EU imposes sanctions on U.S.

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
CNN linky

The European Commission has launched retaliatory trade measures against the United States that will cost American companies hundreds of millions.....


last thing we need on both sides of the Atlantic is a trade war
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: freegeeks
CNN linky

The European Commission has launched retaliatory trade measures against the United States that will cost American companies hundreds of millions.....


last thing we need on both sides of the Atlantic is a trade war

Why is that the last thing we need? Yea, if we look 5 minutes in the future and we only look at ourselves, then yes it is terrible. Maybe this will be a wakeup call that the WTO is a terrible idea and hurts more than it helps.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: freegeeks
CNN linky

The European Commission has launched retaliatory trade measures against the United States that will cost American companies hundreds of millions.....


last thing we need on both sides of the Atlantic is a trade war

I disagree, that is exactly what we need.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"retaliatory trade measures against the United States that will cost American companies hundreds of millions. "

The American Companies they speak of have not been benefitting the General American Public anyway. This will hurt the Rich Bastards that have been squirreling away tons of extra profits at the the expense of what should go into American coffers instead going into their own personal pockets like Grasso.

Monday was the deadline for Washington to eliminate the so-called Foreign Sales Corporation Scheme, which Europe believes grants U.S. exporters tax benefits, giving American companies an unfair advantage.

They see it but the AT experts and General Public have blinders on.

The U.S. Congress has made no move to roll back the scheme.

Of course not, it's their buddies that have them paid off that are benefitting from the scheme as well as the Congressman themselves.

Good for Europe, they don't need us just like we have clearly shown we don't need them. We have been bought out by India and China.

They have their own problem to deal withe being overun by a population that doesn't play well with them.




 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: freegeeks
CNN linky

The European Commission has launched retaliatory trade measures against the United States that will cost American companies hundreds of millions.....


last thing we need on both sides of the Atlantic is a trade war

Yet they do nothing about China keeping the value of the yen so low to create huge trade surpluses...
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: freegeeks
CNN linky

The European Commission has launched retaliatory trade measures against the United States that will cost American companies hundreds of millions.....


last thing we need on both sides of the Atlantic is a trade war

Yet they do nothing about China keeping the value of the yen so low to create huge trade surpluses...

the WTO has nothing to say about monetary policies.

 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: freegeeks
CNN linky

The European Commission has launched retaliatory trade measures against the United States that will cost American companies hundreds of millions.....


last thing we need on both sides of the Atlantic is a trade war

Yet they do nothing about China keeping the value of the yen so low to create huge trade surpluses...

What does that have to do with the WTO?
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
The EC's trade commission has signaled it initially will impose $200 million worth of sanctions,
five percent of the total sanctions allowed, on U.S. goods from dairy and meat products to textiles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well now, almost all countries have banned the import of Beef and Poultry from the U.S due to the
"Mad Cow' episode and the 'Angry Dead Chicken' flu, the textile mills have been gone for years,
and the dairy products are usually given away to forieng Governments as food assistance programs,
the 'Welfare Cheese' if you will. There was a time when the dairy residuals were dumped down drains to
keep the price up by limiting produts quantity that way, but it was found to be a source of polution
and then they would dump said 'Overage' into the ocean, so not to overwhelm the treatment plants.

I don't think there will be much impact from this particular sanction, it's more of a way to get the
attention focused on what they may choose to target next as an economic target - like steel.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
the Euroweenies are up to their old tricks..
they are tyrying to revive their own lackluster economies at our expense..
the "illegal" "scheme" that they have sought to sanction, is a element of the U.S. tax code that was adopted many years ago:

quoting from Tech Law Journal

"Most nations have a territory tax regime, by which they tax the income of corporations within their territory. The U.S., in contrast, has a global tax regime dating back to the 19th Century. American corporations are taxed by the United States government for their domestic and foreign income. That is, under the basic rules, if an American corporation sells its products in France, the U.S. taxes the income. However, if a French corporation sells its products in the U.S., France does not the income of the corporation operating in the U.S.

