> "In fact, the company reported a $22 million federal income tax rebate."
So if they paid 131 in income taxes, and received 141 in tax credits, then that accounts for $10 million of the $22 million the article mentions.
That's pretty cool, I was assuming their earnings were just debt fueled. Therefore spending more money than they made, which is always a fun way of not sending that money to the government but on something you feel is more productive.
It is more productive. Taxes always result in some amount of deadweight loss. $10 million spent in the private sector is mathematically more productive than $10 million paid to the government.
in theory (mathematically) it's more productive (in operating businesses that can put the capital to good use quickly), but in practice, that's not necessarily true. markets are not perfectly efficient, and have hidden losses as well (e.g., productive asssets being sidelined due to competition). governments are capable of putting capital to good use (hoover dam --> california expansion, at the expense of the environment, a hidden cost).
neither markets nor governments are perfect, and such superficial arguments are at best misleading. you can't just compare idealized markets to practicing governments to reach substantive understanding.
> "In fact, the company reported a $22 million federal income tax rebate."
So if they paid 131 in income taxes, and received 141 in tax credits, then that accounts for $10 million of the $22 million the article mentions.
That's pretty cool, I was assuming their earnings were just debt fueled. Therefore spending more money than they made, which is always a fun way of not sending that money to the government but on something you feel is more productive.