PDA

View Full Version : General Politics With GE making huge profits every quarter why don't dems close their loopholes?


mlyonsd
07-22-2011, 07:30 AM
July 22, 2011 – BOSTON (Reuters) - General Electric (http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/business/companies/general-electric.htm) Co reported a 21.6 percent rise in earnings, boosted by strong demand outside the United States for its heavy equipment including jet engines and electric turbines.

The largest U.S. conglomerate said on Friday that second-quarter profit attributable to common shareholders came to $3.69 billion, or 35 cents, compared with $3.03 billion, or 28 cents per share, a year earlier.


http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/07/22/ge-quarterly-profit-rises-21-percent/



Just curious why Obama and the dems want to penalize big oil but not GE? GE benefits from huge tax breaks.

I can only think of two reasons.

Dems want to play the hypocritical game of looking like they want more oil drilled while penalizing oil companies enough so they go elsewhere, or, GE really is one of Obama's puppeteers.

LOCOChief
07-22-2011, 07:47 AM
I can only think of two reasons.

Dems want to play the hypocritical game of looking like they want more oil drilled while penalizing oil companies enough so they go elsewhere, or, GE really is one of Obama's puppeteers.[/QUOTE]

Both are true.

Amnorix
07-22-2011, 12:07 PM
Doesn't GE avoid taxes by virtue of massive loss carryforwards? If so, those are perfectly legitimate, and will sooner or later be used up at which point they will be back to paying taxes.

Amnorix
07-22-2011, 12:12 PM
Never mind my prior post. Apparently it's far more than loss carryforward.

Also, this is completely disgusting.

The shelters are so crucial to G.E.’s bottom line that when Congress threatened to let the most lucrative one expire in 2008, the company came out in full force. G.E. officials worked with dozens of financial companies to send letters to Congress and hired a bevy of outside lobbyists.

The head of its tax team, Mr. Samuels, met with Representative Charles B. Rangel, then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which would decide the fate of the tax break. As he sat with the committee’s staff members outside Mr. Rangel’s office, Mr. Samuels dropped to his knee and pretended to beg for the provision to be extended — a flourish made in jest, he said through a spokeswoman.

That day, Mr. Rangel reversed his opposition to the tax break, according to other Democrats on the committee.

The following month, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Immelt stood together at St. Nicholas Park in Harlem as G.E. announced that its foundation had awarded $30 million to New York City schools, including $11 million to benefit various schools in Mr. Rangel’s district. Joel I. Klein, then the schools chancellor, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who presided, said it was the largest gift ever to the city’s schools.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

go bowe
07-22-2011, 01:36 PM
sounds like old fashioned politics are still alive and kicking...

and rangel is an old time politician...

there should be some way to stop this sort of thing...

mlyonsd
07-22-2011, 01:38 PM
sounds like old fashioned politics are still alive and kicking...

and rangel is an old time politician...

there should be some way to stop this sort of thing...

I think it goes deeper. I only used the GE reference because it was handy. The same case could be made for any other corporation making money.

Why do the dems single out oil companies?

go bowe
07-22-2011, 01:43 PM
I think it goes deeper. I only used the GE reference because it was handy. The same case could be made for any other corporation making money.

Why do the dems single out oil companies?

i dunno for sure, but isn't it politically easier to go after oil companies with huge profits while we pay through the nose for gas?

my preference would be to review all tax breaks of any significant amount and close them unless they directly impact national security...

all industries should be treated the same, but at this point, you have to start the process somewhere and oil companies are easy targets...

mlyonsd
07-22-2011, 01:51 PM
i dunno for sure, but isn't it politically easier to go after oil companies with huge profits while we pay through the nose for gas?

my preference would be to review all tax breaks of any significant amount and close them unless they directly impact national security...

all industries should be treated the same, but at this point, you have to start the process somewhere and oil companies are easy targets...

I'm not asking what your preferences are mister. I'm asking why oil when other companies are making huge profits? Easier? That's it? :p

Stewie
07-22-2011, 01:52 PM
Remember when American Express was suddenly a bank?

go bowe
07-22-2011, 01:54 PM
I'm not asking what your preferences are mister. I'm asking why oil when other companies are making huge profits? Easier? That's it? :p

because we don't have a heart attack when we pay for their products like we do every time we fill up?

yep, politically easier i think...