This puts U.S. corporations at a competitive disadvantage with respect to their foreign competitors when competing in a global economy. Hence, Congress has enacted various exceptions to the general rule, through such methods as the foreign tax credit, the Domestic International Sales Corporation (DISC), the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC), and finally, HR 4896."

"U.S. exporters, and their many supporters in Congress and the administration, argue that this is simply leveling the playing field between U.S. and European companies"
"The EU contends that by giving tax breaks to U.S. exporters, the U.S. is, in effect, subsidizing exports, in violation of its trade agreements. John Richardson, the Deputy Head of the EU Delegation to the US, adamantly insists that the basis of the EU complaint against the FSC tax regime, and HR 4986, is that it is an illegal export subsidy."

"However, there is little real opposition in Europe to the bill itself. Few European companies are seeking protection from U.S. technology companies. However, aircraft exporter Boeing is in competition with the European Airbus, and many in Europe would like to impose a competitive disadvantage upon Boeing.

Rather, the FSC issue is interrelated with agricultural issues. The EU maintains protectionist policies to support its politically powerful but inefficient agricultural sector. The U.S. objects to this. Moreover, the U.S. has submitted complaints to the WTO, and won. This has greatly upset many in Europe. The EU complaint about the FSC is, in part, a strategy to obtain a bargaining chip to use in negotiations over agricultural trade.

By threatening the bottom line of technology, aircraft, and other industry sectors in the U.S., the EU hopes to deter the U.S. from continuing its efforts to terminate the EU's protectionist agricultural policies. But, if the EU and U.S. do not reach some sort of comprehensive trade agreement, and the WTO again finds the U.S. tax regime to be illegal, Europe may retaliate by imposing high tariffs on the products of U.S. technology companies."

executive summary....the Euroweenies want us to apply a tax on our companies, that they do not apply to their own companies...they want to use this as a bargaining chip to protect they own subsides of agriculture, which are under attack





 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,374
8,499
126
how about we just change the tax code so that it looks like europe's. problem solved.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the Euroweenies are up to their old tricks..
they are tyrying to revive their own lackluster economies at our expense..
the "illegal" "scheme" that they have sought to sanction, is a element of the U.S. tax code that was adopted many years ago:

quoting from Tech Law Journal

"Most nations have a territory tax regime, by which they tax the income of corporations within their territory. The U.S., in contrast, has a global tax regime dating back to the 19th Century. American corporations are taxed by the United States government for their domestic and foreign income. That is, under the basic rules, if an American corporation sells its products in France, the U.S. taxes the income. However, if a French corporation sells its products in the U.S., France does not the income of the corporation operating in the U.S.

This puts U.S. corporations at a competitive disadvantage with respect to their foreign competitors when competing in a global economy. Hence, Congress has enacted various exceptions to the general rule, through such methods as the foreign tax credit, the Domestic International Sales Corporation (DISC), the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC), and finally, HR 4896."

"U.S. exporters, and their many supporters in Congress and the administration, argue that this is simply leveling the playing field between U.S. and European companies"
"The EU contends that by giving tax breaks to U.S. exporters, the U.S. is, in effect, subsidizing exports, in violation of its trade agreements. John Richardson, the Deputy Head of the EU Delegation to the US, adamantly insists that the basis of the EU complaint against the FSC tax regime, and HR 4986, is that it is an illegal export subsidy."

"However, there is little real opposition in Europe to the bill itself. Few European companies are seeking protection from U.S. technology companies. However, aircraft exporter Boeing is in competition with the European Airbus, and many in Europe would like to impose a competitive disadvantage upon Boeing.

Rather, the FSC issue is interrelated with agricultural issues. The EU maintains protectionist policies to support its politically powerful but inefficient agricultural sector. The U.S. objects to this. Moreover, the U.S. has submitted complaints to the WTO, and won. This has greatly upset many in Europe. The EU complaint about the FSC is, in part, a strategy to obtain a bargaining chip to use in negotiations over agricultural trade.

