30 Companies Paid Lobbyists More Than the IRS

[boutons_deux]

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/public_campain_lobbying_data.jpg

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/30_companies_paid_lobbyists_more_than_the_irs_2011 1218/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Truthdig+Truthdig%3A+Drilling +Beneath+the+Headlines

And bet that a lot of that money was spent lobbying to kill E Warren/CFPB, gut the rule-making of financial reform, and generally skew tilt the playing field even more in favor of the corps and disenfranchise Human-Americans.

[Winehole23]

in other words, money well spent

[Wild Cobra]

Again, you blame the symptom. Not the root cause. The people in congress who can be bought are corrupt. get rid of them.

[DMX7]

Again, you blame the symptom. Not the root cause. The people in congress who can be bought are corrupt. get rid of them.

The problem is systemic. It doesn't matter who is in Congress because anyone who is in Congress is going to be influenced by that kind of money and because half the time on their job is spent collecting money for their next election.

[DMC]

I would rather spend it on jobs (lobbyists) than taxes (IRS) as well.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem is systemic. It doesn't matter who is in Congress because anyone who is in Congress is going to be influenced by that kind of money and because half the time on their job is spent collecting money for their next election.
I disagree. I do however find people who can be bribed think that way. Think that everyone else has their weakness. Are you corruptible?

[boutons_deux]

Again, you blame the symptom. Not the root cause. The people in congress who can be bought are corrupt. get rid of them.

you can't win, be re-elected without UCA money on your side, and are intimidated with threats that their money will go to opponents

It's pay to play, and if you don't play, they don't pay (you).

I predicted the astro turfer tea baggers would be taking corporate money, Ayn Rand Paul did before he was even elected, and they are all on the UCA "payroll" now. "legit" tea baggers were totally duped by the Kock Bros astro turfers.

USA will NEVER get UCA/financial money out of the political process and legislation because UCA/financial money controls the politics, power they will never yield.

[scott]

Corporate taxes are too high

[Yonivore]

Corporate taxes are too high
Corporate taxes are stupid since they're merely factored into consumer prices.

[DMX7]

I disagree. I do however find people who can be bribed think that way. Think that everyone else has their weakness. Are you corruptible?

It's nearly impossible to get elected without pandering to campaign contributors and lobbyists whose interests are not always best for America or even the district of a specific congress person, so someone who is not "corruptible" (by my definition) isn't going to last long if that person is even elected in the first place.

[Yonivore]

It's nearly impossible to get elected without pandering to campaign contributors and lobbyists whose interests are not always best for America or even the district of a specific congress person, so someone who is not "corruptible" (by my definition) isn't going to last long if that person is even elected in the first place.
If Congress did not have the ability to shift the tax burden around to whomever they wanted, they'd have no reason to pander. Maybe then they could concentrate on doing what's right instead of buy votes with tax policy.

[Spurminator]

If Congress did not have the ability to shift the tax burden around to whomever they wanted, they'd have no reason to pander.

How do you figure? Tax breaks aren't the only thing companies lobby for.

[Yonivore]

How do you figure? Tax breaks aren't the only thing companies lobby for.
Are you suggesting the price point on every product and service offered by a corporation isn't based on the cost to produce or provide -- combined with competition?

Companies lobby to get a competitive advantage. But, if you tax them, they will increase the price of their products and services to compensate.

[Yonivore]

All taxes. Every single penny, are paid by individuals.

[boutons_deux]

tax breaks and salary slashings go towards enriching the mgmt and shareholders, NOT to reducing product selling prices.

[Yonivore]

tax breaks and salary slashings go towards enriching the mgmt and shareholders, NOT to reducing product selling prices.
So, don't buy from companies that engage in such practices. And, if you can't do that, because they're colluding or a monopoly, sue them. For inspiration, see Bill McGowan (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/remember-the-long-distance-warrior-who-took-down-ma-bell.ars).

[Spurminator]

Are you suggesting the price point on every product and service offered by a corporation isn't based on the cost to produce or provide -- combined with competition?

Taxes aren't the only thing that goes into that production cost. Even if they were taxed at a rate of 0% across the board, there would still be things to lobby Congress on.



Companies lobby to get a competitive advantage. But, if you tax them, they will increase the price of their products and services to compensate.

That's not necessarily true. Subway does gangbusters with the $5 foot long because that price is so appealing to consumers. They're not going to suddenly start offering the $5.50 foot long just because their taxes increased, because they would lose customers. They would find a way to make up for it elsewhere, and it could be in any number of areas besides price increases. Labor, supply costs, marketing... there are countless options besides raising prices.

