Lost in the noise: a tax holiday is a bad idea

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
^^^^ best post of this thread.

we need to cut spending plain and simple. I don't want anyone paying more in taxes. we all should be able to keep our money. We have a bad mentality here than the gov't has first count of the money we earn and whatever they choose to leave us should be more than enough and we should be thankful for getting any....

we need to ask ourselves, when is enough enough. People need to realize that corps don't pay taxes. They just input that into the cost of whatever good or service they produce and pass it along to the consumer. so any increase in taxes to corps will basically mean you and I pay more for whatever it is they produce -> this is not to say that if corp taxes were eliminated today we would see a decrease in prices. we won't likely see that, but would see the increase on the upside.

we have a leaking bucket and the politicians all want to keep filling it with our tax dollars vs fixing the damn thing. @ss backwards thinking -> that's what makes a politician a politician. We are all over qualified

One thing that's a problem is how many people think that 'keeping your mong' is going to mean the same income, you just keep more of it, when actually these big 'spending cuts' if done in the wrong areas are going to leave people 'keeping' more of less - so instead of keeping 60% of $100,000 they'll find themselves keeping 80% of $50,000.

What happened, they'll wonder. Well, the changes are designed by exactly one interest group - the wealthy - who will transfer more wealth to themselves. Shocking!

The question for citizens is whether they want to be suckers who fall for the right-wing propaganda to get them to agree to plans bad for them, and good for the rich.

Hey, let's have a flat tax! A fair tax! A balanced budget amendment! We can go third world!
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
The question for citizens is whether they want to be suckers who fall for the right-wing propaganda to get them to agree to plans bad for them, and good for the rich.

Some of us believe in putting others before our selves. It's a shame you're so selfish that you only want to pass legislation that benefits you and those like you.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
I have a proposal.

Everyone whose name begins with A-C is in the plan Everyone else is out.

Now, for those of us in, we stop paying all federal income tax, using offshore accounts. Don't worry, I've had a lobbyist create a loophole for it. No one else can use it.

Now, what we do is, that represents many, many billions of dollars in taxes; it'll hurt the economy not to have all that money. The government would like to see it here taxed.

Well, here's the beauty of the plan. We have our lobbyist offer themrewards to back a plan that they tell the D-Z people is win-win - a tax holiday.

They let us get away with paying 10% of the taxes we'd normally owe, and we agree to then pay our taxes. By enough of us doing this, it'll give our group the power to do it.

What about all that tax discount? Easy, we add it to the public debt - the D-Z people. Thanks guys!

The plan above is basically what has happened, and it's a scam that is criminal morally if not legally.

It's just one more way of saying 'the corporations haven't had enough advantage already, and would like to pay a fraction of the normal already low tax rates for THEIR share.'

It'll get sold as 'it's better than nothing', but that's nothing more than rationalizing the paying of ransom to hostage takers.

The corporations want that money back here (in part for their own bonuses), and what we should be looking at is how to prevent this 'hostage taking' in the first place.

There's already way too much in the way of offshore scams, phony games with subsidiaries buying and selling to each other at phony prices to avoid taxes, and so on.

Republicans especially fight to reduce any enforcement of the law against this tax evasion.

Under Bush, spending on IRS enforcement of tax laws against the rich was slashed, and enforcement against workers was increased with new systems.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
What happened, they'll wonder. Well, the changes are designed by exactly one interest group - the wealthy - who will transfer more wealth to themselves. Shocking!
This is by far your biggest screw up.

The wealthy don't transfer wealth to themselves. We give it to them in return for the services they offer.

Bill Gates is the richest American because he started a software company and people bought his programs.
Buffet is rich because he spent 50 years of his life dedicated to growing one company.
The richest family in American, the Waltons, have their money because their dad built the largest company in the world.

NONE of these people transferred the wealth to themselves, they earned every penny of it.


The only wealth transfers we have in this country is via the money that government forceable takes from people who earn it and then gives it to others without requiring anything in return.

Bitch all you want about the rich having too much money, but don't delude yourself to think that they got it without working for it.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
And that is all in the first 6 paragraphs of his Bachmann story.

Anyone who takes him seriously is a joke.

