JonL:
Quote:
I doubt that GE avoided paying taxes solely - or even largely - due to "Green credits." I'm not going to do the research. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
If GE's tax burden was reduced somewhat as an incentive to actually introduce products that actually made a commensurate improvement in environmental impact, I don't think that's a bad thing. If GE's tax burden was reduced to zero because they invented some impractical technology that will never exist outside the laboratory, that's a bad thing.
I don't think it's "corporate welfare" to use tax policy to impel a company to do things that are in the public interest that they would not otherwise do because it is not in their near-term financial interest.
Maybe I'm not the lockstep lefty you fantasize about. We've all got opinions of our own. I'm not trying to have it both ways. I am able to see shades of gray and nuance in life. I think that's a trait the right in general tends to lack.
|
I'm not at war with you.. It's just that I'm witnessing the pillaging of the REAL enviromental movement by extremely bad Federal policy. Policies that end up feeding "special interests" that neither of us like.. And seeing a company like GE use happy "little" dancing pachyderms to prove their greeness was just a little too much in your face. And I'm tired of mindless boobs like Al Gore representing the movement with mindless statements about geothermal resources having "millions of degrees" of heat available in a very green way. The reality is that large geothermal is an extremely dirty mining operation that produces millions of tons of toxic and corrosive gas and water. And further, the wells and plumbing burn out reguarly because they are NOT immediately "renewable". And YET -- you'll find the naive eco-left listing geothermal on their list of APPROVED green and renewable and sustainable "alternatives"..
Gore just apologized for his ethanol stand -- didn't he?
As far as GE is concerned (disclaimer I actually own a TON of GE) --- I'll go fetch for you. But be a nice kid and go grab me a beer...
GE claimed aa 2010 tax benefit of $3.2B on worldwide profits of $14.2B, $5.1B of which came from US operations. Not only did they pay ZERO, but their enhanced tax and lobby group built up about an EXCESS of $2.3B as a trophy. So they would STILL pay essentially no taxes even if their US profits went in excess of $40B!!!!
Most of that booty comes from green credits. Credits that get just from producing product that's ALREADY in production like wind turbines, gas turbines, washing machines and the like. Here's an example..
http://www.uncwlibertarians.com/2011...x-credits.html
Quote:
Whirlpool Corporation recorded $18 billion in global sales and $619 million of earnings in 2010 but won't pay anywhere near the U.S. statutory tax rate of 35% on those profits. Its effective tax rate will be 0%.
As Bloomberg first reported last week, Whirlpool has stockpiled more than $500 million in tax credits for making energy-saving "energy star" appliances—washers, dryers, refrigerators and so on. The firm gets a production tax credit of up to $200 per refrigerator, $75 per dishwasher, and $225 per washer and dryer. {{{flacaltenn -- LOOKING FOR BUDGET CUTS ANYONE! OUTRAGEOUS!!!}}}}
General Electric has also collected about $200 million of these credits.
Think of these energy efficiency tax carve-outs as a version of the earned income tax credit for corporate America. Except Whirlpool and GE aren't poor.
The deal gets sweeter. Those credits can be carried over from one year to the next for up to 20 years. Whirlpool is collecting so many credits that it may not have to pay a dime of corporate income tax for years. The lost revenue from GE and Whirlpool alone far exceeds the $78 million revenue "cost" over 10 years that Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation predicted for the credits. ..
|
So sorry to dash your hope that this went to anything INNOVATIVE or important, but that's how it goes for almost ALL their tax credits. Politicians used the Green Agenda as an EXCUSE to create these credits. (maybe naive enough to think that they'd actually affect the enviroment with the cash) And GE metamorphed into the jolly jungle dancing pachyderm to suck it all up..
1) You don't make fundamental engineering or enviromental impact by paying companies to produce green products that they would sell anyway.
2) You don't really lower the cost of something by subsidizing it at either the company or consumer level. All you do is waste capital that SHOULD go into R&D. (i.e. California has thrown MILLIONs of $$ they don't have into building the base for electric cars over 15 years or so with almost NOTHING to show for it. Subsidizing at the consumer level just raises the consumer price.)
3) See quote below about the NEGATIVE consequences of letting the FEDS play kingmaker by handing out dough.. Any benefits have to weighed against the reality of govt/corporate collusion..
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...nted=1&_r=2&hp
Quote:
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.
|
How sweet is that? Lobbyists on their knees.. Rangel gets a school named after him...
I know it may be alien to you... But consumers aren't stupid sheep. They'll figure it out. Let the capital go into R&D and product development and see how many MORE good ecological solutions we get.