GE Pays No Taxes - What a Fraud

First, corporations do not pay taxes. Money that goes to taxes could be going into R&D or to shareholders (or higher salaries).

Second, I want to eliminate corporate taxes completely. (See Fairtax.org)

Lastly, I have yet to see anything illegal that GE did. So blame the politicians who wrote the byzantine tax code to allow for such a system. Do not think for one minute that either party is clean on the tax code either.

+1Amazing how many people are lost in the dulusion of trickle down economics...They eliminated US jobsMaxed wages outside the US so they didnt have to pay US taxNo US tax burdenCant see why I missed them as the savior of the US economy?

Anyone defending GE fails to see the picture as a whole. Those defending them as people merely following the code, have you missed the part where they are paying people inside and outside the government to write these tax codes. Have you missed the part where GE is slashing American jobs in favor of cheaper labor force oversees for the benefit of a few large stockholders. Have you not seen the revolving door between these large corporations and high ranking jobs within the government, ie. GE or Goldman Sachs. Have you not witnesses American infrastructure go to hell, the continual slide of the education system in this country, and the erosion of the working rights of the people who carry this nation on their back. Do you defend them because you one day hope to be a millionaire or you just take the talking points of TV and not independently research their crimes, because they are crimes. The idea that these people pay tons of taxes in other levels is bullshit. Just like they are earning 'green' tax credits as their nuclear power plant is failing across the Pacific.

A personal example of typical corporate deceit , from my hometown, Coca Cola wanted to put a distribution hub in town. The only way they would agree is if said town gave them a zero property tax rate for the first 5 years. In exchange for this deal they would bring in much needed jobs,so the town agreed. 5 years later, when their first bill was due, Coca Cola left town, taking their jobs with them, never paying one single cent. Did Coca Cola do the right thing, as a business, they sure did. Can they look you in in the eye after, no problem. It's just business, nothing personal. Someone nailed it before, do these business schools teach a single ethics class. Since when did capitalism turn into brute force and lies and other means to secure a profit. How can their be a free market when everyone must go through a handful of corporations to get anything in this country, the same corporations that employ people to write these laws. You are acting as if the game is not rigged in their favor, when clearly, anyone willing to open their eyes can see it.

The owner of the company I work for just decided to move the firm to Florida to escape the increasing state income tax here in Conn. 50+ jobs, millions of dollars in tax revenue, and millions of dollars in spending... gone. He wrote an op-ed explaining that 45% of his income already goes to taxes and that he isn't willing to pay another penny. Predictably, a bunch of liberal readers responded by telling him not to let the door hit his ass on the way our or something to that effect. So he's leaving, and the state economy will take a big hit from the loss of a successful company.

employee Dude wrote:

The owner of the company I work for just decided to move the firm to Florida to escape the increasing state income tax here in Conn. 50+ jobs, millions of dollars in tax revenue, and millions of dollars in spending... gone. He wrote an op-ed explaining that 45% of his income already goes to taxes and that he isn't willing to pay another penny. Predictably, a bunch of liberal readers responded by telling him not to let the door hit his ass on the way our or something to that effect. So he's leaving, and the state economy will take a big hit from the loss of a successful company.

Small business or large corporation?

I responded because I am pretty sure I read that op-ed piece in a local newspaper. The Coca Cola example I gave earlier is from the same state. I also come from the background of working for a small business owner that pays through the teeth in taxes, while trying its best to learn and use the tax laws that are so easily written by corporations to their advantage. These laws, written and used and perfected by the largest corporations, are the original subject of this thread. You are talking about two different animals if I am correct in reading into your personal story. It is vastly different situation to run and compete with a multimillion LLC or even a 50 million dollar in revenue company and a 150 billion dollar multinational corporation with the voice to vote.

I will agree that small and medium businesses are at the losing end of that battle. I would further add this chokes out competition and allows those largest corporations the ability to dictate the smaller companies ability to make a decent buck. Corporations ability to dictate the market price have entirely corrupted an idea of a free market. As a Connecticut man if you drive the interstates you might pass the Stanley/Black & Decker Corporation. Imagine a time when two of the largest companies for the same buying market had to compete instead of serving the same master. If I recall, it was not too long ago.

The best post of the thread, by far !

Definitely the best post. Amazing how many of you guys are complete idiots - actually defending GE!

Why is it once the conversation starts going the economically conservative corporate supporters always turn the other way?

OK, let's strip everything away and break it down to the basic reason why anyone opens a business .... they open a business to MAKE MONEY. They don't open a business to employ others, to benefit the general economy, blah blah blah.

SO, the basic philosophy is to increase income while decreasing expenses.

If the current situation in the country forces business to move some production outside the country, or to find tax loopholes, or to lay off employees in order to adhere to this basic philosophy ... who can blame them?

The employer does not owe the employee ... he did not start to business with the employee in mind. When the general public (and the government, and unions) grasps this concept, then maybe the business landscape will improve so some of the secondary benefits to the economy will improve.

SomeCoach wrote:

OK, let's strip everything away and break it down to the basic reason why anyone opens a business .... they open a business to MAKE MONEY. They don't open a business to employ others, to benefit the general economy, blah blah blah.