Those are all opinions and snark and a few are smirk worthy. Surely you're not suggesting a new journalistic standard are you?

Where is the counterpoint to the OP by the way? I see some class warfare, some ad homs, a little of the "IhatetaxesOMG" bukkake dojo, and the usual strawmen but no one attacking the substance of this article.

1. Is Taibbi describing this situation accurately?
2. If so, is this tax holiday a good idea?

If your answer is either No to #1 or Yes to #2 please explain.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-

1. Is Taibbi describing this situation accurately?
2. If so, is this tax holiday a good idea?

If your answer is either No to #1 or Yes to #2 please explain.

I don't think we have sufficient info to answer to #1, therefore we can't answer #2.

We really need to know the details, and I expect Taibbi is insufficiently versed in such complicated tax matters for us to blindly trust him.

For example: If these companies bring the money in and then use it for only CEO bonuses, those CEO's pay income tax on it. So isn't it (the foreign money repatriated) being taxed after all?

We'll the question is how is that treated on the corporate side. If the corporation get's a deduction for the bonus paid to the CEO, then effectively no. The corporate deduction (reduction in tax) offsets the increase in tax from the CEO so it's a net zero from gov revenue standpoint.

OTOH, we have tax rules that say if the income is tax-free, expenses paid with it are non-deductible.

We really need to see the details. I doubt there are any available since it sounds like these proposals are just at the 'rumor' stage.

Fern
 

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
I have a proposal.

Everyone whose name begins with A-C is in the plan Everyone else is out.

Now, for those of us in, we stop paying all federal income tax, using offshore accounts. Don't worry, I've had a lobbyist create a loophole for it. No one else can use it.

Now, what we do is, that represents many, many billions of dollars in taxes; it'll hurt the economy not to have all that money. The government would like to see it here taxed.

Well, here's the beauty of the plan. We have our lobbyist offer themrewards to back a plan that they tell the D-Z people is win-win - a tax holiday.

They let us get away with paying 10% of the taxes we'd normally owe, and we agree to then pay our taxes. By enough of us doing this, it'll give our group the power to do it.

What about all that tax discount? Easy, we add it to the public debt - the D-Z people. Thanks guys!

The plan above is basically what has happened, and it's a scam that is criminal morally if not legally.

It's just one more way of saying 'the corporations haven't had enough advantage already, and would like to pay a fraction of the normal already low tax rates for THEIR share.'

It'll get sold as 'it's better than nothing', but that's nothing more than rationalizing the paying of ransom to hostage takers.

The corporations want that money back here (in part for their own bonuses), and what we should be looking at is how to prevent this 'hostage taking' in the first place.

There's already way too much in the way of offshore scams, phony games with subsidiaries buying and selling to each other at phony prices to avoid taxes, and so on.

Republicans especially fight to reduce any enforcement of the law against this tax evasion.

Under Bush, spending on IRS enforcement of tax laws against the rich was slashed, and enforcement against workers was increased with new systems.

so under your plan are we using first names or last names?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
What happened, they'll wonder. Well, the changes are designed by exactly one interest group - the wealthy - who will transfer more wealth to themselves. Shocking!

What exactly do you think current tax law does, numbnuts?

Get rid of the whole damn thing, institute a flat tax, and include short term capital gains as income. Done.

You morons and demand for social experimentation via the tax code are what let the rich avoid taxes but you're too stupid to realize it.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
You should be embarrassed to post anything written by Matt Taibbi.

The guy is a complete hack and nothing more.
Man, I come here prepared to agree with Craig and I find an earnest contender for dumbest thing on the Internet.