[Yonivore]

Taxes aren't the only thing that goes into that production cost. Even if they were taxed at a rate of 0% across the board, there would still be things to lobby Congress on.
You're right. That and receiving subsidies from collected taxes are the only two reasons companies lobby Congress.

I propose you end the other practice, as well.


That's not necessarily true. Subway does gangbusters with the $5 foot long because that price is so appealing to consumers. They're not going to suddenly start offering the $5.50 foot long just because their taxes increased, because they would lose customers. They would find a way to make up for it elsewhere, and it could be in any number of areas besides price increases. Labor, supply costs, marketing... there are countless options besides raising prices.
And, all of those things have consequences that degrade the quality of their product -- making them less competitive.

Subway does gangbusters with the $5 foot long because the price is appealing and their profit, at that price point, allows them to employ adequate labor, use quality ingredients, engage in appealing marketing...and make whatever "countless option" you care to throw in better and, thus, a competitive data point in their effort to lure the consumer.

Raise taxes and they have to sacrifice something in their recipe for success.

[Spurminator]

You're right. That and receiving subsidies from collected taxes are the only two reasons companies lobby Congress.

I propose you end the other practice, as well.

So companies never lobby on regulations?



And, all of those things have consequences that degrade the quality of their product -- making them less competitive.

Shaving your marketing budget rarely impacts the quality of your product.



Subway does gangbusters with the $5 foot long because the price is appealing and their profit, at that price point, allows them to employ adequate labor, use quality ingredients, engage in appealing marketing...and make whatever "countless option" you care to throw in better and, thus, a competitive data point in their effort to lure the consumer.

Raise taxes and they have to sacrifice something in their recipe for success.

But not necessarily by raising prices, which you said was the only thing that happens when a company's taxes are increased.

They might just have to reduce some executive bonuses that year.

[Yonivore]

So companies never lobby on regulations?
Which, I think is a legitimate function of lobbyists. Companies should retain the ability to lobby for regulatory conditions that make them competitive. I was merely speaking in the context of inflow/outflow of tax dollars.


Shaving your marketing budget rarely impacts the quality of your product.
It does, however, cost you market share...which, reduces profits which, causes cut backs in other areas. Companies aren't going to spend any more than they must, nor are they going to spend any less than they have to, in order to market their product to seek the most profit.


But not necessarily by raising prices, which you said was the only thing that happens when a company's taxes are increased.
Point taken.

My point is that Subway would have to do something that would result in negative consequences to their profitability. Their price point is based on all cost factors and, taxes are one. Any change to those, causes an adjustment elsewhere -- if they hope to retain the same price point and remain competitive.


They might just have to reduce some executive bonuses that year.
I don't know what type of bonuses Subway awarded last year but, I would suggest the bonuses awarded to any of the companies of which you would criticize for doing so, are a speck in the ocean that makes up their balance sheet.

[scott]

Corporate taxes are stupid since they're merely factored into consumer prices.

An over-simplification, often repeated by you in these forums, that is flat out incorrect.

As explained in this thread San Antonio "best performing city in the US" (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187971&page=2), taxes are not merely factored into consumer prices and passed on to the consumers, but burden is split between producers and consumers - the degree to which is determined by the respective elasticities of supply and demand.

[scott]

Are you suggesting the price point on every product and service offered by a corporation isn't based on the cost to produce or provide -- combined with competition?

That's a suggestion that is actually quite easy to make. There are countless examples of products and services which bare a price that has very little or nothing to do with the cost to produce/provide. They are priced the way they are because the market will support it, and for no other reason.

I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with that, just that it's true.

[Yonivore]

An over-simplification, often repeated by you in these forums, that is flat out incorrect.

As explained in this thread San Antonio "best performing city in the US" (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187971&page=2), taxes are not merely factored into consumer prices and passed on to the consumers, but burden is split between producers and consumers - the degree to which is determined by the respective elasticities of supply and demand.
From where do the producers get the dollars to satisfy their portion of the equation, scott?

[Yonivore]

That's a suggestion that is actually quite easy to make. There are countless examples of products and services which bare a price that has very little or nothing to do with the cost to produce/provide. They are priced the way they are because the market will support it, and for no other reason.

I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with that, just that it's true.
That's usually only the case when there is no competition with another provider/supplier...or when crisis severely outstrips supply...when, such practices are typically called price-gouging.

But that's at the other end of the spectrum where competition for market share (either due to collusion or monopoly) allows it. I dare say if the market will only bear a price lower than the cost to produce/provide, the company won't produce or provide -- or -- they will sacrifice in one of the areas already mentioned.

