"Consider the resources that GE spends to lowers its tax bill... Indeed, a corporate tax system with a tax rate of zero could well be preferable as it would waste fewer resources and raise not much less revenue."
Or you could just pay your taxes, GE
Or you could just pay your taxes, GE
I'll speculate that what you may really oppose is structuring transactions in order to avoid taxes. But then again, you may not.
Do you oppose employers providing health insurance, i.e. untaxed compensation? Do you oppose individuals buying a home when the mortgage interest tax deduction tips the scales in favor of home ownership? Or corporations switching to green energy sources when tax subsidies make it economical [1]?
[1] Incidentally, this is one of the bigger tax breaks GE used.
Instead the article is about a company that paid zero in taxes on their profit thanks to "extraordinary use of tax breaks and clever accounting".
I'm not against any of the tax structures you mention, GE doesn't need the best tax experts in the world for those things. So even though I haven't read the 57,000 page tax return I am willing to guess that all of the tax breaks used where not of the same considerate nature as the ones you mention.
It just seems like the primary motivation is to avoid paying taxes, not switching to green energy or even pay health insurance. The article even mentions "inefficient ways that GE structures its businesses just to avoid paying taxes", which, if true, is a major indicator.
Of course I may be completely wrong, I don't know what the motivation is and why they seem to work so hard not to pay taxes on their profit.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/losscarryforward.asp#axz...
In contrast, GE's green energy and paying for employee health insurance are done directly to avoid paying taxes.
GE's windmills are profitable primarily because of the tax benefits. And there is no business reason whatsoever why a company should pay for employee health insurance, or car insurance, or cable TV. Companies pay for health insurance because it reduces the tax bill, and they generally don't pay for car insurance (which doesn't reduce the tax bill).
Are they being fiscally responsible by paying less to the tax experts than they'd pay in taxes? I don't know, but I'd suspect either those experts will always continue to justify their existence (e.g. "Yes, Mr. CEO, we've saved you oodles of money") or corporate boards and executives just prefer not to think about taxes and accounting and such and just keep some accountants and lawyers around anyway.