Amnorix
07-22-2011, 02:23 PM
I looked up Charlie Rangel to see if he'd had the decency to retire. Apparently not. In reading his bio, however, I note that he served with the 2nd infantry in Korea, including most notably the Battle of Kunu-ri, and the running of the Gauntlet as the Americans tried to escape the trap laid down by the Chinese.

While that battle is less known here in America, it's worthy of comparison to Guadalcanal, the Battle of the Bulge, D-Day and any other famous battle. Obviously, battles that we don't win get downplayed, but that was one HELL of a fight.

So kudos to him for service, but yo, stop being an ethical disgrace and it's time to go.

Stewie
07-22-2011, 03:18 PM
Remember when American Express was suddenly a bank?

This just flew over CP Federal Reserve and banking experts heads.

Dallas Chief
07-22-2011, 05:08 PM
because we don't have a heart attack when we pay for their products like we do every time we fill up?

yep, politically easier i think...

Bought any lightbulbs lately?

RaiderH8r
07-22-2011, 05:13 PM
Doesn't GE avoid taxes by virtue of massive loss carryforwards? If so, those are perfectly legitimate, and will sooner or later be used up at which point they will be back to paying taxes.

It gets better. All mining in the US, every ounce of gold, silver, copper, platinum, paladium, every metric ton of coal not one penny is paid in royalties. By contrast oil and gas companies pay 12.5% royalties onshore and upwards of 37.5% in the deepwater offshore. Oil is about $100 per barrel=$12 to $37 in royalties (split between the fed and the staate...unless you're Louisiana). Gold is about $1600 per ounce. At a modest 25% royalty that comes out to $400 per ounce in royalties. The US mined 240 tonnes of gold in 2007 so...do the math yourselves.

Chief Roundup
07-22-2011, 10:34 PM
Why don't we close the loopholes for all businesses?

RaiderH8r
07-23-2011, 09:09 AM
Why don't we close the loopholes for all businesses?

Or recognize that a tax structure that fosters cost recovery structure for businesses is preferable. If the tax or tax incentive can not be applied to every business then it should not be implemented. Period. Do it for all or do it for none.

banyon
07-23-2011, 09:34 AM
Or recognize that a tax structure that fosters cost recovery structure for businesses is preferable. If the tax or tax incentive can not be applied to every business then it should not be implemented. Period. Do it for all or do it for none.

That's a silly approach. So, the buggy whip manufacturers should get the same incentives as the 4g broadband internet providers?

mlyonsd
07-23-2011, 09:44 AM
Businesses that take necessary risks to produce a product we need deserve a tax break to recover failures more than a business that doesn't need to take the same risks, IMO.

I fail to see what risks GE takes making wind turbines.

RaiderH8r
07-23-2011, 09:45 AM
That's a silly approach. So, the buggy whip manufacturers should get the same incentives as the 4g broadband internet providers?

I'm saying the tax code shouldn't be crafted with such specificity and preference that it would matter. So yes, yes the buggy whip manufacturer should get the same as the 4g provider.

banyon
07-23-2011, 09:48 AM
I'm saying the tax code shouldn't be crafted with such specificity and preference that it would matter. So yes, yes the buggy whip manufacturer should get the same as the 4g provider.

That's a great strategy for developing strategic industries to be competitive in the global marketplace.

No wonder we're getting our tails handed to us.

RaiderH8r
07-23-2011, 09:51 AM
That's a great strategy for developing strategic industries to be competitive in the global marketplace.

No wonder we're getting our tails handed to us.

If cost recovery through the tax code is a good idea for internet providers why is it a bad idea for whip makers? If there is a global market for the buggy whip then the whip maker will locate based on bottom line costs and if the US tax code can provide a preferable investment climate through cost recovery in the tax code then it doesn't matter. It is an excellent strategy. We either want businesses here based on our tax code or we don't. Whether or not the market exists for those products is independent of the tax code.

HonestChieffan
07-23-2011, 09:56 AM
That's a great strategy for developing strategic industries to be competitive in the global marketplace.

