Goldman Sachs Reports "Effective Tax Rate" of 1%!
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
December 20, 2008 6:36pm CST
I couldn't quite believe it when I heard this from Rachel Maddow the other night so I had to see for myself; low and behold, here it is in black and white:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/12/goldman-sachs-r.html
"Goldman Sachs expects to pay just $14 million in taxes this year, giving the bank an "effective income tax rate" of 1% on a global basis, Bloomberg News reports. The news agency says Goldman paid $6 billion in taxes in 2007.
Here's how the firm described its anticipated tax obligations on page four of yesterday's report:
The effective income tax rate was 1% for 2008 down from 25.1% for the first nine months of 2008 and down from 34.1% for fiscal year 2007. The decreases in the tax rate were primarily due to an increase in permanent benefits as a percentage of lower earnings and changes in geographic earnings mix.
“I was definitely taken aback,” Robert Willens, a tax adviser, tells Bloomberg. “Clearly they have taken steps to ensure that a lot of their income is earned in lower-tax jurisdictions.”
The company lost $2.29 billion in the fourth quarter, according to AP, which reminds us that the bank received $10 billion in taxpayer assistance two months ago."
(End of excerpt)
Yes, this is the same Goldman Sachs that recently got $10 from REAL taxpayers and the same Goldman Sachs that says they will cap their bonuses at a mere $400,000 - ten times more than the average real taxpayer earns in a year just in BONUSES!
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
Annie
1 person likes this
4 responses
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
21 Dec 08
Since hearing all of this do you wonder how much of a socialized society/government we are becoming? lol I don't know I mean the government now owns banks and car makers soon it will be taco bells and wendy's lol
I think it's a bunch of shyt that they give huge bonuses to CEO's and CFO's that ran the company into the ground. They are lucky they have their jobs and shouldn't get a freakin penny.
2 people like this
@jerzgirl (9384)
• United States
22 Dec 08
But the powers that be don't see these tactics as socialistic. If they gave the money to the citizens, they'd consider it socialism. But, they're giving the money to their big business buddies who donate big to their campaigns, so it's justified as necessary expenses to save the country - even as socialistic leaders in other countries are cheering that we are becoming more socialistic. I don't have a problem with some socialistic policies that prevent excessive cost in the long run (medical insurance that allows for preventive care rather than only curative treatments after the fact, nutritional supplements for those most at risk for nutritional deficiency, etc), but when there is a double standard applied and the wealthiest few are rewarded for mismanaging their businesses all in the name of "saving free enterprise", it's oxymoronic thinking of the highest degree.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
23 Dec 08
I understand now that there was a loophole in the TARP which makes it impossible to limit the bonuses and compensation for CEO's. All the while we were being told these bonuses would stop they knew that wasn't the case at all! I also hear now these companies are still flying around in their corporate jets and they haven't been held accountable at all for what they're doing with OUR money.
Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
23 Dec 08
I wish I could earn that much too...lol! If I did I'd be happy to pay my taxes, too. As for bonuses, apparently for some of the companies that got the bail-out money they can still give out all the bonuses they please, despite what we were told at the time.
Annie
@jerzgirl (9384)
• United States
21 Dec 08
Shameful, isn't it? I started a discussion about this several days ago and didn't get one response. I hope you do better. They have balls bigger than the moon to ask for tax money to save themselves as they are hiding their profits from having to pay taxes. Audacity and arrogance and greed. That's all it is - let 'em fail!!
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
23 Dec 08
My thoughts exactly about if they won't support our country we should NOT support them - at all! I posted a response to your discussion on this topic and I apologized there for missing it. I honestly wouldn't have started this one if I'd seen yours. It's really sad that nobody seems to even care about this, isn't it? And you know what? Even with huge tax cuts they'd still do the same thing if they could if it meant paying an effective rate of 1%.
Annie
1 person likes this
@jerzgirl (9384)
• United States
22 Dec 08
If they're going to continue to give these boneheads money, then the bailout should be reduced dollar for dollar by the amount of taxes they have avoided paying by taking their money off shore (some $33 million worth, right?) If they won't help support the country, then the country shouldn't help them. Period.
1 person likes this
@jerzgirl (9384)
• United States
23 Dec 08
Well, like I said on your response to my discussion, there is nothing to apologize for. I've done searches to see if people have discussed topics and all I get are discussions well over a year old, so unless you subscribe to mine or happen to see it on the home page or if it happens to be one that shows up on the digest (and with no responses, that wasn't going to happen), you wouldn't know I wrote it.
But, yes - they should not be given anything if they won't give US anything. Simple as that. Let 'em fail!
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
22 Dec 08
I don't really know much about this kind of stuff. Is the money they got from the government a lone? If it is, they should pay it back with interest, but I've never heard of paying tax on money borrowed. Have you heard of it, and do you think Goldman Sachs should? They have taken a loss, therefore their tax rate should go down the same as yours or mine would go down if we took a loss in the stock market. I know people are angry because of what the banks and market did to many of us, but I can't see that they are doing anything wrong in this case. I could be wrong. As I said, I don't really known much about this stuff.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
23 Dec 08
Their 1% tax rate isn't because of their losses but because they moved their business offshore and it has nothing to do with the money we have them. Somehow what they did is legal but in my opinion that doesn't mean it's not wrong, VERY wrong!
Annie