SO, the basic philosophy is to increase income while decreasing expenses.

If the current situation in the country forces business to move some production outside the country, or to find tax loopholes, or to lay off employees in order to adhere to this basic philosophy ... who can blame them?

The employer does not owe the employee ... he did not start to business with the employee in mind. When the general public (and the government, and unions) grasps this concept, then maybe the business landscape will improve so some of the secondary benefits to the economy will improve.

Did you go to college? The purpose of business is to serve society, not to make money. Profit = greed = evil.

What does that have to do with them skirting tax laws? You're taking a very broad approach about what the responsibility of a company is. Yet you say you want to strip it down to its bare essentials, so lets try that. If the only master they must serve is money, then you assume you can make money anyway you want, period. If you can decrease expenses by enforcing child labor oversees in factories where your shoes are made you think that is a good thing, and the cornerstone of a good company. If you find the easiest way to get rid of the toxic dye you use is by dumping it in the closest river because it is more cost effective, then you have shown that your business is a good business model. Am i following your ling of thought properly?

Most corporations in America pay no income tax. Is this news to anyone??? They write the laws, give donations to politicians to get them elected, and then the laws are passed. This is from a GAO report in 2008 about corporate taxes from 1998 to 2005. The number of domestic corporations now paying NO income tax is now around 67%.

Most corporations, including the vast majority of foreign companies doing business in the United States, pay no income taxes, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday.

During the eight-year period covered by the report, 72 percent of foreign-owned corporations went at least one year without owing taxes, and the same was true for 55 percent of domestic corporations.

Small companies were much more likely to pay no taxes than larger companies. Still, more than 3,500 large domestic corporations - with more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in gross receipts - did not pay taxes in 2005.

hmmmmmmmmm wrote:

What does that have to do with them skirting tax laws? You're taking a very broad approach about what the responsibility of a company is. Yet you say you want to strip it down to its bare essentials, so lets try that. If the only master they must serve is money, then you assume you can make money anyway you want, period. If you can decrease expenses by enforcing child labor oversees in factories where your shoes are made you think that is a good thing, and the cornerstone of a good company. If you find the easiest way to get rid of the toxic dye you use is by dumping it in the closest river because it is more cost effective, then you have shown that your business is a good business model. Am i following your ling of thought properly?

Vicious idiot. You say that companies "enforce" child labor overseas, as if the companies just round up all the kids and force them to work against their will? You're full of shit. Everything you say is a lie intended to demonize people for making money.

Do not put words in my mouth. Force does not imply gun to the head. Force means through corporate policies being put in place to systematically use populations of other countries to minimize cost. By essentially making the only legitimate job available making t shirts in a factory for 10 cents an hour. I mean do people so quickly forget NIKE and their sweatshop scandal, or Kathie Lee Gifford and her sweatshop scandal. Do these companies not jump ship the minute these markets start to adjust and move onto the next country where they can start from scratch. I have no probably with anyone making money, but not at the cost of everyone else. Do you disagree that corporations have a systematic policy to keep oversees labor at the cheapest operating cost possible, despite any possible ramifications, while simultaneously driving the price up in America for a corporate profit. Is that like saying sweatshops are just a myth?

hmmmmmmmmm wrote:

What does that have to do with them skirting tax laws? You're taking a very broad approach about what the responsibility of a company is. Yet you say you want to strip it down to its bare essentials, so lets try that. If the only master they must serve is money, then you assume you can make money anyway you want, period. If you can decrease expenses by enforcing child labor oversees in factories where your shoes are made you think that is a good thing, and the cornerstone of a good company. If you find the easiest way to get rid of the toxic dye you use is by dumping it in the closest river because it is more cost effective, then you have shown that your business is a good business model. Am i following your ling of thought properly?

You're flat out nuts. Westinghouse and Edison did great things for this country, and this world, for developing the capability for widespread use of electricity. That was a secondary motivation though, and if anyone is naive enough to think otherwise needs to take a human behavior course. Scientific ego and the drive to make profit pushed them to go into business, and this will be true in the large majority of the cases. Wind turbines are great, and we need to push wind power in a large way. But no one, and I mean NO ONE will open up a wind energy business with the knowledge that it will break them financially. It is with the primary goal of making money ... not reducing CO2 emissions ... that will just be a nice side benefit and a hell of a marketing strategy.

Oh yeah, and as a side note to you liberal types .... if you think Al Gore is green for the good of mankind, you are some kind of suckers .............

What the hell is a "sweat shop?" The term is nothing more than malicious spin on the fact that certain things have to be made in factories. You refer to a factory as a "sweat shop" to insinuate that the owners of the factory are abusing the workers somehow. Not so. NIKE is not responsible for the fact that some countries are third-world shitholes run by socialist dictators where factory work is the best opportunity available to many people. YOU are responsible for promoting the socialist ideals that have impoverished millions by arresting the process of industrialization.

All that means is that most companies lost money in at least 1 year between 98 and 05. Given that we had a recession during that period, that makes sense. I don't see anything sinister there.