No wonder we're getting our tails handed to us.


You think Washington is capable of selecting the industries for us?

banyon
07-23-2011, 09:57 AM
If cost recovery through the tax code is a good idea for internet providers why is it a bad idea for whip makers? If there is a global market for the buggy whip then the whip maker will locate based on bottom line costs and if the US tax code can provide a preferable investment climate through cost recovery in the tax code then it doesn't matter. It is an excellent strategy. We either want businesses here based on our tax code or we don't. Whether or not the market exists for those products is independent of the tax code.

It doesn't make any sense because the buggy whip industry is doomed and has no future, so essentially, it's just a windfall to the owners of the company and a concordant shortfall in the treasury coffers.

If you believe in free trade, then you also believe in the theory of comparative advantage with respect to factor endowments in the country. So, if you have advantages in the international marketplace, you would be foolhardy to ignore them.

Absolute tax rates are a smaller component of costs than labor costs, so I think you overstate the likelihood of relocation based on lower overall rates, unless the rates are so low that we take in virtually no revenue from them.

banyon
07-23-2011, 09:59 AM
You think Washington is capable of selecting the industries for us?


If they are incapable, then they need to be replaced.

Other countries are doing this successfully.

HonestChieffan
07-23-2011, 10:01 AM
Thats what we need. They call that Central Planning?


Russia demonstrated such success when they ran Agriculture with the Five Year Plan.

mlyonsd
07-23-2011, 10:02 AM
It doesn't make any sense because the buggy whip industry is doomed and has no future, so essentially, it's just a windfall to the owners of the company and a concordant shortfall in the treasury coffers.
F'ing auto bailout. Obama lost the Amish buggywhip maker vote.

banyon
07-23-2011, 10:04 AM
Thats what we need. They call that Central Planning?


Russia demonstrated such success when they ran Agriculture with the Five Year Plan.

No, central planning is Communism when government actually owns the means of production.

None of the countries I am talking about, Germany, Canada, Indonesia, Singapore, India are "Centrally planned" economies.

Targeting companies with tax incentives/subsidies is a far cry from owning them. It's not a binary proposition, your Statler and Waldorfian-analysis notwithstanding.

BucEyedPea
07-23-2011, 10:11 AM
Thats what we need. They call that Central Planning?


Russia demonstrated such success when they ran Agriculture with the Five Year Plan.

Just what does our own central bank, the Federal Reserve do? It does central planning of our economy through the manipulation of interest rates and money supply———>which creates the boom&bust cycles. It's makes market players feel richer than they are when they have NOT produced more of anything which results in malinvestments which must be liquidated in the bust phase.

When it stimulates via inflation to prevent a recession from becoming a depression, it's a loss of value in the money which hurts the small guy for a bunch of crony connected financial institutions. Ya' know the guys who benefited most in the Big Bank Bailout? Then they change the CPI numbers to disguise the inflation. However, the cycle repeats. This is central planning too.

Then our govt gets more money to spend on its pet projects and puts it into areas which creates cones of activity— over-heated areas of activity and/or speculation such as the dotcom boom and the real estate boom under Bush.

Yet you support all this HCF, even defend mercantilists such as the Koch Brothers and big financial houses being rescued. How does this make you different from the left except that money just goes to business corporations and things you prefer instead of arguing for a free-market? I'll answer that — it doesn't. It's the same game.

HonestChieffan is an advocate for central planning too.

RaiderH8r
07-23-2011, 10:33 AM
It doesn't make any sense because the buggy whip industry is doomed and has no future, so essentially, it's just a windfall to the owners of the company and a concordant shortfall in the treasury coffers.

If you believe in free trade, then you also believe in the theory of comparative advantage with respect to factor endowments in the country. So, if you have advantages in the international marketplace, you would be foolhardy to ignore them.

Absolute tax rates are a smaller component of costs than labor costs, so I think you overstate the likelihood of relocation based on lower overall rates, unless the rates are so low that we take in virtually no revenue from them.

Then you're cool with current tax policy?

