However, I do not need to lecture The New York Times on that topic because it knows that lesson well. After all, the newspaper of record has its headquarters in a building built on landseized by the government under the power of eminent domain from ten different owners, some of whom did not want to sell, implying that the government exercise of power saved the developer money. In addition to that benefit, The New York Times also received $26 million in tax breaks in exchange for keeping jobs in New York City.
More recently, for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxes and got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, “The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.” If you don’t think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again.
-
-
-
If it is unpatriotic to minimize your corporate taxes by moving your headquarters out of the country, then it should be just as wrong to collect a tax break in exchange for not moving your headquarters out of a city (or state). Before the editorial board of The New York Times criticizes corporate inversions, they should probably check whether their employer has also benefited from tax-minimizing strategies.
Personally, I belong to the Warren Buffett school of taxpaying: If the tax code lets you do it, then it’s fine; you have no obligation to pay more taxes than legally required. However, newspapers in glass houses should probably not throw stones.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No ones buying what you're selling. Give it up.
No one is buying what NYT is selling. It's a failing newspaper. The Mexican billionaire owned 17% of its shares. Its bias against Trump is too obvious to take it seriously.
Anonymous wrote:No ones buying what you're selling. Give it up.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OK, in that case, never mind. Paying $0 in personal income tax is totally normal. Got it.
You're income is dependent on the dem party, right? There could not be any other answe fir such a stupid comeback.
Are you a longtime poster or a new one? I've posted off and on to the Political forum, and it tends to be slightly more aggressive and combative than other forums, but not exceptionally so.
What I'm trying to say is, dial it down. This forum is for discussion, not for attacks.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OK, in that case, never mind. Paying $0 in personal income tax is totally normal. Got it.
You're income is dependent on the dem party, right? There could not be any other answe fir such a stupid comeback.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OK, in that case, never mind. Paying $0 in personal income tax is totally normal. Got it.
You're income is dependent on the dem party, right? There could not be any other answe fir such a stupid comeback.
Anonymous wrote:OK, in that case, never mind. Paying $0 in personal income tax is totally normal. Got it.
Anonymous wrote:No ones buying what you're selling. Give it up.