By threatening the bottom line of technology, aircraft, and other industry sectors in the U.S., the EU hopes to deter the U.S. from continuing its efforts to terminate the EU's protectionist agricultural policies. But, if the EU and U.S. do not reach some sort of comprehensive trade agreement, and the WTO again finds the U.S. tax regime to be illegal, Europe may retaliate by imposing high tariffs on the products of U.S. technology companies."

executive summary....the Euroweenies want us to apply a tax on our companies, that they do not apply to their own companies...they want to use this as a bargaining chip to protect they own subsides of agriculture, which are under attack


The "Euroweenies" have won WTO judgments on this issue twice I believe and are well within thier rights to impose sanctions.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
The "Euroweenies" have won WTO judgments on this issue twice I believe and are well within thier rights to impose sanctions
They are not in a very good economic position to exploit these rulings...the net effect of imposing these sanctions (and the reaction to this) may well hurt their collective economies more than help..only time will tell.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the Euroweenies are up to their old tricks..
they are tyrying to revive their own lackluster economies at our expense..
the "illegal" "scheme" that they have sought to sanction, is a element of the U.S. tax code that was adopted many years ago:

quoting from Tech Law Journal

"Most nations have a territory tax regime, by which they tax the income of corporations within their territory. The U.S., in contrast, has a global tax regime dating back to the 19th Century. American corporations are taxed by the United States government for their domestic and foreign income. That is, under the basic rules, if an American corporation sells its products in France, the U.S. taxes the income. However, if a French corporation sells its products in the U.S., France does not the income of the corporation operating in the U.S.

This puts U.S. corporations at a competitive disadvantage with respect to their foreign competitors when competing in a global economy. Hence, Congress has enacted various exceptions to the general rule, through such methods as the foreign tax credit, the Domestic International Sales Corporation (DISC), the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC), and finally, HR 4896."

"U.S. exporters, and their many supporters in Congress and the administration, argue that this is simply leveling the playing field between U.S. and European companies"
"The EU contends that by giving tax breaks to U.S. exporters, the U.S. is, in effect, subsidizing exports, in violation of its trade agreements. John Richardson, the Deputy Head of the EU Delegation to the US, adamantly insists that the basis of the EU complaint against the FSC tax regime, and HR 4986, is that it is an illegal export subsidy."

"However, there is little real opposition in Europe to the bill itself. Few European companies are seeking protection from U.S. technology companies. However, aircraft exporter Boeing is in competition with the European Airbus, and many in Europe would like to impose a competitive disadvantage upon Boeing.

Rather, the FSC issue is interrelated with agricultural issues. The EU maintains protectionist policies to support its politically powerful but inefficient agricultural sector. The U.S. objects to this. Moreover, the U.S. has submitted complaints to the WTO, and won. This has greatly upset many in Europe. The EU complaint about the FSC is, in part, a strategy to obtain a bargaining chip to use in negotiations over agricultural trade.

By threatening the bottom line of technology, aircraft, and other industry sectors in the U.S., the EU hopes to deter the U.S. from continuing its efforts to terminate the EU's protectionist agricultural policies. But, if the EU and U.S. do not reach some sort of comprehensive trade agreement, and the WTO again finds the U.S. tax regime to be illegal, Europe may retaliate by imposing high tariffs on the products of U.S. technology companies."

executive summary....the Euroweenies want us to apply a tax on our companies, that they do not apply to their own companies...they want to use this as a bargaining chip to protect they own subsides of agriculture, which are under attack


doesn't matter, the WTO ruled that the Euroweenies are right in this case (2x)
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: freegeeks
CNN linky

The European Commission has launched retaliatory trade measures against the United States that will cost American companies hundreds of millions.....


last thing we need on both sides of the Atlantic is a trade war

Yet they do nothing about China keeping the value of the yen so low to create huge trade surpluses...

