Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All they need to do is SPEND that cash on another buyout to obtain new deductible expenses.. It shows you have very little understanding how the business world works, and it explains how I have managed to legally avoid paying income taxes for 8 years.. If you SPEND the profits (or more accurately, re-invest in capital improvements), there is ZERO profit, and ZERO taxes owed.
Well, what a great idea! I propose that you write to AT&T right away and let them know that they don't need to be sending off any $7 billion per year in taxes at all. They can do just what you do and end up owing no taxes at all. Why, they might make you a Vice President of the company or something...
You have not explained (because you can't) why AT&T is not spending cash now on these alleged alternative ways that would be tax dedcutible. Instead, they are paying taxes that cut their profit margin by a third.
You mean their profit margin after deductions. Get it?
Quote:
Do you think that they have been deliberately NOT spending in those "special" deductible areas so as to have them available as a reserve in case the day ever came when they lost the deductibility of their federal prescription drug subsidies?
Clearly, you haven't considered the many companies that have accelerated planned upgrades, etc., when it makes financial sense to do so.
Quote:
The plain reality of the situation says that AT&T loses BOTH the $665 subsidy AND the $945 tax deduction the moment it dumps a covered employee off onto Part-D. That's just the facts. Doesn't matter how you try to huckster your way around them.
BS. More deductible expenses... less tax liability... the gov doesn't get that $945. What about that do you NOT get?
All they need to do is SPEND that cash on another buyout to obtain new deductible expenses.. It shows you have very little understanding how the business world works, and it explains how I have managed to legally avoid paying income taxes for 8 years..
If you SPEND the profits (or more accurately, re-invest in capital improvements), there is ZERO profit, and ZERO taxes owed.
Bingo!
Saganista is giving us a firsthand look at what happens when inept government hacks push agenda-laden legislation. They have NO CLUE what the real world consequences will be, and act all shocked when their legislation doesn't turn out as imagined.
According to their Annual Reports, except for 2005, AT&T has paid at least several billion dollars worth of tax annually. Billion with a "b". Why are they doing that if they have worthwhile tax-deductible purposes that they could be throwing money at, hmmm? Stupid people running AT&T these days?
Why would they choose to pay even more when they don't have to?
Just as our parents or grandparents did. Debt was well over 100% of GDP in the years after WWII. In Japan the number is about 170% right now. You assign implications to the number (which is unlikely to materailize in any case) that it simply doesn't have.
Ok so your plan in dealing with our growing debt is to just stick our heads in the sand? Past generations didn't have to worry about entitlement programs going broke, we do.
War debt is a bit easier to deal with since the war eventually ends and it doesn't need to be supported at anything close to the same levels anymore. Entitlement programs just become bigger and bigger mouths to feed.
Last edited by FargoBison; 03-31-2010 at 07:59 PM..
You mean their profit margin after deductions. Get it?
There is nothing to get. You are trying to use vague deflection as a means to worm your way out of a desperate situation. If AT&T had viable tax-deductible things to do with their money, they would be doing them NOW rather than forking $7 billion over to the government. Get it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Clearly, you haven't considered the many companies that have accelerated planned upgrades, etc., when it makes financial sense to do so.
What do you think the maximum extra tax bill that AT&T could possibly face would be? Is it less than $40 million? How does that compare to $7 billion? What incentives do you think less than $40 million provides that $7 billion doesn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
BS. More deductible expenses... less tax liability... the gov doesn't get that $945. What about that do you NOT get?
I get all of it. Including the fact that it's FALSE. That's the part you keep trying to avoid.
There is nothing to get. You are trying to use vague deflection as a means to worm your way out of a desperate situation. If AT&T had viable tax-deductible things to do with their money, they would be doing them NOW rather than forking $7 billion over to the government. Get it?
Not necessarily. As I said, if it makes financial sense to them all things considered, they will change their plans thereby impacting their deductions. Corporations do that ALL THE TIME. Ask any accounting firm.
Quote:
I get all of it. Including the fact that it's FALSE. That's the part you keep trying to avoid.
Corporations change their plans ALL THE TIME when tax liabilities change. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that just exposes how desperate you really are to hide the negative unintended consequences of the HCR bill.
"In 2003, Medicare part D became available and to give companies an incentive to keep retirees under their prescription drug coverage plans instead of dropping them, the government offered a 28% subsidy. To properly account for the subsidy, the companies set up assets which were then amortized (decreased) as the subsidy was used. All of this is required for proper accounting treatment and proper tax accounting.
The new healthcare bill doesn’t eliminate the subsidy. It changes the tax deductibility of the portion of the drugs paid for by the subsidy- meaning that companies will have to adjust their asset downward to account for this change.
When you decrease an asset, you increase an expense – thus causing a hit to the bottom line. In AT&T’s case the write down will be around $1.6 million."
AND...the article mentions small business, which will be hit harder:
"Small businesses won’t be as lucky. Their increaes in health care costs could be because of the requirement to offer insurance for the first time – which requires an actual cash outlay"
What exactly do you think the health law is doing?
Taking from the middle class and giving to the rich and politically connected.
That sums up everyone of Obama's policies.
Save this exact post for Cap&Trade when that gets passed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
