GE pays no taxes, receives tax bonuses, ships jobs overseas, and its CEO is into job creation

[aurik]

i see your point, but that also proves mine, that mathematically spending and not taxing are not equal to the recipents of ss. you do not get the same utility from paying into ss and then recieving benifits as you do from not being taxed. mainly the choice to spend or invest or give away the money not taken from you and then given back later in life.

Right, that's because in reality, the money paid as SS taxes isn't being spent 100% on the person that pays it, which means not taxing them in the first place has a different mathematical outcome for that person.

I'm talking about a hypothetical tax, where person A pays $1000 to the government, and then the government spends that revenue on person A. In that case, the only difference for person A is the loss from friction--the gov't has to track and handle the money, etc. Aside from that friction, spending the money and abolishing that tax are functionally no different for anyone.

But you constructed an example where person A pays $1000 to the government and then receives $800 back, and the other portion of that revenue is spent on person B. The net effect of abolishing that tax is +$200 for person A, and -$200 for person B. And then you said "there's a difference for person A between a tax cut and the spending".

Well, duh.

[Tebet]

Right, that's because in reality, the money paid as SS taxes isn't being spent 100% on the person that pays it, which means not taxing them in the first place has a different mathematical outcome for that person.

I'm talking about a hypothetical tax, where person A pays $1000 to the government, and then the government spends that revenue on person A. In that case, the only difference for person A is the loss from friction--the gov't has to track and handle the money, etc. Aside from that friction, spending the money and abolishing that tax are functionally no different for anyone.

But you constructed an example where person A pays $1000 to the government and then receives $800 back, and the other portion of that revenue is spent on person B. The net effect of abolishing that tax is +$200 for person A, and -$200 for person B. And then you said "there's a difference for person A between a tax cut and the spending".

Well, duh.

i think we are in agreement then. when a polititian says "we can't extend the bush (obama?) tax cuts, we just can't afford to spend the money!" they are talking out their ass.

[aurik]

When aren't politicians talking out their ass?

Also, from a budget point of view it doesn't matter whether we tax now or don't tax now. We're still spending, so somebody somewhere will have to pay for it at some point. Not-taxing-now has a cost (in the form of interest), taxing-now also has a cost (in the form of slowing economic growth). The trick is to find the right balance.

[Melchiah]

i guess im done if you wont engage me on the issue, that not taxing and spending are equal. i am trying to prove that they are not the same for the individuals but only to the government. the fact that i am unable to define an acceptable number for bare minimum has nothing to do with what we were originally talking about.

"Equality" and "functionally the same" are not the same thing.

[Tebet]

When aren't politicians talking out their ass?

Also, from a budget point of view it doesn't matter whether we tax now or don't tax now. We're still spending, so somebody somewhere will have to pay for it at some point. Not-taxing-now has a cost (in the form of interest), taxing-now also has a cost (in the form of slowing economic growth). The trick is to find the right balance.

it seems the solution then is to reduce spending. since we have a possible shut down looming what would be the down side of just leaving it shut down? we have established that essential elements of the government can't be shut down. how much will be saved from not operating the non essentials for a year or two or forever? (seriously is there a number) i have already heard on local radio in oklahoma that the state parks department is picking up the slack from the feds with voluteers and state funds. im sure there would be some negative effects but could they be picked up on the state level or with private intrests?

edit: maybe i should have used that as my bare mimimum lol

[aurik]

We've established no such thing.

[Tebet]

We've established no such thing.

i didn't mean you and me. i mean the gov has established what won't be shutdown if they can't come to an agreement on the budget.

[aurik]

And meanwhile, the stuff that will be shut down will cause real harm to the general welfare of the state.

[Doombard]

And if they do shut down congressmen will still get paid so why should they give a shit.



.............Meanwhile in Afghanistan! Soldiers will not get paid.

[Kurokikaze]

If they shut down they're not supposed to get paid. Reps are trying to make it so that they do. I don't see how they can justify it... if I don't do my job I don't get paid - works the same for everyone else. No reason why they should be an exception.

[Tebet]

i guess we'll find out on monday. who is to blame? i'm going with bush.