But, back to the other question, from where do the dollars to satisfy the suppliers side of the equation come?

[scott]

I don't know what type of bonuses Subway awarded last year but, I would suggest the bonuses awarded to any of the companies of which you would criticize for doing so, are a speck in the ocean that makes up their balance sheet.

The same can be said about taxes paid.

In any event, I'm not advocating corporate taxes be any higher, any lower, or any more identical than they currently are. But so far as companies benefit from the services provided by governmental agencies (whether municipal, state or federal), they should pay into the system that creates those benefits (in some form or fashion).

I feel The LLC structure addresses this issue quite well with pass-through taxation. This works well for businesses of this size (and the same with S-Corps) because there tends to be a more direct link between the company's profitability and the cash flows the shareholders receive.

My personal opinion is that pass-through taxation loses its feasibility when a company reaches a certain size (either in revenues or number of shareholders) because profitability (in the accounting sense) and actual dividends start to see a major disconnect.

With that said, my personal belief is the US would be better suited with a lower nominal corporate tax rate with fewer loopholes and exceptions, resulting in an overall higher effective tax rate.

[scott]

That's usually only the case when there is no competition with another provider/supplier...or when crisis severely outstrips supply...when, such practices are typically called price-gouging.

But that's at the other end of the spectrum where competition for market share (either due to collusion or monopoly) allows it.

The case you suggest is actually the exception rather than the rule. There are almost countless examples of one supplier setting their price at the market price rather than a price based on their individual supply curve. This is the case in all commodity markets, and is very common in cases where we see monopolistic competition (which is not monopoly).


I dare say if the market will only bear a price lower than the cost to produce/provide, the company won't produce or provide -- or -- they will sacrifice in one of the areas already mentioned.

True statement.


But, back to the other question, from where do the dollars to satisfy the suppliers side of the equation come?

You're going to have to rephrase your question, because I don't understand what it's trying to ask.

[Yonivore]

The same can be said about taxes paid.
I don't think so. Taxes are usually based on a percentage of gross income. I doubt any corporate bonus -- at Subway or elsewhere -- has approached the percentages the IRS expects in corporate taxes.


In any event, I'm not advocating corporate taxes be any higher, any lower, or any more identical than they currently are. But so far as companies benefit from the services provided by governmental agencies (whether municipal, state or federal), they should pay into the system that creates those benefits (in some form or fashion).
And, I'm saying it's done when the individuals that hold stock or ownership pay their taxes, when employees pay their taxes, and when customers pay sales taxes.


The LLC structure, I feel addresses this issue quite well with pass-through taxation. This works well for businesses of this size (and the same with S-Corps) because there tends to be a more direct link between the company's profitability and the cash flows the shareholders receive.

My personal opinion is that pass-through taxation loses its feasibility when a company reaches a certain size (either in revenues or number of shareholders) because profitability (in the accounting sense) and actual dividends start to see a major disconnect.

With that said, my personal belief is the US would be better suited with a lower nominal corporate tax rate with fewer loopholes and exceptions, resulting in an overall higher effective tax rate.
And, I think we'd be better served with a federal sales tax replacing all the imputed taxes already infecting commerce.

[Yonivore]

You're going to have to rephrase your question, because I don't understand what it's trying to ask.
"...but burden is split between producers and consumers..."

From where do producers get the money to satisfy their portion of the burden?

[scott]

I don't think so. Taxes are usually based on a percentage of gross income. I doubt any corporate bonus -- at Subway or elsewhere -- has approached the percentages the IRS expects in corporate taxes.

What the IRS expects and what the IRS gets are two different things. I agree that I doubt many large companies pay 35% of their net income at the end of the year in executive bonuses (though not at all unheard of for small companies - and there are lots of examples of executive bonuses being well above 35% of Net Income - even well above 100% - even incalculable because the company didn't make a profit).

But, do you real think it is unheard of for a company to have executive bonuses on par with their actual income taxes paid in a given year?



And, I'm saying it's done when the individuals that hold stock or ownership pay their taxes,

But they don't necessarily. There is a distinct disconnect between Net Profit and dividends, especially as a company grows larger.


when employees pay their taxes,

This is quite the stretch


and when customers pay sales taxes.

But this is fair argument since sales taxes, though levied on the consumer, are really "paid" by both parties (the split of the burden determined by the respective elasticities of supply and demand).



And, I think we'd be better served with a federal sales tax replacing all the imputed taxes already infecting commerce.