I'm not a fan of consumer tax holidays at all, but even such a blunt instrument as Matt Taibbi should understand that allowing multinational corporations to bring into our country money they otherwise would not bring in (because of our high taxes on top of foreign taxation) would be a shot in the arm for our economy. I wouldn't do a tax holiday as such though; I'd just flat out make it that if you add payroll (wages only, up to the Social Security cut-off) or domestic capital expenditures, you can bring in that money plus a matching amount as profit with no tax implications. If your company is growing and adds $3 million in wages and spends $1 million in domestic capital expenditures over last year, you may bring in $8 million in foreign profits without tax implications. My only caveat would be that the money has to be earned completely outside the USA throughout its supply chain, on product never imported into America. Otherwise companies would merely add a Bahaman shell company to buy the Chinese product, sell it to its Caiman shell company at 95% wholesale price, sell it to its US company (which would lose money), and then import the profits tax free or nearly so. Outside of that, it's a great idea to repatriate foreign earnings currently invested only in foreign investments to avoid double taxation.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
don't forget that home mortgage deduction "loop hole" or that dependent deduction "loop hole" or property tax deduction "loop hole" or vehicle registration deduction "Loop Hole" You took the bate. You call compliance with existing tax law "Loop Holes" so now the tax law that benefits you and be considered a "loop hole" and used to strangle more tax revenue out of you and other bottom feeder "loop hole" parasites.

^^^^ best post of this thread.

we need to cut spending plain and simple. I don't want anyone paying more in taxes. we all should be able to keep our money. We have a bad mentality here than the gov't has first count of the money we earn and whatever they choose to leave us should be more than enough and we should be thankful for getting any....

we need to ask ourselves, when is enough enough. People need to realize that corps don't pay taxes. They just input that into the cost of whatever good or service they produce and pass it along to the consumer. so any increase in taxes to corps will basically mean you and I pay more for whatever it is they produce -> this is not to say that if corp taxes were eliminated today we would see a decrease in prices. we won't likely see that, but would see the increase on the upside.

we have a leaking bucket and the politicians all want to keep filling it with our tax dollars vs fixing the damn thing. @ss backwards thinking -> that's what makes a politician a politician. We are all over qualified

Two excellent posts.

EDIT:
This is by far your biggest screw up.

The wealthy don't transfer wealth to themselves. We give it to them in return for the services they offer.

Bill Gates is the richest American because he started a software company and people bought his programs.
Buffet is rich because he spent 50 years of his life dedicated to growing one company.
The richest family in American, the Waltons, have their money because their dad built the largest company in the world.

NONE of these people transferred the wealth to themselves, they earned every penny of it.


The only wealth transfers we have in this country is via the money that government forceable takes from people who earn it and then gives it to others without requiring anything in return.

Bitch all you want about the rich having too much money, but don't delude yourself to think that they got it without working for it.
Make that three.

Always amazes me that the left continually want to reward those who take our wealth under threat of force (i.e. government) and punish those who take our wealth in return for value at our discretion and instigation (e.g. Bill Gates.)
 
Last edited:

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
I don't think we have sufficient info to answer to #1, therefore we can't answer #2.

We really need to know the details, and I expect Taibbi is insufficiently versed in such complicated tax matters for us to blindly trust him.

For example: If these companies bring the money in and then use it for only CEO bonuses, those CEO's pay income tax on it. So isn't it (the foreign money repatriated) being taxed after all?

We'll the question is how is that treated on the corporate side. If the corporation get's a deduction for the bonus paid to the CEO, then effectively no. The corporate deduction (reduction in tax) offsets the increase in tax from the CEO so it's a net zero from gov revenue standpoint.

OTOH, we have tax rules that say if the income is tax-free, expenses paid with it are non-deductible.

We really need to see the details. I doubt there are any available since it sounds like these proposals are just at the 'rumor' stage.

Fern

Taibbi is stating that the details would be much as they were for the previous holiday in 2004. I too would like to know the specifics. Here is some additional info on the 2004 tax holiday.

"In 2004, when the U.S. enacted a repatriation tax holiday, the goal was to encourage U.S. multinationals to pay bigger cash dividends from their overseas subsidiaries and use the cash to make investments in the United States,” Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy Michael Mundaca wrote in a Treasury blog post. “Unfortunately, there is no evidence that it increased U.S. investment or jobs, and it cost taxpayers billions.”

According to a Congressional Research Service study in December 2010, earnings that flowed back into the U.S. in 2004 failed to increase U.S. investment and employment, or stimulate demand. Earnings were instead routed back to company shareholders through stock repurchases and dividend payments.

