Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Washington Post Reports

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 6:26:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Exxon Mobile only paid 2% taxes last year...

based on an article by nerdwallet.

Hmmm, should we look at the article, or just quote the '2%' figure? QUOTE IT!

The nerdwallet article claims that Exxon Mobile made $73 Billion worldwide, and only paid $3.1 billion in US taxes... Which was 31% of US profits.

Do people really think that the US has some special monopoly on taxing profits made in other countries? Could you imagine if every country thought this way?

You would have a company that operates in England, Japan, and the US. You make $100 million in profits. US takes $30 million, Japan takes $30 million, and England takes $20 million.

Stupid news is stupid.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 6:37:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh hey, I recently read an article on General Electric's tax-record. Last time I had such a query, you helped me out, and you seem to enjoy debunking 'em, so I wondered if you had an omitted context?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 6:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 6:37:34 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
Oh hey, I recently read an article on General Electric's tax-record. Last time I had such a query, you helped me out, and you seem to enjoy debunking 'em, so I wondered if you had an omitted context?

Oops, Huffington Post. All the posts are the same though, crap. Just like CNN, NYTimes, Fox, etc etc etc...

The sooner Americans learn this one thing, the better: News agencies are all crap, are all full of reports by people who aren't qualified to talk about what they are reporting on, are constantly looking for their breakout story, and shouldn't be relied upon, AT ALL.

Until news agencies start sourcing their information, they are all crap.

Ok, that being said.

Huffpost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Quoting Nerdwallet:
http://www.nerdwallet.com...

Nerdwallet compares the US taxes companies pay, to their worldwide income... So full of derp, I don't even...

Also, anytime you see the media talk about 'deferred taxes', I can guarantee they don't understand what they are. They always talk about them like they are taxes that companies just choose not to pay, for as long as they want. Yeah, good luck telling the IRS 'I don't want to pay half of my taxes this year, I'll pay them sometime later'.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:03:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What was their US revenue? The government doesn't tax profit, Jaxson, so that is an equally unfair comparison.
Sapere Aude!
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:06:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And for someone who claims they know so much about how corporate taxation works, it's strange you even thought that to begin with.
Sapere Aude!
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:13:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 7:03:32 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
What was their US revenue? The government doesn't tax profit, Jaxson, so that is an equally unfair comparison.

...

Apollo, the government taxes taxable income, which is income minus all legal deductions. In the case of corporations, that is 'expenses'.

The government taxes profit, not revenue. Do you really not understand that?

"The profit of a corporation is taxed to the corporation when earned"
http://www.irs.gov...

Did you learn about taxes from Ren?

Exxon had, off the top of my head, $9.5 billion in US profits, and paid $3.1 billion in US taxes.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:16:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 7:06:14 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
And for someone who claims they know so much about how corporate taxation works, it's strange you even thought that to begin with.

Lol.

Come on Apollo.

You take your revenues. You subtract deductions. That includes costs of operations(costs of goods, payroll, all necessary and reasonable business expenses). Then you get your taxable income, pre-tax income, or pre-tax profit.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:20:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 7:16:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 7:06:14 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
And for someone who claims they know so much about how corporate taxation works, it's strange you even thought that to begin with.

Lol.

Come on Apollo.

You take your revenues. You subtract deductions. That includes costs of operations(costs of goods, payroll, all necessary and reasonable business expenses). Then you get your taxable income, pre-tax income, or pre-tax profit.

My B. Forgot that Corps can deduct every damn thing from their earnings. But it is sometimes revenue in the cases of multinational corporations. Not sure about this specific scenario.
Sapere Aude!
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:23:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 7:20:39 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 7:16:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 7:06:14 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
And for someone who claims they know so much about how corporate taxation works, it's strange you even thought that to begin with.

Lol.

Come on Apollo.

You take your revenues. You subtract deductions. That includes costs of operations(costs of goods, payroll, all necessary and reasonable business expenses). Then you get your taxable income, pre-tax income, or pre-tax profit.

My B. Forgot that Corps can deduct every damn thing from their earnings. But it is sometimes revenue in the cases of multinational corporations. Not sure about this specific scenario.

No. It's never revenue. Taxing revenue would be stupid.

A company operates on a 6% profit margin, and you think they get taxed 20%+ of their REVENUE?

Get real.

And it's not deducting every dam thing. Why would you want to tax someone on money they didn't actually earn? Profits are what you earn after you pay your bills.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:27:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So Apollo, how do you feel about Exxon paying 31% taxes on domestic pre-tax income? Is that fair? Is that enough? Is that their 'fair share'?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:28:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 7:23:48 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 7:20:39 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 7:16:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 7:06:14 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
And for someone who claims they know so much about how corporate taxation works, it's strange you even thought that to begin with.