Again, it is tax statutes like writing off labor costs, business expenses, depreciation, shit like that that should be applied across the board. Is there nobody in the world using a buggy whip? Seems your analysis is far more myopic than you are likely to conceed.

banyon
07-23-2011, 10:37 AM
Then you're cool with current tax policy?

Again, it is tax statutes like writing off labor costs, business expenses, depreciation, shit like that that should be applied across the board. Is there nobody in the world using a buggy whip? Seems your analysis is far more myopic than you are likely to conceed.

No, I'm not cool with current tax policies, there are far too many loopholes in the code so that virtually no company pays anything approaching the stated top marginal rate. That doesn't mean I have to swing the pendulum back all the way the other way to some "soup-Nazi" esque Soup for everyone or soup for no-one type of oversimplification.

The buggy whip example an analogy for any industry that isn't likely to be an important one for american productivity. You can substitute whatever you'd like to make the analogy less "myopic" (phone landline companies, diesel engine manufacturers, tobacco, whatever).

HonestChieffan
07-23-2011, 10:45 AM
Just what does our own central bank, the Federal Reserve do? It does central planning of our economy through the manipulation of interest rates and money supply———>which creates the boom&bust cycles. It's makes market players feel richer than they are when they have NOT produced more of anything which results in malinvestments which must be liquidated in the bust phase.

When it stimulates via inflation to prevent a recession from becoming a depression, it's a loss of value in the money which hurts the small guy for a bunch of crony connected financial institutions. Ya' know the guys who benefited most in the Big Bank Bailout? Then they change the CPI numbers to disguise the inflation. However, the cycle repeats. This is central planning too.

Then our govt gets more money to spend on its pet projects and puts it into areas which creates cones of activity— over-heated areas of activity and/or speculation such as the dotcom boom and the real estate boom under Bush.

Yet you support all this HCF, even defend mercantilists such as the Koch Brothers and big financial houses being rescued. How does this make you different from the left except that money just goes to business corporations and things you prefer instead of arguing for a free-market? I'll answer that — it doesn't. It's the same game.

HonestChieffan is an advocate for central planning too.

Fuck if I know what the Fed does. I spent a good deal of time yesterday tryiing to find out.

BucEyedPea
07-23-2011, 10:54 AM
**** if I know what the Fed does.
So you finally are admitting this?

But you saw nothing wrong with secret loans to private or foreign interests by them?


interests I spent a good deal of time yesterday tryiing to find out.

That thread put their wrong-doing right out there in front to be seen using words such as "secret" "foreign" and "conflict of interest" which imo were pretty obviously wrongs. Here, you're railing against central planning—a different angle of the institution. This angle is not considered wrong-doing per se; in fact some on the left and right support it. ( I don't.)

I still say trying to find out in a thread about overt wrongdoing all about how it operates is not the place. That will take more in-depth reading about them on your own instead of expecting to be educated fully on a message board, using up other peoples time when you should use your own time and effort.

HonestChieffan
07-23-2011, 10:57 AM
I thought the feds job, among other things was to loan money.

BucEyedPea
07-23-2011, 10:58 AM
I thought the feds job, among other things was to loan money.
feds or the Fed?

BucEyedPea
07-23-2011, 11:00 AM
I thought the feds job, among other things was to loan money.

May I ask why you ignore the terms "secret" and "foreign" or even "conflict of interest" as to whom was lent this money?

HonestChieffan
07-23-2011, 11:03 AM
Most loans are secret. I dont tell anyone what I borrow. Or who from. In business confidentiality is a common practice.


Regardless, is there some evidence of wrongdoing.....oh shit this is the same monkey fuck as yesterday.


Im gonna go haul some real horsepoop and be productive.

BucEyedPea
07-23-2011, 11:09 AM
Most loans are secret. I dont tell anyone what I borrow. Or who from. In business confidentiality is a common practice.
Pluh-ease. A hybrid institution, which the Fed actually is because it was formed by govt legislation, and where the taxpayer pays the bill does not get to loan money to crony special interests, while excluding others nor to foreign banks and be able to call it fully private. Furthermore, it does steer the economy and has a lot more to do with our bubbles and busts than any sitting president although they operate more in tandem than thought.


Regardless, is there some evidence of wrongdoing.....oh shit this is the same monkey **** as yesterday.


