G.E. made $5.1 billion in the U.S. tax-free

[PICK3]

NYT: How G.E. made $5.1B in the U.S. tax-free - Business - U.S. business - The New York Times - msnbc.com

G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bespectacled, bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm.

The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

 

[mrplunkey]

I used to work for GE.

We'd have quarters where our only breakthrough was in our "tax technology".

 

[mrplunkey]

Welcome to the global economy. This will be the norm soon.

 

[samoth]

They tanked on the Japan nuke news.

Raise your dividends!

 

[redshirt27se]

I'm cool with this. They have to compete with companies world wide, and unless they get tax breaks they can and will find a new market to base out of.

Not to mention they are creating JOBS and exports.

 

[gotmilk]

I'm going to dirty bomb their wind turbines

 

[ceo]

their 400% efficient ones?

 

[PICK3]

"Simplify, eliminate loopholes, treat everybody fairly," Obama said in February.

General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010 - ABC News

 

[EnderJE]

I don't get why there is concern with them. Did they break any laws? No? Then what's the problem? Don't like it? Change the laws.

 

[ceo]

conservatives applaud them. liberals want them all strung up and their profits redistributed to the poor and needy.

 

[EnderJE]

conservatives applaud them. liberals want them all strung up and their profits redistributed to the poor and needy.

That's too bad. They played by the rules / measures given to them. It would be better to change the laws, have no tax breaks to them, and have the rules indicate that the factories for goods must be produced in the country that they are consumed. It would slow down progress, but what the hell...people would be employed and tax revenues would be up.

 

[mrplunkey]

That's too bad. They played by the rules / measures given to them. It would be better to change the laws, have no tax breaks to them, and have the rules indicate that the factories for goods must be produced in the country that they are consumed. It would slow down progress, but what the hell...people would be employed and tax revenues would be up.

That would likely melt-down the entire global economy (almost certainly).

 

[kx250rider]

their 400% efficient ones?

Somebody at GE needs to go back and re-take a few basic high school math & physics classes.

Charles

 

[EnderJE]

That would likely melt-down the entire global economy (almost certainly).

Illogical speculation. People will survive. New businesses will take advantage of the new rules much like businesses have taken advantage of the old ones. Those that can't will likely as for bailouts from the government.

 

[mrplunkey]

Somebody at GE needs to go back and re-take a few basic high school math & physics classes.

Charles

You'll have to take that up with Redsamauri. He knows MIT Ph.D. who write papers and stuff.

 

[mrplunkey]

Illogical speculation. People will survive. New businesses will take advantage of the new rules much like businesses have taken advantage of the old ones. Those that can't will likely as for bailouts from the government.

Not at all. There's no way we could survive the massive productivity loss that would occur from forcing all materials to be sourced in their local countries.

Think about something as simple as weaving cheap cloth. We'd have to grow cotton, setup new gins, rebuild mills, etc. etc. And what about poor working stiffs? There's no way they could handle the hundreds of percent increases in clothing and other staple goods.

 

[EnderJE]

You'll have to take that up with Redsamauri. He knows MIT Ph.D. who write papers and stuff.

I miss him too. I'm doing my best impression, but I don't have the amazing slippers.

 

[EnderJE]

Not at all. There's no way we could survive the massive productivity loss that would occur from forcing all materials to be sourced in their local countries.

Think about something as simple as weaving cheap cloth. We'd have to grow cotton, setup new gins, rebuild mills, etc. etc. And what about poor working stiffs? There's no way they could handle the hundreds of percent increases in clothing and other staple goods.

I totally that progress will stop (and likely go backward), but people / processes / businesses will evolve and survive.

For example, although the price would go up initially, the price will come down when no one is able to afford it.

 

[mrplunkey]

I totally that progress will stop (and likely go backward), but people / processes / businesses will evolve and survive.

For example, although the price would go up initially, the price will come down when no one is able to afford it.

But it will seize-up the economic engine. No one will be able to afford a $25 commodity T-shirt, so no one will buy it. They could drop the price to $15 (still 3x the China price), but then they'd probably make it at a loss.

The only choice would be to not make that product.

 

[-SD-]

But it will seize-up the economic engine. No one will be able to afford a $25 commodity T-shirt, so no one will buy it. They could drop the price to $15 (still 3x the China price), but then they'd probably make it at a loss.

The only choice would be to not make that product.

Companies economies of scale will shrink dramatically, which will force them to increase their margins to compensate for lack of volume sales they count on to stay profitable. Then when their break even point is $15 they go out of business.

 

[mrplunkey]

Companies economies of scale will shrink dramatically, which will force them to increase their margins to compensate for lack of volume sales they count on to stay profitable. Then when their break even point is $15 they go out of business.

I like the way you said it better. That was a more clear explanation.

A big part of the loss is economies of scale. The other would be loss of comparative advantage.

 

[gotmilk]

their 400% efficient ones?

Yeah, these motherF#@$%@# blow up mountains in Maine for turbines that are net loss producers. It's a fuggin scandal here now.

 

[PICK3]

GE chief defends its zero tax bill in 2010 - Mar. 31, 2011

GE chief defends company's zero tax bill