Lol.

Come on Apollo.

You take your revenues. You subtract deductions. That includes costs of operations(costs of goods, payroll, all necessary and reasonable business expenses). Then you get your taxable income, pre-tax income, or pre-tax profit.

My B. Forgot that Corps can deduct every damn thing from their earnings. But it is sometimes revenue in the cases of multinational corporations. Not sure about this specific scenario.

No. It's never revenue. Taxing revenue would be stupid.

A company operates on a 6% profit margin, and you think they get taxed 20%+ of their REVENUE?
The revenue taxes are have much lower marginal rates.

Get real.

And it's not deducting every dam thing. Why would you want to tax someone on money they didn't actually earn? Profits are what you earn after you pay your bills.
It is deducting every damn thing. And is there a reason personal income shouldn't work the same way?
Sapere Aude!
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:33:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 7:28:00 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 7:23:48 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 7:20:39 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 7:16:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 7:06:14 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
And for someone who claims they know so much about how corporate taxation works, it's strange you even thought that to begin with.

Lol.

Come on Apollo.

You take your revenues. You subtract deductions. That includes costs of operations(costs of goods, payroll, all necessary and reasonable business expenses). Then you get your taxable income, pre-tax income, or pre-tax profit.

My B. Forgot that Corps can deduct every damn thing from their earnings. But it is sometimes revenue in the cases of multinational corporations. Not sure about this specific scenario.

No. It's never revenue. Taxing revenue would be stupid.

A company operates on a 6% profit margin, and you think they get taxed 20%+ of their REVENUE?
The revenue taxes are have much lower marginal rates.

"revenue taxes"? What are revenue taxes?

The effective tax rates are lower than marginal. Yes. Always.

Exxon paid 31%. Would you want them to pay 31% taxes on their revenues?

Get real.

And it's not deducting every dam thing. Why would you want to tax someone on money they didn't actually earn? Profits are what you earn after you pay your bills.
It is deducting every damn thing. And is there a reason personal income shouldn't work the same way?

Here's the thing, Apollo. If you go to work, and take home a paycheck, you can use that money on yourself.

If you have a business, and you make a sale, about 94% of the revenue from that sale will go toward purchasing the item, shipping, staffing, the business lease, and other expenses.

It only makes sense to tax the money you are left over with.

And FYI, THERE ARE DEDUCTIONS FOR PERSONAL TAXES TOO!

Really, you aren't making a lick of sense. Are you against all corporate deductions, or only some?

How do you think corporate taxes should work?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:37:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 7:33:17 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The revenue taxes are have much lower marginal rates.

"revenue taxes"? What are revenue taxes?

The effective tax rates are lower than marginal. Yes. Always.

Exxon paid 31%. Would you want them to pay 31% taxes on their revenues?
I'm not talking about Exxon. I'm talking about other tax systems in the world.

Get real.

And it's not deducting every dam thing. Why would you want to tax someone on money they didn't actually earn? Profits are what you earn after you pay your bills.
It is deducting every damn thing. And is there a reason personal income shouldn't work the same way?

Here's the thing, Apollo. If you go to work, and take home a paycheck, you can use that money on yourself.
Not really.

If you have a business, and you make a sale, about 94% of the revenue from that sale will go toward purchasing the item, shipping, staffing, the business lease, and other expenses.
And people don't have expenses? Housing, electricity, water bill, gas prices, education, etc, etc.

It only makes sense to tax the money you are left over with.
Exactly. Why does personal income not work that way?

And FYI, THERE ARE DEDUCTIONS FOR PERSONAL TAXES TOO!
There are some. But not nearly to the extent of corporations. Corps. can deduct almost all expenses. People get their income, their yearly revenue, taxed.
Really, you aren't making a lick of sense. Are you against all corporate deductions, or only some?

How do you think corporate taxes should work?
Sapere Aude!
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:42:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 7:37:47 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 7:33:17 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The revenue taxes are have much lower marginal rates.

"revenue taxes"? What are revenue taxes?

The effective tax rates are lower than marginal. Yes. Always.

Exxon paid 31%. Would you want them to pay 31% taxes on their revenues?
I'm not talking about Exxon. I'm talking about other tax systems in the world.

Ok, then why don't you try repeating your point, following the rules of English grammar. I don't understand what "The revenue taxes are have much lower marginal rates" means.

Get real.

And it's not deducting every dam thing. Why would you want to tax someone on money they didn't actually earn? Profits are what you earn after you pay your bills.
It is deducting every damn thing. And is there a reason personal income shouldn't work the same way?

