Jay Rockefeller asks NFL to open their books

[Beerball]

link

[PromoTheRobot]

Maybe WikiLeaks has something?

 

PTR

[Thoner7]

Well, private companies don’t have to open their books (except for to the IRS) but Public companies do (which is why the Packers do)

 

As an (incredibly over) taxed citizen, I think the Gov, who funds a large part of the stadiums, provided security with police, etc, should require teams to open their books for any public funding. I think it’s outrageous that a 9 BILLION dollar a year league gets government money.

[Mr. WEO]

Well, private companies don’t have to open their books (except for to the IRS) but Public companies do (which is why the Packers do)

 

As an (incredibly over) taxed citizen, I think the Gov, who funds a large part of the stadiums, provided security with police, etc, should require teams to open their books for any public funding. I think it’s outrageous that a 9 BILLION dollar a year league gets government money.

As a tax paying citizen, you should be far more upset that 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005 (that's on 2.5 TIRLLION in income) than over the fact that some local municipalitities decided to invest in an NFL stadium.

 

My guess is that the League response will be "blow me, Senator".

[Spiderweb]

Well, private companies don't have to open their books (except for to the IRS) but Public companies do (which is why the Packers do)

 

As an (incredibly over) taxed citizen, I think the Gov, who funds a large part of the stadiums, provided security with police, etc, should require teams to open their books for any public funding. I think it's outrageous that a 9 BILLION dollar a year league gets government money.

 

Yet another misinformed. While I agree wholeheartedly that the NFL should not receive one time of taxpayer money, you really might wish to consider what others pay in taxes around the world. The USA is actually on the low end individually. Where we have higher rates is in corporate rates, yet this isn't very meaningful when companies like Exxon and GE (and a host of others) paid nothing, zero, nada in 2009. In fact while GE paid zero, they also gained 1.1 Billion in credits. Our corporate rates should be lowered, but to pay ZERO?

 

Tax rates

Edited February 25, 2011 by Spiderweb

[Thoner7]

As a tax paying citizen, you should be far more upset that 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005 (that's on 2.5 TIRLLION in income) than over the fact that some local municipalitities decided to invest in an NFL stadium.

 

My guess is that the League response will be "blow me, Senator".

 

Actually, quite the opposite. I am GLAD that 57% of companies got out of paying income taxes. I don’t want companies paying taxes just so the government can waste it on things like bridges to nowhere, art walks, income redistribution, and …. NFL stadiums. The less the government siphons off from successful businesses (that employ people and produce goods and services) the better, because they will be more profitable and thus can hire more people (and not have to fire people) and be able to offer their goods and services at lower prices. Not to mention that publicly traded companies are owned by stockholders, ie you, me, you uncle joe and aunt cherryl, most of the workers pension plans and retirement funds are probably company stock. When the government taxes their profits its money out of those peoples pockets.

 

PS I also think its rediculous that companies can make money with governement credits. Thats as stupid as it gets.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Thoner7

[Spiderweb]

Actually, quite the opposite. I am GLAD that 57% of companies got out of paying income taxes. I don’t want companies paying taxes just so the government can waste it on things like bridges to nowhere, art walks, income redistribution, and …. NFL stadiums. The less the government siphons off from successful businesses (that employ people and produce goods and services) the better, because they will be more profitable and thus can hire more people (and not have to fire people) and be able to offer their goods and services at lower prices.

 

PS I also think its rediculous that companies can make money with governement credits. Thats as stupid as it gets.

 

It's a matter of balance. Their rates should be lower as the small businesses, unlike the GE's and Exxon's cannot write off what they do or structure themselves off shore (taking jobs away from the USA by the way), end up paying considerably higher percentages. Lower the rates, even considerably, but everyone has to pay. Everyone wants a strong Defense, roads, bridges, police, fire depts, most want schools, reasonable health care, etc., etc., etc. It all costs money.

