Stop Outsourcing, Protect California & End Deflation: Mark on FOX’s Cashin In
November 6, 2010
The Cashin In Crew wants us to have MORE outsourcing,
so we can treat American workers as badly as they do in India.
Cashin In attacks California, even though Californians are poor because they’re subsidizing Mississippi and other red states. In this clip, I defend California — and the Federal Reserve as well — because deflation is far more dangerous than inflation.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Mark November 10, 2010 1:38 am
Thank you for writing, Cynthia. My facts on this, as you may be aware, come from an ABC article in April
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Tax/ge-exxon-paid-us-income-taxes-09/story?id=10300167
based on a Forbes article:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_2.html
The article used to say as follows:
“Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.”
It has now been corrected to say:
“Though Exxon’s financial statement’s don’t show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a “substantial 2009 tax liability.” How substantial? “That’s not something we’re required to disclose, nor do we.””
As this article explains,
http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes/
Exxon says it hasn’t “recorded” US taxes for 2009 in its 10-K filing but that does not represent payment.
I am curious though why, assuming you’re right Cynthia, only $500 million is paid on a $45 billion profit. That seems like a 1% effective tax rate. Are you really saying that Exxon’s taxes decreased from $12 billion a year to $500 million a year, less than 5% of what it was before?
Doesn’t that suggest, in fact, that corporate taxes are too low?
I really wasn’t trying to single out Exxon though. I think most all multinational corporations do their best to avoid paying in the USA.
Thanks for writing. It was interesting to go back to the original article I had read and see it corrected. Where can I find evidence to support your statement, Cynthia? Was 2005 a bad year? Where can I find proof of ExxonMobil’s earnings and US tax payments from 2005 to 2010?
cynthia bergman November 8, 2010 3:04 pm
Mark,
This is Cynthia from ExxonMobil. I want to correct something you said last Saturday on Fox regarding ExxonMobil’s 2009 tax payments.
Any suggestion that ExxonMobil has somehow avoided paying U.S. federal income taxes for 2009 is absolutely incorrect. ExxonMobil made over $500 million in estimated payments towards its 2009 federal income tax liability. And we just paid an additional $800 million in estimated taxes for 2010. The final 2009 tax bill will not be known until ExxonMobil files its income tax return later this year.
ExxonMobil is one of the largest taxpayers in the United States and had total income and other tax expenses of more than $60 billion over the past five years. In fact, during the period from 2005-2009, our total U.S. taxes exceeded our U.S. earnings by $19 billion.
Inaccurate claims appear to be based on a misreading of ExxonMobil’s financial statements in its Form 10-K filing with the Security and Exchange Commission.