Hey Republicans, do you really want to defend this atrocity? And Democrats, why isn’t this a campaign ad already?
The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.
At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.
With federal officials now considering a new tax on petroleum production to pay for the cleanup, the industry is fighting the measure, warning that it will lead to job losses and higher gasoline prices, as well as an increased dependence on foreign oil.
But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.
What, you mean those heavily taxed corporations who required an apology from Joe Barton for Obama’s “shakedown” avoided paying taxes and then to thank those of us who do they cut corners on safety procedures out the wazoo which led to the worst oil spill disaster in American history?
And what’s this bit about subsidies? Why do the richest companies in the world need subsidies? Just asking, but when you make the greatest porofits in history why are individual American persons (not the fictional corporate kind) paying to make your shareholders and executives richer?
According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.
And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by various credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.
You got that? We pay them to gouge us. And this is what the Republican party platform calls for? More of this tax cuts for the rich crap, and deregulation and unsafe off shore drilling?<p
Of course, it isn’t just the oil companies that profit from the US tax code’s preferential treatment of the wealthy. Just ask Goldman Sachs about their tax bill in 2009:
Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) — Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which got $10 billion and debt guarantees from the U.S. government in October, expects to pay $14 million in taxes worldwide for 2008 compared with $6 billion in 2007.
The company’s effective income tax rate dropped to 1 percent from 34.1 percent, New York-based Goldman Sachs said today in a statement. The firm reported a $2.3 billion profit for the year after paying $10.9 billion in employee compensation and benefits.
That of course doesn’t include the federal bailout which resulted in full re-payment of Goldman Sach’s and JP Morgan’s credit default swaps purchased from AIG ahead of other creditors.
Of course real rich people (not just the corporations) get off easy as well under our current system, that has worked so well to generate “good jobs” for our economy. Take a gander at this report:
The effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes has declined by nearly half over the past two decades, even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger, new IRS data show. […]
The top 400 households paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995. This decline works out to a tax cut of $46 million per filer in 2007, or a total of $18 billion in tax cuts for these households per year. […]
Over roughly the same period, the top 400 filers enjoyed huge gains in pre-tax incomes. The average pre-tax income of this group rose by over 400 percent between 1992 and 2007, equivalent to a $275 million increase per person, after adjusting for inflation. In 2007 alone, average pre-tax incomes rose by 31 percent among these individuals.
In short, the top 400 filers now pay much lower effective tax rates on vastly larger incomes.
Hard to believe that there are actually some Democrats who support their Republican adversaries in extending the Bush tax cuts that inflated our deficit and destroyed the middle class, isn’t it?
Some Capitol Hill Democrats want President Barack Obama to extend tax cuts for wealthy Americans now scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, arguing that a tax increase could hinder economic recovery.
“I think there is a certain logic to leaving well-enough alone for now, given the fragility of the economic recovery,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D., Va.). ” It’s a question of prudent judgment and timing.”
Because all that money we tossed away for the benefit of BP, Goldman Sachs, and the [multimillionaire of your choice’s name here] really stimulated the economy, expanded the middle class and made us all happy as clams with the massive number of jobs it created. Oh, wait. Nevermind.
* The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.
* The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.
* The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.
And that was from 2004. Here’s the statistics from 2007:
As can be seen in the second table and graph, individual income tax receipts actually declined slightly from 2001 to 2007. Even total receipts were up just 9.4% over that period. Finally, GDP growth has been no faster than usual since 2001. Hence, although it’s been just about six years since the 2001 tax cut and four years since the 2003 tax cut, the evidence to this point is that the Bush tax cuts decreased revenues over what they would have been, at least over the short term.
Well we all know what happened after 2007, now don’t we? Those tax cuts really dug us a hole which made the Wall Street scams which led to an economic collapse and nearly triggered a world wide second Great Depression even harder to deal with by making the deficit even larger.
So, to make this simple for you, let me ask this one question: Anyone feeling that trickle down effect from all the tax breaks and subsidies we give big businesses, like BP and Goldman Sachs, senior executives and multi-millionaires? I mean other than the yellow colored kind that stinks of uric acid and other bodily wastes? I sure am not (except for the latter variety of course).
Maybe someone ought to inform the uninformed Americans of the Teabag variety who keep hankering to help these poor beleaguered wealthy folks and mega-corporations that more Republican tax cuts for the sharks on Wall Street and the other sharks drilling in the Gulf, etc. aren’t the solution to our nation’s problems. And someone ought to inform our media to stop ignoring the very real tax cuts Obama and the Democrats brought to 95% of working families in America.
Maybe a few Democratic National Committee Campaign commercials might help? I mean the script writes itself, doesn’t it? Just tell the truth. Shouldn’t be that hard to do.