Here's the thing, Apollo. If you go to work, and take home a paycheck, you can use that money on yourself.
Not really.

Standard argument from an idiot. Full of logic, evidence, and properly sourced. Bravo.

If you have a business, and you make a sale, about 94% of the revenue from that sale will go toward purchasing the item, shipping, staffing, the business lease, and other expenses.
And people don't have expenses? Housing, electricity, water bill, gas prices, education, etc, etc.

Uh... whoa! I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT!

Oh wait... we have these things called 'deductions' and 'exemptions' for personal taxes already. Doh!

Guess the IRS beat us to it!

It only makes sense to tax the money you are left over with.
Exactly. Why does personal income not work that way?

It does, lol.

And FYI, THERE ARE DEDUCTIONS FOR PERSONAL TAXES TOO!
There are some. But not nearly to the extent of corporations. Corps. can deduct almost all expenses. People get their income, their yearly revenue, taxed.

No they don't. They get their taxable income taxed.

For instance, if you are married, with no kids, you don't get taxed on at least the first $19,000 of your income.

Really, you aren't making a lick of sense. Are you against all corporate deductions, or only some?

How do you think corporate taxes should work?

Yup. Usually the people who complain have no solutions, because you can't solve the problem if you don't know what the problem is.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:56:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 7:50:38 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Also, you realize that is TOTAL taxes/fees/duties, not income tax....right?
http://money.cnn.com...

Do us a favor. When you want to respond to something, quote it. That way I don't have to try and guess what you are talking about.

And no, the 31% is income tax. Income taxes are reported separately on SEC filings from sales tax/duties/etc.

http://ir.exxonmobil.com...

Exxon paid $108 Billion in total taxes in 2011.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:57:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 7:50:38 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
Also, you realize that is TOTAL taxes/fees/duties, not income tax....right?
http://money.cnn.com...

Seriously Ren, I mean Apollo...

Consider this before you try to 'school' me on taxes. Or anything else, really.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 8:08:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 8:06:34 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
As an accounting major, I can confirm that Apollo knows nothing about taxation.

Lol, where were you when Ren was arguing that a couple filing joint couldn't claim Earned Income Credit unless they both worked?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 8:11:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 8:08:26 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:06:34 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
As an accounting major, I can confirm that Apollo knows nothing about taxation.

Lol, where were you when Ren was arguing that a couple filing joint couldn't claim Earned Income Credit unless they both worked?

Nope. Did he admit his mistake? I mean not everyone knows how the tax system works.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 8:12:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 8:09:14 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Oh Jaxson, pulling out the 10K forms are we? You sneaky bastard.

I know, those damn facts!

Although, I must admit. I have no idea where these studies are getting their figures, when they publish earnings that are different than what the 10k's say, and when they publish taxes paid that are different than what the 10k's say.

Maybe, just maybe, I am wrong, and there is a better source than official financial statements, for finding these 'correct' figures.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 8:13:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 8:11:26 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:08:26 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:06:34 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
As an accounting major, I can confirm that Apollo knows nothing about taxation.

Lol, where were you when Ren was arguing that a couple filing joint couldn't claim Earned Income Credit unless they both worked?

Nope. Did he admit his mistake? I mean not everyone knows how the tax system works.

I walked him through the 1040 and instructions, step by step, to show him there was no such requirement. He just kept pointing to a page on the IRS website that could be taken to mean either way, and said that the 1040 isn't a good enough source.

I finally found a section of the actual EITC publication that specifically said that a joint return qualifies if either spouse has earned income.

Then he admitted it, threw in a few ad hominem arguments for good measure, and claimed that it had no bearing on the overall discussion of personal budgeting that we were having, lol.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 8:16:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 8:11:26 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:08:26 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:06:34 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
As an accounting major, I can confirm that Apollo knows nothing about taxation.

Lol, where were you when Ren was arguing that a couple filing joint couldn't claim Earned Income Credit unless they both worked?

Nope. Did he admit his mistake? I mean not everyone knows how the tax system works.

And that's the thing. I know that. I didn't know the tax system at all until I started working part time in tax season doing returns.

But, when you have someone who doesn't know the tax system, at all, and they are throwing out ad hominems because they don't think you are right... that's just plain idiotic.

"I don't really know what the answer is, but you're an idiot for claiming that the answer is X... Lol, idiot. Stupid moron. Prove it. You are such a dumb-dumb. *proof comes along* Oh... well, you still suck. *sulks away*"

Those are the people I can't stand.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 8:16:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 8:12:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:09:14 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Oh Jaxson, pulling out the 10K forms are we? You sneaky bastard.

I know, those damn facts!