It would be one approach, but one I think has problems due to the variability of elasticities of supply and demand - but not an unnecessarily unsolvable problem.

You do realize that sales taxes also impact a company's profitability, right?

[scott]

"...but burden is split between producers and consumers..."

From where do producers get the money to satisfy their portion of the burden?

From the profits they otherwise would have earned.

"Thinking at the margin" Yonivore. C'mon, you can do it.

Running away from the computer now, be back later.

[Spurminator]

It does, however, cost you market share...which, reduces profits which, causes cut backs in other areas. Companies aren't going to spend any more than they must, nor are they going to spend any less than they have to, in order to market their product to seek the most profit.

It doesn't cost you market share if your competitors have to make similar cuts.

And I think you overrate companies' expertise with regards to finding the optimal marketing budget. There are a ton of wasted ad dollars out there.



I don't know what type of bonuses Subway awarded last year but, I would suggest the bonuses awarded to any of the companies of which you would criticize for doing so, are a speck in the ocean that makes up their balance sheet.

I would suggest you might be surprised. But my point is that if cuts on the supply side of the equation would be significantly detrimental to their business, there would be pay cuts.

[Yonivore]

From the profits they otherwise would have earned.
And, if the profits didn't go to taxes, what would happen to them?


"Thinking at the margin" Yonivore. C'mon, you can do it.

Running away from the computer now, be back later.
Don't insult me, I'm going somewhere with this.

See you later.

[scott]

One last tidbit before I go actually:

A $X sales tax on an item doesn't have the result of rising the price of the item by $X.

So if there is a $1 tax placed on Widgets, and as a result the price of Widgets goes up $0.75, then that $0.75 was the burden on the consumer and the $0.25 is the burden on the producer.

Okay, leaving for real now.

[Yonivore]

It doesn't cost you market share if your competitors have to make similar cuts.
That suggests everyone's product is identically produced and, therefore, there's no difference. Might as well be just one sandwich business.

Each business has a formula for taking their assets and producing a product at a price that is competitive or (as scott points out) that the market will bear.


And I think you overrate companies' expertise with regards to finding the optimal marketing budget. There are a ton of wasted ad dollars out there.
But, it's their money to waste. That doesn't give the government the right to confiscate it just because they don't think it's wise. How are advertising firms expected to make a profit and remain competitive?


I would suggest you might be surprised. But my point is that if cuts on the supply side of the equation would be significantly detrimental to their business, there would be pay cuts.
No, I doubt I'd be surprised and, pay cuts also damage business.

[Yonivore]

One last tidbit before I go actually:

A $X sales tax on an item doesn't have the result of rising the price of the item by $X.

So if there is a $1 tax placed on Widgets, and as a result the price of Widgets goes up $0.75, then that $0.75 was the burden on the consumer and the $0.25 is the burden on the producer.

Okay, leaving for real now.
I understood the premise but, I have the same question.

Who pays the $0.25?

[scott]

And, if the profits didn't go to taxes, what would happen to them?

Any countless number of things. Provide jobs, invest in new equipment, issue a dividend, pay for lobbyists, go to the executive bonus plan, sit in a giant safe for Scrooge McDuck to swim around in...



Don't insult me, I'm going somewhere with this.

See you later.

Dude, I won't insult you if you don't act like a dunce. If you're going somewhere with your points, just go there. No need for me to walk you to the school bus.

[scott]

I understood the premise but, I have the same question.

Who pays the $0.25?

Literally, or effectively?

[scott]

Running off again. Back late this PM.

[DMX7]

If Congress did not have the ability to shift the tax burden around to whomever they wanted, they'd have no reason to pander. Maybe then they could concentrate on doing what's right instead of buy votes with tax policy.

Of course they would have a reason to pander. They would pander to corporations who wanted other things like less regulations or government contracts. Not to mention companies are not the only thing that they pander to. They also pander to lobbyists from "family values" groups and others who want to affect social policy.

[Yonivore]

Literally, or effectively?
Either.

[Yonivore]

Any countless number of things. Provide jobs,...
Salaries go to individuals.


...invest in new equipment,...
No doubt, purchased from suppliers whose assets and liabilities are also shared by individuals.


...issue a dividend,...
To individuals.


...pay for lobbyists,...
Also individuals.


...go to the executive bonus plan,...
More individuals.


...sit in a giant safe for Scrooge McDuck to swim around in...
An individual fowl.