The 2004 law temporarily drove down the 35 percent corporate tax rate, the highest in the world, to 5.25 percent in 2005 on overseas profits. About $362 billion, or about 45 percent of all U.S. multinational profits stored abroad at the end of 2004, were brought back to the U.S., according to the IRS. Currently, U.S. multinationals have more than $1 trillion in profits stashed in overseas accounts."

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Artic...es-Tax-Holiday-to-Corporate-Giants.aspx#page1


Here the administration is denying that they would be onboard for something like this but we all know how far that'll take us :(. In any case if this were to emerge under more or less the same framework as 2004 - then I don't see this as a positive.
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
You should be embarrassed to post anything written by Matt Taibbi.

The guy is a complete hack and nothing more.

Damn I was going to post "in before somebody flames Matt Taibbi."

So, do you disapprove of him talking about important issues about how the average joe in america is getting raped? Do you claim he's lying about the stuff he's writing about or you just don't like him because of whatever political team he sides with?

I'd never heard of him until recently and have only read a couple of articles. One of which was about the CEO housewives setting up shell corporations undoubtedly under the planning and direction of their CEO husbands to get millions in bailout money to play the market with.

And then this story is the same old look the other way bullshit that happens too often.

If a corporation intentionally houses their money off shore to avoid taxes, they should be fined. If a person is caught doing that they'd goto jail.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Taibbi is stating that the details would be much as they were for the previous holiday in 2004. I too would like to know the specifics. Here is some additional info on the 2004 tax holiday.

"In 2004, when the U.S. enacted a repatriation tax holiday, the goal was to encourage U.S. multinationals to pay bigger cash dividends from their overseas subsidiaries and use the cash to make investments in the United States,” Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy Michael Mundaca wrote in a Treasury blog post. “Unfortunately, there is no evidence that it increased U.S. investment or jobs, and it cost taxpayers billions.”

According to a Congressional Research Service study in December 2010, earnings that flowed back into the U.S. in 2004 failed to increase U.S. investment and employment, or stimulate demand. Earnings were instead routed back to company shareholders through stock repurchases and dividend payments.

The 2004 law temporarily drove down the 35 percent corporate tax rate, the highest in the world, to 5.25 percent in 2005 on overseas profits. About $362 billion, or about 45 percent of all U.S. multinational profits stored abroad at the end of 2004, were brought back to the U.S., according to the IRS. Currently, U.S. multinationals have more than $1 trillion in profits stashed in overseas accounts."

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Artic...es-Tax-Holiday-to-Corporate-Giants.aspx#page1


Here the administration is denying that they would be onboard for something like this but we all know how far that'll take us :(. In any case if this were to emerge under more or less the same framework as 2004 - then I don't see this as a positive.
You don't understand that bringing another trillion dollars into our economy would be a very good thing regardless of how it is done? Seriously? It is to be judged solely on how much of it is sucked into the black hole of government? Even though shareholders have to pay taxes on it, nothing matters unless government gets its cut off the top?

Personally I like Krauthammer's plan - require that 25% of the repatriated money be spent on new payroll or new capital expenditures to be tax free. I'd increase it to 50% and qualify only domestic capital expenditures, but either way we could get a twofer out of it, spurred demand and hiring plus an influx of wealth. But repatriating foreign income is a benefit on its own.

Damn I was going to post "in before somebody flames Matt Taibbi."

So, do you disapprove of him talking about important issues about how the average joe in america is getting raped? Do you claim he's lying about the stuff he's writing about or you just don't like him because of whatever political team he sides with?

I'd never heard of him until recently and have only read a couple of articles. One of which was about the CEO housewives setting up shell corporations undoubtedly under the planning and direction of their CEO husbands to get millions in bailout money to play the market with.

And then this story is the same old look the other way bullshit that happens too often.