 

As a note, profits haven't correlated in more jobs in a long long time. Where there is a direct connection is with the personal incomes of the top 1% of individual incomes. From making 8% of the total income in the USA 35 years or so ago, the top 1% now makes 23 % of the total annual income and that's growing (exceeding inflation), whereas the middle class has lost approximately a bit over $100.00 a week in incomes (inflation adjusted) during the same 35 year approximate period. Jobs? Our business moguls have exported more jobs overseas and those taking their place are from the likes of Wal Mart, our number one employer. That's sad.

[jo39416]

Yet another misinformed. While I agree wholeheartedly that the NFL should not receive one time of taxpayer money, you really might wish to consider what others pay in taxes around the world. The USA is actually on the low end individually. Where we have higher rates is in corporate rates, yet this isn't very meaningful when companies like Exxon and GE (and a host of others) paid nothing, zero, nada in 2009. In fact while GE paid zero, they also gained 1.1 Billion in credits. Our corporate rates should be lowered, but to pay ZERO?

 

Tax rates

 

Our corporate tax rates - if lowered - should be offset by a reduction of deductions (or "write-offs") available to corporations.

 

People who focus on the corporate tax rate in the country should shift their focus elsewhere – to tax revenue as a percentage of overall GDP. This shows a more clear picture of how we tax our corporations. When compared to other developed countries - we have the fourth lowest percentage in the world (about 26% - behind Mexico, Turkey and Korea).

 

By simply reducing the corporate tax rate and reducing the deductions available to our corporate tax base - we would effectively lose out of ways to incentivize companies to perform certain activities (i.e. produce in the USA as opposed to overseas)

[PromoTheRobot]

Our corporate tax rates - if lowered - should be offset by a reduction of deductions (or "write-offs") available to corporations.

 

People who focus on the corporate tax rate in the country should shift their focus elsewhere – to tax revenue as a percentage of overall GDP. This shows a more clear picture of how we tax our corporations. When compared to other developed countries - we have the fourth lowest percentage in the world (about 26% - behind Mexico, Turkey and Korea).

 

By simply reducing the corporate tax rate and reducing the deductions available to our corporate tax base - we would effectively lose out of ways to incentivize companies to perform certain activities (i.e. produce in the USA as opposed to overseas)

I wonder how all the "Cut Welfare!" types feel about the fact that NFL (and other sports) luxury boxes, etc are all underwritten by us taxpayers thanks to corporate entertainment deductions?

 

PTR

[silvermike]

I don't care who's saying it, but I think the NFL should open its books as it continually raises prices and insists that its current operating structure demands it sacrifice an entire season. I am inclined to like the NFL, and I'm open to persuasion that the current salary structure is unworkable. But I want them to prove it to me, and I think the players deserve to have it proven to them before they accept less money than before. I don't trust the NFL on this without proof.

[Mr. WEO]

Actually, quite the opposite. I am GLAD that 57% of companies got out of paying income taxes. I don’t want companies paying taxes just so the government can waste it on things like bridges to nowhere, art walks, income redistribution, and …. NFL stadiums. The less the government siphons off from successful businesses (that employ people and produce goods and services) the better, because they will be more profitable and thus can hire more people (and not have to fire people) and be able to offer their goods and services at lower prices. Not to mention that publicly traded companies are owned by stockholders, ie you, me, you uncle joe and aunt cherryl, most of the workers pension plans and retirement funds are probably company stock. When the government taxes their profits its money out of those peoples pockets.

 

PS I also think its rediculous that companies can make money with governement credits. Thats as stupid as it gets.

The fed isn't buying stadiums.

 

Also, corporations don't lower their prices when they make higher profits of pay less taxes--they just keep the extra money. Unless you own stock in the company and it pays a dividend, there is no extra money in your pocket. Whereas the fed actually does take money out of your pocket.

 

There are many things to be happy about. I don't think being personally overtaxed while Exxon pays nothing is one of them. It is a unique take on things, though.

 

If the fed were to lower the corporate tax rate, US companies would be able to bring their profits back into the country to reinvest here. The tax revenues would go up at this lower tax rate and perhaps Comrade Obama would not fel compelled to raise your and my taxes.

[justnzane]

The fed isn't buying stadiums.

