tax cuts for the rich? Life isn't fair and all.

 

[nobodyknows]

Class warfare and attack those who make more than you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Expecting corporations to pay more in taxes then it pays it's CEO is class warfare? You're dumber then dirt if you really believe the drivel you post.

 

[soundforbjt]

IIRC, corps in the 50's paid 30% of all the taxes, now they pay just 9%. Yeah, they getting hosed big time.

 

[spacejamz]

IIRC, corps in the 50's paid 30% of all the taxes, now they pay just 9%. Yeah, they getting hosed big time.

In case you missed it earlier, corporations are paying what is dictated by the tax laws passed by Congress.

If you have a problem with the taxes that corporations are paying, write your congressman.

 

[soundforbjt]

In case you missed it earlier, corporations are paying what is dictated by the tax laws passed by Congress.

If you have a problem with the taxes that corporations are paying, write your congressman.

Wouldn't do any good, he's in a corps back pocket as most of them are.

 

[Fingolfin269]

So the government takes extra $20m from big co and wastes it on "cell phones for toddlers" or some other stupid program. Meanwhile, big co reports lower revenue, stock is down (affecting many middle class people's 401k), and it scraps it's expansion plans that would've brought 100 more middle class jobs.

Brilliant.

I laughed. Not because it's "funny" but pretty sad that a program called "cell phones for toddlers" could actually happen.

 

[werepossum]

In case you missed it earlier, corporations are paying what is dictated by the tax laws passed by Congress.

If you have a problem with the taxes that corporations are paying, write your congressman.

Who knows? Include a nice fat check and he might even read it.

 

[ayabe]

Who knows? Include a nice fat check and he might even read it.

No his aide will - right before telling you to fuck off via a template email.

 

[werepossum]

No his aide will - right before telling you to fuck off via a template email.

LOL Probably right.

I have no complaint about my own Congress Critters, but I still remember Jim Sasser. That man ran a hell of a Senate office, with people up on every key issue and willing (and able) to spend a few minutes explaining them to you - or at least explain the Senator's position, whether or not you agreed with it. That man should have been President, and had Clinton not started out hard left, he might well have been. I didn't always agree with him, but he was smart, honest, competent, hard working, and had integrity.