Evidence? There was an audit and the wrongdoing was pretty obvious. I don't feel such an institution is needed the same way President Jackson didn't because it becomes corrupt. Even if you do it should be subject to some transparency and oversight when the taxpayer foots the bill through inflation and currency devaluation because the money is created from nothing.

RaiderH8r
07-23-2011, 02:36 PM
No, I'm not cool with current tax policies, there are far too many loopholes in the code so that virtually no company pays anything approaching the stated top marginal rate. That doesn't mean I have to swing the pendulum back all the way the other way to some "soup-Nazi" esque Soup for everyone or soup for no-one type of oversimplification.

The buggy whip example an analogy for any industry that isn't likely to be an important one for american productivity. You can substitute whatever you'd like to make the analogy less "myopic" (phone landline companies, diesel engine manufacturers, tobacco, whatever).

There's no industry that should be too "anitiquated" for American productivity. Just because we don't use buggy whips here doesn't mean they're not used or that the market doesn't exist for them. Same for diesel engine manufacturers or tobacco. I don't understand this predisposition by some in this country to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of what products should compromise American productivity and American goods. What they "deem" to be useful products. It is bullshit and it is presumptuous. We should strive to make everything we can in America. It is a global market and if American made diesel engines are what we export then that is great. Why should we strive to make cars in America, going so far as to continually bail out Detroit, if we shouldn't make the engines that power them. Hell, there's a greater global market share for diesel engines than gasoline. WTF is wrong with people.

And hell yes we should be growing tobacco, by the f'ing boatload. It is what made America solvent for hundreds of years and there is one hell of a market for the product. Let me guess, we should decriminalize Marijuana right? Well, why do those same people insist on criminalizing tobacco? It is f'ing ridiculous and retarded. And don't give me that cancer crap. If somebody doesn't know that sucking down smokes is bad for you then no amount of "education" is going to change their minds.

banyon
07-23-2011, 06:02 PM
There's no industry that should be too "anitiquated" for American productivity. Just because we don't use buggy whips here doesn't mean they're not used or that the market doesn't exist for them.

Uh, :spock: . Just :spock: .

Same for diesel engine manufacturers or tobacco. I don't understand this predisposition by some in this country to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of what products should compromise American productivity and American goods. What they "deem" to be useful products. It is bullshit and it is presumptuous. We should strive to make everything we can in America. It is a global market and if American made diesel engines are what we export then that is great. Why should we strive to make cars in America, going so far as to continually bail out Detroit, if we shouldn't make the engines that power them. Hell, there's a greater global market share for diesel engines than gasoline. WTF is wrong with people.

What's wrong with people? I guess what's wrong is that they recognize the fact of global competition. And it's not just a Wily-Nilly free for all, countries are cooperating with industries and competing to get jobs and income from certain industries. Your view might work if we were back in the 19th century and mostly separated by two oceans from being able to import/export whatever products there were.

And hell yes we should be growing tobacco, by the f'ing boatload. It is what made America solvent for hundreds of years and there is one hell of a market for the product.

Of course we should grow tobacco. The point, that you keep missing is that it is an industry that is shrinking at a rapid pace, and if you want to concentrate your efforts on it, then you're probably going to wind up n pretty bad shape.

Let me guess, we should decriminalize Marijuana right? Well, why do those same people insist on criminalizing tobacco? It is f'ing ridiculous and retarded. And don't give me that cancer crap. If somebody doesn't know that sucking down smokes is bad for you then no amount of "education" is going to change their minds.

I don't care either way on this stuff, we were talking economics, not smoking bans, which I have opposed. The only point I was making was that smokers are a declining consumer base.

RaiderH8r
07-24-2011, 04:18 PM
Uh, :spock: . Just :spock: .



What's wrong with people? I guess what's wrong is that they recognize the fact of global competition. And it's not just a Wily-Nilly free for all, countries are cooperating with industries and competing to get jobs and income from certain industries. Your view might work if we were back in the 19th century and mostly separated by two oceans from being able to import/export whatever products there were.



Of course we should grow tobacco. The point, that you keep missing is that it is an industry that is shrinking at a rapid pace, and if you want to concentrate your efforts on it, then you're probably going to wind up n pretty bad shape.