 

Also, corporations don't lower their prices when they make higher profits of pay less taxes--they just keep the extra money. Unless you own stock in the company and it pays a dividend, there is no extra money in your pocket. Whereas the fed actually does take money out of your pocket.

 

There are many things to be happy about. I don't think being personally overtaxed while Exxon pays nothing is one of them. It is a unique take on things, though.

 

If the fed were to lower the corporate tax rate, US companies would be able to bring their profits back into the country to reinvest here. The tax revenues would go up at this lower tax rate and perhaps Comrade Obama would not fel compelled to raise your and my taxes.

 

No, but the states are subsidizing it.

 

Furthermore, you are right that they need to kill all the loopholes on corporations and the wealthy.

 

FWIW, Obama wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy and failed to do so. Like most of his goals, the Dems are only will to fight for half of it.

[Doc]

The fed isn't buying stadiums.

 

Also, corporations don't lower their prices when they make higher profits of pay less taxes--they just keep the extra money. Unless you own stock in the company and it pays a dividend, there is no extra money in your pocket. Whereas the fed actually does take money out of your pocket.

 

There are many things to be happy about. I don't think being personally overtaxed while Exxon pays nothing is one of them. It is a unique take on things, though.

 

If the fed were to lower the corporate tax rate, US companies would be able to bring their profits back into the country to reinvest here. The tax revenues would go up at this lower tax rate and perhaps Comrade Obama would not fel compelled to raise your and my taxes.

Doubtful at best. Google and Microsoft, among others tech companies, pay about 2.4% in taxes by going through European and Caribbean countries. While others as you said pay no taxes often-times.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Doc

[KD in CA]

A Rockefeller asking someone else to open their books? That's rich.

[Mr. WEO]

Doubtful at best. Google and Microsoft, among others tech companies, pay about 2.4% in taxes by going through European and Caribbean countries. While others as you said pay no taxes often-times.

Many disagree:

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_62.pdf

 

http://misunderstoodfinance.blogspot.com/2011/02/lower-corporate-tax-rate-increases-tax.html

 

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20732/want_to_boost_the_economy_lower_corporate_tax_rates.html?breadcrumb=/experts/825/martin_feldstein%3Fback_url%3D%252Fabout%252Fpeople%253Ffilter%253DF%2526groupby%253D1%26back_text%3DBack

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html

 

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/08/corporate-tax-stimulus-opinions-contributors_0209_marc_miles.html

[silvermike]

Overall, according to statistics from the Heritage Foundation, the United States takes in 28% of its GDP in taxes. That's not just federal taxes, that state, local, county, whatever. That's somewhere towards the low end of normal among wealthy countries: it's slightly more than Japan and South Korea, but less than Western Europe and Canada. Historically, that's relatively low over the course of the past 50 years.

 

The issue, really, is who is paying those taxes, and who isn't. Corporate tax rates are high, but compliance is low and manipulation is very easy. But corporate tax rates are slightly more complex still, because corporations pay tax on their income, and then their shareholders pay tax on dividends and capital gains. Given the ease with which large corporations can move money out of the US, my hunch is that we're never going to devise a coherent enforcement scheme that captures corporate income, and instead we should focus on shareholders' income. Dividends and capital gains are currently taxed at a deep discount over income from salary or wages. I think it would make sense to let large corporations operate without significant taxation, but capture that income when it's distributed to shareholders, or when shareholders sell stock. Everyone pays based on the money they earn, rather than how they earn it.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I wonder how all the "Cut Welfare!" types feel about the fact that NFL (and other sports) luxury boxes, etc are all underwritten by us taxpayers thanks to corporate entertainment deductions?

 

PTR

 

 

I hate it.

[finknottle]

As a tax paying citizen, you should be far more upset that 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005 (that's on 2.5 TIRLLION in income) than over the fact that some local municipalitities decided to invest in an NFL stadium.

 

My guess is that the League response will be "blow me, Senator".

 

Put another way, you find it outrageous that 57% of US companies had at least one unprofitible year between 1998 and 2005? Shocking! You'd have thought there was a tech slowdown or a national calamity or something. I thought companies were money making machines...

