She right on Solyndra, but wrong on GE. “In fact, they claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion, meaning they received more of our hard earned tax dollars than they contributed.”
Tax benefit does NOT mean GE received our hard earned tax dollars. That’s just financial reporting speak. It’s not a tax refund.
Porkulus did allow actual cash payments for losses... but in the traditional sense, a company could claim a tax benefit in loss years to offset profit in future years. But here is the kicker, some of those tax benefits are the result of "Profit difference between accrual and tax reporting"- meaning, yous showed Wall Street a profit but showed Uncle Sam a loss. So ultimately, the company gets a payment in the form of lower taxes in profit years.
Doesn’t this part of her article justify her statement “How is that possible? It’s because not only do they shelter their money from taxes, but they also get many tax credits, loans, government grants, and other benefits from the federal government that our smaller businesses couldn’t even imagine being able to profit from.”?
Tell us how tax benefit is calculated so that we can fairly judge her statement. I interpreted her statement to mean that GE was bringing in more money from the government through grants than it is paying out in taxes.
If she is wrong she is wrong, but please explain precisely how she is wrong. I am not trying to be snarky I just want to know.
Wrong about GE?
Wrong yourself.
This is mercky issue like Gardasil, but it envelops
GE with no taxes as they transport technology to China
AND defend Obama with MSNBC.
Like Perry’s Crony Capitalism, it is real. You betcha.