Contributors

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

GE's Bright Idea: No Taxes

Recently General Electric announced that it made $14 billion in profit last year ($5.1 in the US). Its tax bill? Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zip. In fact, it claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

It did this through a maze of loopholes and tax breaks, and by not moving profits back to the United States. According to the Times article:
In a regulatory filing just a week before the Japanese disaster put a spotlight on the company’s nuclear reactor business, G.E. reported that its tax burden was 7.4 percent of its American profits, about a third of the average reported by other American multinationals. Even those figures are overstated, because they include taxes that will be paid only if the company brings its overseas profits back to the United States. With those profits still offshore, G.E. is effectively getting money back.
In other words they're playing a shell game to avoid paying taxes. This has serious implications for the rest of us:
Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation's tax receipts -- from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.
This is not the first time GE has done this sort of thing:

As it has evolved, the company has used, and in some cases pioneered, aggressive strategies to lower its tax bill. In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. — a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman — was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.

“I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.

Some people don't find anything wrong with this, and think that corporations should pay any taxes at all. "It's double taxing," they'll say. Or, "They'll just pass it on to the customer."

First, it's not double taxing: corporations deduct all their expenses -- including salaries they pay to workers, cost of materials, local and state taxes, cost of production, even hotel stays and meals for CEOs -- to calculate profit.

As for passing the cost on: since taxes are only on profits, that price increase may be insignificant. Let's say I buy a blender for $100 and the company's profit is $10. Let's say the manufacturer's effective tax rate is 6%, or 60 cents on that blender. If the company's tax rate goes to 30% it will pay $3.00 in taxes. If it passes every penny of that on to me -- which is not a given for many reasons -- the blender will cost $2.40 more, or 2.4%.

But more importantly, if I don't buy a company's products, they won't be passing the cost on to me at all. If I save my money instead of buying big sailboats, and giant TVs and $500 tickets to football games, I won't be paying the taxes for those companies.

The money to pay for things like roads and the military has to come from somewhere. By reducing corporate tax burdens we are increasing the tax burdens on regular people. If corporations pay more, citizens can pay less.

But when you come right down to it, most everything the government spends its money on -- weather satellites, the FBI, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, highways, bridges, harbors, ports, the military, education -- is for the benefit of business. Yes, individuals benefit from these things, but they would have never happened without business demanding them.

For example: if you're like most people, the majority of the time you spend driving is between home and work. The highways are filled with trucks delivering stuff to businesses. Almost every time a new highway is proposed the argument is, "it'll be good for business."

Our military is used to "protect our interests" abroad. Those interests are entirely business interests. We invaded Iraq to ensure a stable supply of oil from a volatile region. We need oil to run our businesses. Shouldn't businesses help pay the salaries for the men and women in uniform who are protecting their interests?

Even the education system is essential for business. Without a system of free public education the United States would be totally uncompetitive in the world marketplace.

To be honest, there are some taxes that corporations already do pay their fair share of: Social Security and Medicare, the biggest part of the federal budget. Corporations should contribute their fair share to the rest of the federal budget as well.

Finally, when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the political process they declared that a company is a person for the purposes of free speech. If a corporation has the same right to free speech as a person, it should have the same responsibility as a person to pay taxes.

I'm not talking about sticking it to big corporations: I'm just talking about restoring effective corporate tax rates to the reasonable values they had under Eisenhower and Reagan. Is it right for companies like GE to turn their backs on America and avoid taxes by shipping all their profits off to the Caymans?

13 comments:

Last in line said...

Why haven't the folks you voted for close those loopholes or tax breaks yet?

Is it because they are bought and paid for just like the rest of them up there in DC? I guess I'm wondering who you are talking to here - your guy has been president for 2 years now.

-just dave said...

Per some quick Googling…America already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, yet the tax avoidance such as you highlight results in tax revenue of approx.. 2.2% of US GDP, as opposed to approx.. 3.5% for other lower taxed nations. (Lower taxes = increased tax revenue…hmmm interesting…)

So…going with that thought…two questions regarding your post…

a) If the US corporate tax rate of 35+%, nearly the highest in the world, is insufficient, what tax rate would you propose be applied and how would you curb tax avoidance, or wholesale exodus?
b) If we assume that you’re not just trying to stick it to the big bad corporations but are really looking to achieve the highest possible tax revenue to use ‘for the greater good’. If we also assume that tax avoidance is a result of more cost effective ways to do business for many companies (call it their greed if you like). And lastly, if we can also assume that if it is deemed more cost effective to do business in America than abroad (thus adding to their greedy profits), then more companies will stay put. Using those assumptions, wouldn’t a reasonable option be to reduce corporate taxation to make tax avoidance more costly than paying the tax and thereby increasing revenue, be a good thing? Wouldn’t that achieve your end goal and be a win/win scenario? (And just to sweeten the pot, if less companies offshored in this way, wouldn’t that mean more jobs at home?)

Disclaimer: I’m not an economist, so I might be missing some significant points and of course different industries offshore for different reasons (manufacturing jumps out), but it seems reasonable on the whole.

Anonymous said...

"If I save my money instead of buying big sailboats, and giant TVs and $500 tickets to football games, I won't be paying the taxes for those companies.
"

But I thought you couldn't do that because Evil Corp. Inc. controls your every choice with marketing.

Mark Ward said...

It's my understanding that GE received tax breaks for investing in green tech which is a good thing, right? So, I'm wondering how they turned our backs on us.

I'm also of the mind that lower corporate taxes mean higher revenue for Uncle Sam. Laffer's curve is crap on a macro economic level but on a more focused level it is valid if you are taxed too high. There are a lot of problems with corporations but I don't think this is one of them. I'm much more concerned about how they have essentially brainwashed our country.

-just dave said...

Brainwashed? Well, I suppose I did buy a GE water softener a couple of years back. Does that count?

6Kings said...

Laffer's curve is crap on a macro economic level but on a more focused level it is valid if you are taxed too high.

Well, at least you are consistent - consistently showing how little you understand. Read this and don't post again on the Laffer Curve until you understand it.

http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/laffercu.html

Mark Ward said...

6Kings, Greg Mankiw, author of Principles of Microeconomics and former chief economic advisor to George W. Bush, says that Laffer's conjecture was not confirmed. I've posted this before but here it is again:

pgs. 170-171 of POM

Revenue from personal income taxes fell 9 percent from 1980-1984 even though average income grew by 4 percent in this period.

So the concluding statement in your link is wrong. I noticed he provided no numbers as I have. He just said "Revenue went up." Where are his figures? He doesn't provide them because that's not what happened. Who is Robert Sturgeon, anyway?

juris imprudent said...

Of course the irony utterly escapes M - he is quoting a micro text about a macro subject.

No wonder you love/hate Mankiw - he's a lot like you.

GuardDuck said...

You don't understand Juris, they've been playing craps with his cookies!!!!


Mark, until you answer the question posed to you months ago, your economic credibility is about zero.

So how about it?

Last in line said...

Here's Inside Job, the whole shabang...

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/inside-job/

Santa said...

Well, since Guard Duck said it, I'm convinced. Mark has not economic credibility.

So who does, Guard Duck?

GuardDuck said...

Well Santa, if you were to start lecturing us about quantum physics and we were to ask you what 2+2 equals, would your refusal to answer lend your position extra credibility?

rld said...

Well, the NYT got it wrong. Any chance nikto or markadelphia will issue a correction? Don't bet on it.