Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/15/15 at 8:26 pm to deeprig9
That's the tax per their financial records. If you look on boeing's tax return, their total tax will look drastically different.
Tax accounting is completely different from book (GAAP) accounting.
Tax accounting is completely different from book (GAAP) accounting.
This post was edited on 4/15/15 at 8:27 pm
Posted on 4/15/15 at 8:30 pm to the808bass
35.3% of their net after-tax profit that year was paid out in dividends. Then the people who receive that dividend pay income tax on it, unless it's a poor granny.
So after expenses, Boeing pays 34% in taxes. Then what is left over, a third of it goes to the owners of the company, but before they can get it, another chunk comes out to the government.
The incomes of all the employees, the incomes of employees of all subcontractors and supplies, all of which come out of their revenue, gets taxed.
The government has its fingers in every single little cookie jar, every time a dollar changes hands.
Please don't act like the government isn't getting a big enough chunk from "big corporaaaaaaations".
It's a childish notion.
So after expenses, Boeing pays 34% in taxes. Then what is left over, a third of it goes to the owners of the company, but before they can get it, another chunk comes out to the government.
The incomes of all the employees, the incomes of employees of all subcontractors and supplies, all of which come out of their revenue, gets taxed.
The government has its fingers in every single little cookie jar, every time a dollar changes hands.
Please don't act like the government isn't getting a big enough chunk from "big corporaaaaaaations".
It's a childish notion.
Posted on 4/15/15 at 8:32 pm to thomass
quote:
thomass
You admitted to being a communist last year, so your opinion is worthless to me.
Posted on 4/15/15 at 8:36 pm to deeprig9
Ok well I didn't do that.
It was simply for your edification. Financials are presented to shareholders. It's different accounting. i just glanced at it briefly and noticed that they claimed no depreciation. Depreciation is probably a huge expense on their actual tax return.
It was simply for your edification. Financials are presented to shareholders. It's different accounting. i just glanced at it briefly and noticed that they claimed no depreciation. Depreciation is probably a huge expense on their actual tax return.
Posted on 4/15/15 at 8:48 pm to thomass
quote:
i just glanced at it briefly and noticed that they claimed no depreciation. Depreciation is probably a huge expense on their actual tax return.
That was actually the first thing I looked for when I pulled up the financials, and also found it odd.
So yeah, there is probably a shite load of depreciation on the tax return.
Posted on 4/15/15 at 10:16 pm to deeprig9
I'll take that as a no.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 1:22 am to the808bass
quote:
And after 2008, the wealthy spent greater than 100% of their income. So you're right, but just not how you thought.
What are you talking about? The wealthy spent greater than 100% of their income? So what's the definition of "wealthy" and what does them going in to debt for being over leveraged during an economic crisis have to do with anything I've said.
Serious question, as I truly don't want you to go any further without explaining "just now how you thought" means but whatever. The marginal propensity to consume is not constant. I don't know if you're just being dismissive because you don't know what I'm saying, or because you don't like what I'm saying.
Posted on 4/16/15 at 4:47 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Companies don't pay taxes. They pass the cost on to the consumer.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News