Dude, I won't insult you if you don't act like a dunce. If you're going somewhere with your points, just go there. No need for me to walk you to the school bus.
Every penny of asset or liability, in a corporation, belongs to or is the responsibility of individuals...either collectively or individually. Corporations don't pay taxes. The people who directly affect them do, from employees to consumers to suppliers.

That's my point.

That $0.25 burden in your example is going to directly affect the wealth of individuals.

In 2009, Subway sold $3.5 Billion dollars worth of $5.00 Foot Longs. If my back of the envelope math is accurate, that's $175,000,000 worth of quarters that make up the suppliers burden while the consumer picks up the additional $525,000,000 if, in fact, they're still enamored with a $6.00 Foot Long.

[ElNono]

^Taxes don't go to individuals too? Do they get sucked into some economic black hole?

[scott]

That $0.25 burden in your example is going to directly affect the wealth of individuals.

So does not collecting the $0.25 burden. Everyone understands this. What's your point?


In 2009, Subway sold $3.5 Billion dollars worth of $5.00 Foot Longs. If my back of the envelope math is accurate, that's $175,000,000 worth of quarters that make up the suppliers burden while the consumer picks up the additional $525,000,000 if, in fact, they're still enamored with a $6.00 Foot Long.

It wouldn't be a $6.00 foot long. It'd be a $5.75 foot long in my example. :)

But what's your point again?

[Yonivore]

So does not collecting the $0.25 burden. Everyone understands this. What's your point?
Corporations don't pay taxes, individuals do. The money used to pay Corporate Taxes is drawn from the wealth of individuals and directly affect their individual stakes in a corporation.


It wouldn't be a $6.00 foot long. It'd be a $5.75 foot long in my example. :)

But what's your point again?
Same as above.

[scott]

Corporations don't pay taxes, individuals do. The money used to pay Corporate Taxes is drawn from the wealth of individuals and directly affect their individual stakes in a corporation.




Um... yeah, that's kind of the point of them.

[Yonivore]

Um... yeah, that's kind of the point of them.
I'm not sure everyone sees it that way. And, since you agree, would you also agree the vast majority of those stakeholders are not in the 1% and are, in fact, regular people who have retirement accounts, pensions, etc... invested in corporations?

Corporate taxes are paid by everyone who invests in that company. Many of whom are depending on their investments in some of these companies for their sustenance.

That was my original point. Calling them Corporate Taxes makes them impersonal. It allows groups like Occupy to demonize an abstract and injure real people.

[scott]

I'm not sure everyone sees it that way.

What other way do they see it, and why does it matter?


And, since you agree, would you also agree the vast majority of those stakeholders are not in the 1% and are, in fact, regular people who have retirement accounts, pensions, etc... invested in corporations?

Why does it matter?

And a significant chunk of stock ownership is, in fact, owned by the 1%. The disparity between the number of shareholders and the distribution of ownership in a company kind of goes along with the whole inequality argument being waged.


Corporate taxes are paid by everyone who invests in that company.

That's the point, because otherwise it isn't a true statement without Corporate Taxation.


Many of whom are depending on their investments in some of these companies for their sustenance.

Even if true, are you suggesting that you think tax policy should be tailored to suit people who "need" the money.

And in any event, who are these people who depend on stock dividends for sustenance? And what shitty financial planner helped them make that arrangement?


That was my original point. Calling them Corporate Taxes makes them impersonal. It allows groups like Occupy to demonize an abstract and injure real people.

Make them as impersonal or personal as you want, they still need to get paid. The people sustaining these "injuries" seem to be doing alright.

[Wild Cobra]

Corporate taxes are stupid since they're merely factored into consumer prices.
Isn't it ironic how people don't realize they will pay more for US products by increasing corporate taxes, and less by decreasing them?

Want to return some jobs to America and have less leave... reduce or eliminate the productivity tax!

[boutons_deux]

"less by decreasing them"

bullshit, you have no proof that lower corporate taxes result in anything but the savings being sucked up by mgmt and investors

[boutons_deux]

When oil hit $140 in 2008, the oilco industry gave us a break, refused to suck in windfall profits of $10Bs, and held down the price of gas so as not to damage the US depressed economy even more, right?

G M A F B that lower/no taxes means lower prices.

[DMX7]

Isn't it ironic how people don't realize they will pay more for US products by increasing corporate taxes, and less by decreasing them?

Want to return some jobs to America and have less leave... reduce or eliminate the productivity tax!

There's a differnce between just being factored into prices and actually going entirely into prices. Some of it actually comes out of profits.

Boutons reminds us correctly that the oil industry does not use its tax breaks to reduce the prices in any noticable way, they likely pocket nearly every cent.