What does that have to do with the WTO?

Government intent on maintaining huge trade surpluses, so their nation benefits and all its trade partners get the shaft..How is that any different than the US creating an imbalance that benefits them?
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: freegeeks
CNN linky

The European Commission has launched retaliatory trade measures against the United States that will cost American companies hundreds of millions.....


last thing we need on both sides of the Atlantic is a trade war

Yet they do nothing about China keeping the value of the yen so low to create huge trade surpluses...

What does that have to do with the WTO?

Government intent on maintaining huge trade surpluses, so their nation benefits and all its trade partners get the shaft..How is that any different than the US creating an imbalance that benefits them?

it's different because the WTO has no jurisdiction about monetary policies of countries. The ECB, Federal Reserve and the Chinese Central Bank can do whatever they want because the WTO has no saying about this. They (chinese central bank) can value their yuan (not the yen, that's the Japanese currency) to whatever they want, if you like it or not.


 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
The problem is the exemptions are targeted to special industries and are seen as a subsidy by the WTO (which they are). The solution is to elminate the tax completely on all industry and take it back to the WTO. Once it's not special it's not under the WTO's jurisidtion.
 

wkabel23

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 2003
2,505
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the Euroweenies

Get a new phrase, hopefully it won't be as stupid as this one.

Vous aimez cette phrase si beaucoup de, vous lui pourriez donner aussi des faveurs sexuelles.

Oh no! I'm a "Euroweenie!". What an insult
rolleye.gif
 

DaFinn

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2002
4,725
0
0
Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
How come no one has posted:

Bring it on

:p

CkG

Dont' forget that there's WMDs in France.

Zephyr

"We surrender!!! And you better accept that, because we have WMDs!!!"
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: freegeeks
CNN linky

The European Commission has launched retaliatory trade measures against the United States that will cost American companies hundreds of millions.....


last thing we need on both sides of the Atlantic is a trade war

Yet they do nothing about China keeping the value of the yen so low to create huge trade surpluses...

What does that have to do with the WTO?

Government intent on maintaining huge trade surpluses, so their nation benefits and all its trade partners get the shaft..How is that any different than the US creating an imbalance that benefits them?

it's different because the WTO has no jurisdiction about monetary policies of countries. The ECB, Federal Reserve and the Chinese Central Bank can do whatever they want because the WTO has no saying about this. They (chinese central bank) can value their yuan (not the yen, that's the Japanese currency) to whatever they want, if you like it or not.


So in response the US Federal Reserve can mandate that all import/export transactions be done in US Dollars or tinker with exchange rates until they have China and Europe at a tremendous disadvantage?
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: freegeeks
CNN linky

The European Commission has launched retaliatory trade measures against the United States that will cost American companies hundreds of millions.....


last thing we need on both sides of the Atlantic is a trade war

Yet they do nothing about China keeping the value of the yen so low to create huge trade surpluses...

What does that have to do with the WTO?

Government intent on maintaining huge trade surpluses, so their nation benefits and all its trade partners get the shaft..How is that any different than the US creating an imbalance that benefits them?

it's different because the WTO has no jurisdiction about monetary policies of countries. The ECB, Federal Reserve and the Chinese Central Bank can do whatever they want because the WTO has no saying about this. They (chinese central bank) can value their yuan (not the yen, that's the Japanese currency) to whatever they want, if you like it or not.


So in response the US Federal Reserve can mandate that all import/export transactions be done in US Dollars or tinker with exchange rates until they have China and Europe at a tremendous disadvantage?


the yuan is pegged to the dollar at a fixed rate and is only allowed by the chinese central bank to fluctuate within very narrow margins

the euro, dollar, british pound are traded on the open market. In theory the Federal reserve can make the decision that the dollar has also a fixed rate (against the euro or yuan for example)

maybe one of the resident financial expert can explain that stuf a bit more, I'm in no way an expert in this