If a corporation intentionally houses their money off shore to avoid taxes, they should be fined. If a person is caught doing that they'd goto jail.
This is profit income earned in other nations. We have no right to that income unless it's repatriated, and it's not usually repatriated because that profit is taxed first in the nation in which it is earned, then the remainder is subjected to the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

No one is alleging that these corporations are doing anything criminal. If an individual wishes to form a corporation to operate only in another nation, that corporation's profit is not taxed unless and until it is repatriated. Somehow I doubt if it was your profit losing half or more of its value before it reaches your wallet, you'd be so insistent on demanding to be taxed twice.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
I cant believe there are actually real people who argue for and support what this government is doing. Newsflash. It needs to stop. It will stop. Either before or after 99% of this country is broke. The problem is there are so many people who are programmed and controlled by a media system which happens to be owned by the same 1% that is making out like bandits from the policies of this government! I dont know why people cant figure it out.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
You don't understand that bringing another trillion dollars into our economy would be a very good thing regardless of how it is done? Seriously? It is to be judged solely on how much of it is sucked into the black hole of government? Even though shareholders have to pay taxes on it, nothing matters unless government gets its cut off the top?

Personally I like Krauthammer's plan - require that 25% of the repatriated money be spent on new payroll or new capital expenditures to be tax free. I'd increase it to 50% and qualify only domestic capital expenditures, but either way we could get a twofer out of it, spurred demand and hiring plus an influx of wealth. But repatriating foreign income is a benefit on its own.


This is profit income earned in other nations. We have no right to that income unless it's repatriated, and it's not usually repatriated because that profit is taxed first in the nation in which it is earned, then the remainder is subjected to the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

No one is alleging that these corporations are doing anything criminal. If an individual wishes to form a corporation to operate only in another nation, that corporation's profit is not taxed unless and until it is repatriated. Somehow I doubt if it was your profit losing half or more of its value before it reaches your wallet, you'd be so insistent on demanding to be taxed twice.

You aren't describing that accurately, many of these profits are being generated domestically but are shifted overseas through clever accounting to avoid paying the correct rate.

"A U.S. tech company identified only by the pseudonym “Delta” generated as much as 55 percent of its revenue domestically while reporting to shareholders that only 10 percent of its pretax income came from U.S. operations, according to a report presented to the House Ways and Means Committee.

By attributing more earnings to countries with lower tax rates, including the Netherlands and Singapore, “Delta” cut its worldwide average tax rate to less than half the 35 percent rate in the U.S., said the report by the Joint Committee on Taxation, presented yesterday.

Such income shifting, gleaned from actual tax returns in a rare glimpse into the tax structures of six U.S. multinational companies, reflects a strategy that critics call abusive. Companies that use it may be depriving the U.S. treasury of as much as $60 billion a year, according to a study published in December by Kimberly A. Clausing, an economics professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...to-foreign-income-with-billions-offshore.html


You must have some killer biceps, those water buckets must be very heavy...day after day.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Damn I was going to post "in before somebody flames Matt Taibbi."

So, do you disapprove of him talking about important issues about how the average joe in america is getting raped? Do you claim he's lying about the stuff he's writing about or you just don't like him because of whatever political team he sides with?

I'd never heard of him until recently and have only read a couple of articles. One of which was about the CEO housewives setting up shell corporations undoubtedly under the planning and direction of their CEO husbands to get millions in bailout money to play the market with.

And then this story is the same old look the other way bullshit that happens too often.

If a corporation intentionally houses their money off shore to avoid taxes, they should be fined. If a person is caught doing that they'd goto jail.

First, on your last point - morally, you're right, but the corporations have largely made these crimes legal as they push for laws the public isn't interested in.

On Taibbi, I've become a big fan, calling him an 'army of one' for investigative journalism.

I've come to this reluctantly. I subscribed to Rolling Stone after thinking they were a largely useless music rag, to support them when I saw the appended Matt Taibbi article.

It was on 'the wost Congress ever', the last Republican one before Democrats took it in 2006. At the time I didn't pay attention to the author, just the magazine.

It's no longer on their website, but thought you might enjoy the link to another site.

Then when I saw the magazine do more excellent stories, I noticed the author's name. Then I saw Taibbi in interviews. I did not like him. He came across as a sarcastic, cynical kid with a foul mouth. I didn't think he was a good figure for the progressives, that he looked unreliable for quality commentary. As I read more of hi it was clear his work was excellent again and again, and I've come to this position of supporting him.

That corporate wife shell company story is one of many I've seen nowhere else.