 

Seriously, do you know what the tax bill is supposed to be when you don't make money? Or do you believe companies always make a profit every year?

[KD in CA]

I wonder how all the "Cut Welfare!" types feel about the fact that NFL (and other sports) luxury boxes, etc are all underwritten by us taxpayers thanks to corporate entertainment deductions?

 

PTR

 

Isn't "entertainment" only 50% deductible, versus just about every other expense at 100%? I mean, businesses are still supposed to pay taxes on their profits, no?

[Geno Smith's Arm]

Sharpen the guillotines.

 

Things are gonna get worse.....

[PromoTheRobot]

Isn't "entertainment" only 50% deductible, versus just about every other expense at 100%? I mean, businesses are still supposed to pay taxes on their profits, no?

And yet...

 

PTR

[KD in CA]

And yet...

 

PTR

 

And yet what?

 

You won't hear any argument from me that our elected leaders should not pass laws that specifically exempt big companies or big unions (I've yet to hear you complain about that) from being subject to the same laws as everyone else.

 

Of course, unlike a lot of people I realize that not every company makes a profit every year. Hence, statistics like "OMG....57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005!!!!" are complete nonsense regurgitated by people that don't have a clue.

[nedboy7]

Look at you stupid pawns defend corporations from getting taxed. They sure know how to play dummies. You idiots can barely make an intelligent argument involving football. When you start talking economics on this page you really got a problem.

[Mr. WEO]

Put another way, you find it outrageous that 57% of US companies had at least one unprofitible year between 1998 and 2005? Shocking! You'd have thought there was a tech slowdown or a national calamity or something. I thought companies were money making machines...

 

Seriously, do you know what the tax bill is supposed to be when you don't make money? Or do you believe companies always make a profit every year?

 

 

And yet what?

 

You won't hear any argument from me that our elected leaders should not pass laws that specifically exempt big companies or big unions (I've yet to hear you complain about that) from being subject to the same laws as everyone else.

 

Of course, unlike a lot of people I realize that not every company makes a profit every year. Hence, statistics like "OMG....57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005!!!!" are complete nonsense regurgitated by people that don't have a clue.

 

Yeah, I think we all get that not every company makes a profit every year--thanks anyway.

 

In 2002-2003, 275 of the Fortune 500 made a profit (0ver 100 billion total). 82 0f those paid 0 or less in federal taxes. The average of all was less than half of the 35% statutory rate. These are not moms and pops.

 

 

Seriously, I think you understood the point being made. Drop the corporate rate, eliminate loopholes. If you make no profit, you pay no taxes. But you deduct no losses either--let the market decide your company's fate.

[billsfan89]

If you are going to cry poverty to a federal mediator you should have to open your books. I for one can't stand both sides on the labor dispute as the owners are crying poverty but refuse to open their books (Looks like they are hiding something) while the players are coming off of a huge CBA victory in 2006 and don't get the fact that they are likely going to have to open themselves up to compromise.

 

Yeah, I think we all get that not every company makes a profit every year--thanks anyway.

 

In 2002-2003, 275 of the Fortune 500 made a profit (0ver 100 billion total). 82 0f those paid 0 or less in federal taxes. The average of all was less than half of the 35% statutory rate. These are not moms and pops.

 

 

Seriously, I think you understood the point being made. Drop the corporate rate, eliminate loopholes. If you make no profit, you pay no taxes. But you deduct no losses either--let the market decide your company's fate.

 

Thanks to globalism the USA has actually cut corporate tax rates a lot in the last 60 years. Back in the 1950's the rate use to be close to 50% now its under 40%. But a lot of people argue that its not low enough due to China and India among other nations having corporate tax rates below 20%.

 

I have been studying this issue in my economics class. There are two sides of discussion. One side wants to lower rates and give more tax exemptions while the other wants to heighten tariffs in a more protective manner and close loopholes (Only way you don't pay taxes is if you don't make a profit) while keep rates close to where they are. I haven't come down on either side but its probably one of the biggest issues as far as intercontinental economics goes.

[Mr. WEO]

If the players don't know what's in the books, how, exactly, did they "get" 59.5% of all revenue in the last CBA?