Although, I must admit. I have no idea where these studies are getting their figures, when they publish earnings that are different than what the 10k's say, and when they publish taxes paid that are different than what the 10k's say.

Maybe, just maybe, I am wrong, and there is a better source than official financial statements, for finding these 'correct' figures.

Lol this. Seriously no one knows how to read the fvcking forms anymore.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 8:19:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 8:16:13 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:11:26 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:08:26 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:06:34 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
As an accounting major, I can confirm that Apollo knows nothing about taxation.

Lol, where were you when Ren was arguing that a couple filing joint couldn't claim Earned Income Credit unless they both worked?

Nope. Did he admit his mistake? I mean not everyone knows how the tax system works.

And that's the thing. I know that. I didn't know the tax system at all until I started working part time in tax season doing returns.

But, when you have someone who doesn't know the tax system, at all, and they are throwing out ad hominems because they don't think you are right... that's just plain idiotic.

"I don't really know what the answer is, but you're an idiot for claiming that the answer is X... Lol, idiot. Stupid moron. Prove it. You are such a dumb-dumb. *proof comes along* Oh... well, you still suck. *sulks away*"

Those are the people I can't stand.

Those people are fools. You should eat them.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 8:21:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 8:16:42 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:12:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:09:14 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Oh Jaxson, pulling out the 10K forms are we? You sneaky bastard.

I know, those damn facts!

Although, I must admit. I have no idea where these studies are getting their figures, when they publish earnings that are different than what the 10k's say, and when they publish taxes paid that are different than what the 10k's say.

Maybe, just maybe, I am wrong, and there is a better source than official financial statements, for finding these 'correct' figures.

Lol this. Seriously no one knows how to read the fvcking forms anymore.

Does it drive you crazy too when these people talk about deferred taxes like the companies are cheating the system?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 8:34:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 8:21:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:16:42 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:12:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:09:14 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Oh Jaxson, pulling out the 10K forms are we? You sneaky bastard.

I know, those damn facts!

Although, I must admit. I have no idea where these studies are getting their figures, when they publish earnings that are different than what the 10k's say, and when they publish taxes paid that are different than what the 10k's say.

Maybe, just maybe, I am wrong, and there is a better source than official financial statements, for finding these 'correct' figures.

Lol this. Seriously no one knows how to read the fvcking forms anymore.

Does it drive you crazy too when these people talk about deferred taxes like the companies are cheating the system?

I don't know much about deferred taxes. We haven't gone over them yet.

Care to enlighten me?
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 9:04:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 8:34:07 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:21:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:16:42 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:12:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:09:14 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Oh Jaxson, pulling out the 10K forms are we? You sneaky bastard.

I know, those damn facts!

Although, I must admit. I have no idea where these studies are getting their figures, when they publish earnings that are different than what the 10k's say, and when they publish taxes paid that are different than what the 10k's say.

Maybe, just maybe, I am wrong, and there is a better source than official financial statements, for finding these 'correct' figures.

Lol this. Seriously no one knows how to read the fvcking forms anymore.

Does it drive you crazy too when these people talk about deferred taxes like the companies are cheating the system?

I don't know much about deferred taxes. We haven't gone over them yet.

Care to enlighten me?

Well, I only have a general knowledge, as I believe the applications of the principle are quite vast. It's when you have a discrepancy between the timing of valuation of assets or liabilities. So if accounting practices have you count a gain or loss in a different year than tax practices have you count it, you'll end up with a deferred tax asset/liability.

Really, it's nothing more than weird carryover gains/losses.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 9:17:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 9:04:50 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:34:07 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:21:09 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:16:42 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:12:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:09:14 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Oh Jaxson, pulling out the 10K forms are we? You sneaky bastard.

I know, those damn facts!

Although, I must admit. I have no idea where these studies are getting their figures, when they publish earnings that are different than what the 10k's say, and when they publish taxes paid that are different than what the 10k's say.

Maybe, just maybe, I am wrong, and there is a better source than official financial statements, for finding these 'correct' figures.

Lol this. Seriously no one knows how to read the fvcking forms anymore.

Does it drive you crazy too when these people talk about deferred taxes like the companies are cheating the system?

I don't know much about deferred taxes. We haven't gone over them yet.

Care to enlighten me?

Well, I only have a general knowledge, as I believe the applications of the principle are quite vast. It's when you have a discrepancy between the timing of valuation of assets or liabilities. So if accounting practices have you count a gain or loss in a different year than tax practices have you count it, you'll end up with a deferred tax asset/liability.

Really, it's nothing more than weird carryover gains/losses.

Okay. Yeah I don't see the problem with that. My guess is this ha[pens a lot when income is earned but not yet received.

Its just accrual based accounting.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.