Check out his latest book, Griftopia. It has some very good commentary, and the best rebuttal to the Greenspan/Rand ideology dominant with many on Wall Street I've seen.

Taibbi really exposes how bad so much of the 'business media' is by comparison.

http://thecommons4change.blogspot.com/2006/10/matt-taibbi-worst-congress-ever.html
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I'll be surprised if this idea gets any traction.

If allowing companies to import this cash will stimulate investment and hiring, it presupposes that these large multinational corporations are not doing so now because they lack cash. However, it is common knowledge that such large are ALREADY sitting on large cash surpluses.

Hence, this idea is totally flawed and make no sense whatsoever, IMO.

Fern
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
You aren't describing that accurately, many of these profits are being generated domestically but are shifted overseas through clever accounting to avoid paying the correct rate.

"A U.S. tech company identified only by the pseudonym “Delta” generated as much as 55 percent of its revenue domestically while reporting to shareholders that only 10 percent of its pretax income came from U.S. operations, according to a report presented to the House Ways and Means Committee.

By attributing more earnings to countries with lower tax rates, including the Netherlands and Singapore, “Delta” cut its worldwide average tax rate to less than half the 35 percent rate in the U.S., said the report by the Joint Committee on Taxation, presented yesterday.

Such income shifting, gleaned from actual tax returns in a rare glimpse into the tax structures of six U.S. multinational companies, reflects a strategy that critics call abusive. Companies that use it may be depriving the U.S. treasury of as much as $60 billion a year, according to a study published in December by Kimberly A. Clausing, an economics professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...to-foreign-income-with-billions-offshore.html


You must have some killer biceps, those water buckets must be very heavy...day after day.
Okay, in theory those profits are generated in other nations. I agree that there are doubtless widespread shady accounting practices, which should be prosecuted to the fullest when they can be so identified.

However, just demanding that multinational corporations fork over all their foreign profits to Uncle Sam is hardly a bucket-free exercise. Progressives want to cut off our collective nose to spite our collective face in your burning hatred of the wealthy and corporations. If properly incentivized, we could repatriate a lot of money AND get a nice boost in our economy. Right now, most corporations are not investing; they are too leery of Obama and of the economy to take on new ventures and new markets. The ability to skip that second scalping through our confiscatory tax code would make a lot of new ventures, capital investments, and hires worth doing. Certainly NOT losing more than a third of your investment money up front makes any investment look a lot more attractive, especially if they can bring in a matching amount tax free and not invest it. (Don't cry, government will still get its cut when those profits are eventually disbursed or invested.) Companies not willing to make new capital investments or add to payroll could continue to sit on foreign profits; government would be no worse off than under existing law.

I have to agree with Fern and <sigh> Craig the Fail 234 that a tax holiday with no investment conditions is a bad idea. It would still be a shot in the arm for the economy, making our banks and our domestic corporations more solvent, and driving up tax revenue as those profits are disbursed, but it would do little for jobs.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
I agree that there are doubtless widespread shady accounting practices, which should be prosecuted to the fullest when they can be so identified.

I really don't think we can afford tons of legal cases in the financial state we're in.
 

ohnoes

Senior member
Oct 11, 2007
269
0
0
There was a whole article awhile back about the "dutch sandwich" method used by Google to shift billions of profits overseas. The method is pretty creative, but not illegal per se.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
You ask this as if "Business" were human - Business is solely about profit - which I don't find abhorrent - a company must survive if it wishes to go on...

But it is about business in the end - as long as business can take as much as it can - it will...

If a business makes a profit, where do you suppose that profit goes? Ultimately, it has to go somewhere. Either to shareholders, or owners, or in compensation to workers (including fat bonuses for execs), or as investments. It has to go somewhere, and when it does, we get some benefit from it, whereas right now we get no benefit at all. Zero.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
why would they bring it back, when they know they will get these dumb tax holidays like they have previously?

the companies that did it before paid out extra bonuses and cut employee numbers

They bring it back for the same reason they brought it back last time: they want to use it. Regardless of how they use it, they use it, and that means we get a benefit. "extra bonuses" still means they are paying out that money to people who in turn get taxed on it and / or spend it or invest it. There is no way that I can see that we don't get some benefit from it.