I don't care either way on this stuff, we were talking economics, not smoking bans, which I have opposed. The only point I was making was that smokers are a declining consumer base.

Government should be interested in making America attractive for EVERY industry, not just the ones it believes to be winners. That's exactly the sort of thinking that got us into the current loophole, special interest game we're in now.

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 06:38 PM
Never mind my prior post. Apparently it's far more than loss carryforward.

Also, this is completely disgusting.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

They have some of the largest lobbyists in Washington. President Obama has designated Jeffrey Immelt from GE to be his liason in reviewing corporate tax procedures.

GE has successfully lobbied to increase green credits for useless wind turbines, shove potential profits to overseas locations so they do show a loss, 350% increase on depreciation over the last 4 years for their jet engines on their private planes, and legally reporting reduced tax burden on current holdings. They have spent 10s of millions of dollars over the last 2 decades to do so.

While most of corporate America is expected to be burdened around 35%, GE barely marks at 7%.

Keep in mind, I don't care about someone legally using the system to their advantage, especially a corporation that employs so many. However, it is vulgar that the Dems and the POTUS himself decry big oil every other week of their obscene legal profits (of which the Government actually gets more pennies per dollar on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do) and ignore their pet company GE which is a role model for abusing the system to their advantage.

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 06:39 PM
No, central planning is Communism when government actually owns the means of production.

None of the countries I am talking about, Germany, Canada, Indonesia, Singapore, India are "Centrally planned" economies.

Targeting companies with tax incentives/subsidies is a far cry from owning them. It's not a binary proposition, your Statler and Waldorfian-analysis notwithstanding.

Isn't Ireland and Greece also of that ilk?

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 07:38 PM
Isn't Ireland and Greece also of that ilk?

No matter. Government knows better.

mlyonsd
07-25-2011, 07:13 AM
They have some of the largest lobbyists in Washington. President Obama has designated Jeffrey Immelt from GE to be his liason in reviewing corporate tax procedures.

GE has successfully lobbied to increase green credits for useless wind turbines, shove potential profits to overseas locations so they do show a loss, 350% increase on depreciation over the last 4 years for their jet engines on their private planes, and legally reporting reduced tax burden on current holdings. They have spent 10s of millions of dollars over the last 2 decades to do so.

While most of corporate America is expected to be burdened around 35%, GE barely marks at 7%.

Keep in mind, I don't care about someone legally using the system to their advantage, especially a corporation that employs so many. However, it is vulgar that the Dems and the POTUS himself decry big oil every other week of their obscene legal profits (of which the Government actually gets more pennies per dollar on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do) and ignore their pet company GE which is a role model for abusing the system to their advantage.

Bingo. Somebody gets it.

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 09:30 AM
Central planning can exist in more than one way. The Federal Reserve is a central bank and does engage in steering the economy through the manipulation of interest rates. Then our govt uses the money it borrows to engage in their own version by pouring money into areas they want, regulating businesses and how it uses the tax code for more. A state can regulate and tax away private ownership to a point where the owner has little say. That would be the fascist model and/or a mixed economy. ( Mix of elements of socialism, fascism, capitalism)

Bump
07-25-2011, 09:33 AM
GE must have spent a little bit more in bribes or helped funded Obama or someone else who makes these decisions.

Why do we even have presidents? the top 1% in wealth have 100% control of what happens in this country. Is a president really needed?

BucEyedPea
07-25-2011, 09:54 AM
GE must have spent a little bit more in bribes or helped funded Obama or someone else who makes these decisions.

Why do we even have presidents? the top 1% in wealth have 100% control of what happens in this country. Is a president really needed?

A better question would be, why not just go back to the Constitution whereby the president was not as empowered as he is today? I hear this even on Fox news, allegedly conservative ( but is not), that the powers of the President are vast. The Constitution didn't set it up that way originally, but was intended to be the weaker branch or for more to be done in the legislature.

It's much easier for special interests, or a cabal to influence a president than all the members of Congress. I suppose where there is a will there is a way because plenty in Congress are bought. Men like Boehner.

Another question is why do we need so much govt anyway?