[JohnC]

If the players don't know what's in the books, how, exactly, did they "get" 59.5% of all revenue in the last CBA?

 

Knowing the revenue level doesn't tell you what the profit level is.

[spartacus]

Knowing the revenue level doesn't tell you what the profit level is.

 

I think the point was how did the players ever manage to agree to 59% in the last round of negotiations without seeing the books.

 

 

 

 

 

[Geno Smith's Arm]

Look at you stupid pawns defend corporations from getting taxed. They sure know how to play dummies. You idiots can barely make an intelligent argument involving football. When you start talking economics on this page you really got a problem.

 

I am having a hard time believing it myself.

 

"Stop picking on the conglomerates! They want what's best for everyone!"

[Geno Smith's Arm]

The obvious goal should be to create good paying jobs so that the people who aren't paying Federal taxes would be paying them. The simple solution would be to bring back the millions of jobs shipped overseas,and pay the workers a living wage. Oh yeah. Goods will be more expensive,but not necessarily outrageously so. The fact of the matter is that corporations are not satisfied with a 'good' profit.They want an obscene profit.In Germany, right now, there is a labor shortage. You know. Germany. A country that pays high wages,and has great benefits, and FREE health care for its citizens.

All this talk of 'we're broke' would've never happened if we didn't send the bulk of our wealth overseas over the last few decades so a few thousand fat asses could make billions while the middle class lifestyle becomes more of a joke day, by day.. We are bankrolling China's future domination of the world economy,and the collapse of our economy in the name of GREED.........

 

This seems so obvious, but I think many people have chosen a political party, and whatever the platform of that party is, they will stick with it. Probably because they don't want to admit their chosen party is full of $%^#. Many people consider their party choice a way of life, and have developed an identity that conforms to their party's doctrines. To admit the party is corrupt or misguided would be too damaging to their self-image.

 

(this can be applied to either of the dominate political parties. I think they are 2-sides of the same coin myself)

 

I have no doubt that if (or when) they were able to, the corporate would turn every city into a updated version of the old mining town. Everybody know about those?

 

The company would own the homes, own the local businesses, and of course, control the wages.

 

Indentured servitude (the modern version would allow you to have big screen plasma televisions, and a wide variety of inexpensive Chinese

"leisure goods"to dull the senses) was common (not so different from the current credit system), and everyone was trapped.

 

There are people that post on this board that want the day after the Super Bowl to be declared a national holiday.

[Spiderweb]

Put another way, you find it outrageous that 57% of US companies had at least one unprofitible year between 1998 and 2005? Shocking! You'd have thought there was a tech slowdown or a national calamity or something. I thought companies were money making machines...

 

Seriously, do you know what the tax bill is supposed to be when you don't make money? Or do you believe companies always make a profit every year?

 

A rather poor attempt at spinning the issue. Reasonably well run companies do make profits year in and year out. Sure, they're are some exceptions from time to time, but profitable years far exceed non-profitable years. I could have cited others, but I began with Exxon and GE both as as having not paid any income taxes, while being very profitable, and even worse, GE claimed 1.1 Billion in credits. Yes I have issue with this.

 

I also have issue with "trickle down" economics, often spoke of in years past as Voodoo Economics, Regan-nomics, those very same policies championed by our own Jack Kemp (may he rest in peace). Promises of greater profit to a company, leading to or because of greater productivity, resulting in better wages for the employees simply has never materialized. Those dollars were totally absorbed by the top 1-3% of the income earners. The middle class over the past thirty five years or so has lost more than a hundred dollars a week in inflation adjusted wages. It's long past overdue to put this myth to rest.

 

I would also submit it's long overdue to put another myth to rest, which is that the top 1% are the job creators and we must ensure they get tax breaks to spur employment growth (thru investments of the top %). That as well as not worked. We do however have many jobs in both manufacturing. software, and services that have been shipped overseas eliminating jobs for USA citizens. Again, the only profiteers of this has been the top 1% or thereabouts. When a nation's top employer is Wal Mart, low wages, very limited benefits to no benefits, it is not signaling good times for the huge majority of citizens.