[Drex]

Don't worry guys, there's a commission dedicated to balancing the budget by 2015, except for interest on the debt we already have. Why fix the problem when you can redefine it? Oh, they had such brilliant ideas though, like cutting spending on things we don't need ("by deciding what [they] can afford not to do", it took a commission to come up with that?), cutting defense spending, appointing annual limits for war spending, not "abusing" emergency spending anymore, doing government things more efficiently, and other brilliant deductions that took them a year of deliberations to come to.

Truth be told, after reading through that report, I kind of want them to fail. I mean, are you fucking serious? They want to do things more efficiently, so they make a commission that takes a year to produce a report full of shit anyone with a middle school education could have come up with? Fuck 'em, buy up inflation-proofing and watch the economy go to shit imo. It's really sad what the results will be, but these guys aren't even really trying...

edit: they came up with this brilliant plan just 4 months ago

[Plow]

i guess im done if you wont engage me on the issue, that not taxing and spending are equal. i am trying to prove that they are not the same for the individuals but only to the government. the fact that i am unable to define an acceptable number for bare minimum has nothing to do with what we were originally talking about.

Here's where you're missing everything:

Nobody is trying to claim that cutting taxes on rich guy A by $1000 has the exact same individual effect as, say, spending $1000 on a highway repair.

But, cutting his taxes by $1000 has the exact same effect as saying "We're going to spend $1000 to pay rich guy A so that he'll hopefully invest in something that helps the economy."

[Plow]

Also, when operating under a deficit it becomes even more literal because you have to create that money to spend on the tax cuts.

[Caiyuo]

I feel like I'm being tricked?

Press Releases


13 April 2011 GE Responds to Public Outcry – Will Donate Entire $3.2 Billion Tax Refund to Help Offset Cuts and Save American Jobs



Fairfield, CT, 13th April, 2011– GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt has informed the Obama administration that the company will be gifting its entire 2010 tax refund, worth $3.2 Billion, to the US Treasury on April 18, Tax Day, and will furthermore adopt a host of new policies that secure its position as a leader in corporate social responsibility.

“We want the public to know that we’ve heard them, and that we know many Americans are going through tough times,” said GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt. “GE will therefore give our 2010 tax refund back to the public and allow the public to decide how to spend it.”

Immelt acknowledged no wrongdoing. “All seven of our foreign tax havens are entirely legal,” Immelt noted. “But Americans have made it clear that they deplore laws that enable tax avoidance. While we owe it to our shareholders to use every legal loophole to maximize returns – we also owe something to the American people. We didn't write the laws that let us legally avoid paying taxes. Congress did. But we benefit from those laws, and now we'd like to share those benefits. We are proud to be giving something back to America, and we are proud to set an example for all industry to follow.”

Over the coming weeks, GE will conduct a nationwide survey to determine how the company's $3.2 billion returned refund is to be allocated. The survey will be conducted both online and offline, and will permit the public to weigh in on which of the recently-enacted budget cuts they would like to see reversed.

In tandem with the gift, the company is also announcing a host of new policies to restore public faith in the GE brand, including a commitment to keep American jobs in America, and to create one U.S. job for each new job created abroad. The ambitious plan will overhaul accounting systems to allow public transparency and phase out the use of tax havens in five years. “Given my recent appointment as President Obama’s Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, it is no longer appropriate for GE to engage in practices that, whether by fact or perception, are at odds with the greater good of the nation," Immelt said.

Immelt outlined several concrete steps he would take to push for modernized tax policies that reflect the realities of the global economy. "I will personally ask President Obama to work with Congress to require country-by-country reporting by multi-national corporations of the sales made, profits earned and taxes paid in every jurisdiction where an entity operates. Instead of moving money via “transfer pricing,” corporations ought to pay taxes in the jurisdictions where profits are actually made. If Congress is able to establish standard industry-wide solutions, GE will close our tax haven operations abroad, including our subsidiaries in Bermuda, Singapore and Luxembourg."

Further details on GE’s new policy will be released in the coming weeks.

[Logain]

You were being tricked...

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/r...ay-3-2b-to-us/

[Yugl]

In other words, that was not intended to be a factual statement.

[Caiyuo]

I ...feel so dumb.

[Olo401]

Thread-related funny courtesy of Tom Tomorrow..

http://images.dailykos.com/i/user/27...2011_04_20.jpg

[Ragnus]

http://sunglasses.name/gif/joker-clap.gif