Gasp, maybe they can offset their increased taxes by investing here. What a friggin horrible idea. No sense in bringing our manufacturing base back to the US huh?
Gasp, maybe they can offset their increased taxes by investing here. What a friggin horrible idea. No sense in bringing our manufacturing base back to the US huh?
And according to the Paris convention priority and the PCT, if they lose their patent protection here in the US, they will also lose alot of their inherited protections in from other member countries.
but who cares, if they want access to US markets and the consumers in the US, they need to play by the rules.
I see nothing wrong with going after tax cheats. While he is at it he can ask for the resignation of all the people he appointed who cheated on their taxes. Lets start at home and clean house on his staff before he goes after other people. He has to set the example by firing all of the people he appointed and his own staff who cheated on their taxes.
Otherwise Obamma is just a Hypocrite.
Otherwise Obamma is just a Hypocrite.
Well, if they change the rule then the company will just lay off more US worker AND raise price to consumer level since higher tax= less profit. To increase profit they would have to increase price and lay off people. Let's be real, if you own a company, its sole purpose is to made money.
That is a pretty stupid argument. The US govt issues a patent to them and in return for issuing that patent the US govt gets to do whatever they please? The rules change by administration so how do you expect to build a business friendly atmosphere when the govt holds a gun to your head and asks you to pull the trigger?
Sounds like a wonderful system you have setup in your head. Hold innovators hostage in this country.
So assuming that companies have to pay more taxes, what prevents companies from laying off people: "Ted, I know you've been here for 20 years, but head quarters has told us that our budget is being cut. The company just isn't making as much money as it use to. Sorry, Ted but XYZ international company has to let you go"...
Tax those big bad corporations to death -- in a recession, is that really the best thing to do?
Tax those big bad corporations to death -- in a recession, is that really the best thing to do?
the Taxes on cigarettes has been intentionally excessively raised to higher levels to reduce sales and consumption, and the price per pack here in the US is now close to what you would pay for a pack in Europe or Canada.
Electronics and computers are much cheaper because of Volume. How many computers were sold 20 years ago? Costs have been drastically lowered in many of these industries due to increased production and technology advances allowing for greater mass production at lower prices.
Your examples are both invalid
Well tech items always get cheaper to manufacture.
Wal-mart is an exception because they sell shit goods.
But what about bigger, more premium brands that have quietly shipped their mfg's oversees? Been shoe shopping lately? You can't find a pair of shoes that isn't made in China, yet the price of shoes is more or less the same now before that was the case, after adjusting for inflation.
This is true of a lot of goods outside of electronics or things not affected as much by technological advances.
Like clothes for instance, let's say for example that in 1995 it cost Levi's $1.50 to make a pair of jeans, it now costs about $.25, did that savings get passed to the consumer? Nope, it was pocketed by the company. The example may seem absurd but it's not really, you should see some of the deals that these corporations ram down the sweatshop owners' throats.
Ultimately, I'm not sure how someone can defend practices like this:
"Morgan Stanley, for instance, boasts 273 subsidiaries in tax havens, with 158 in the Cayman Islands alone. Citigroup's got 427, with 90 in the Cayman Islands, and 59 of Bank of America's tax-haven subsidiaries are there as well.
The GAO found 18,857 businesses are registered at just one address in the Cayman Islands -- the "Ugland House." The report said that "Ugland House registered entities included investment funds, structured-finance vehicles, and entities associated with other corporate activities.""
Text
Some people put the figure as high as $100 billion a year of lost revenue due to these tax havens. So we the consumer are going to be paying for it? We already are! Someone has to make up for that lost revenue and right now, it's us. :brokenheart:
They arent invalid in the least. How much of the computer is manufactured within the United States? We have seen drastic reductions in prices as more and more items are built outside the United States.
It has more to do with the "funny accounting" then anything.
Do you think the US Tax code should benefit companies relocating JOBS from the US to overseas?
I looked at shoes and found quality running shoes for 30 bucks. Quality running shoes 20 years ago cost as much or more before inflation.
Without having the actual numbers it is hard to say because 1.25 wont be noticed on an 80 dollar pair of jeans regardless. However I will say on clothes it is all about where you shop. I can find levi's from 15 bucks to 80 depending where I shop. Sometimes you are paying for where you shop which manufacturing costs are irrelevant when you are paying for the name.
But as a rule of thumb the costs of many mainstream items has come down drastically. Even more so when you factor in inflation.
I wont defend them only point out that erecting more burdens only makes it more profitable for such practices to occur. Easing the tax burden on our companies will make it less beneficial to try and hide profits and probably save American jobs from being shipped overseas.
The point is the companies want all the benefits from the USA, its laws, and court system........they just dont want to pay for it.
So tell me, why are individuals taxed based on their income and corporations taxed based on their profits? I wish I could become Smashp INC. and pay all my Taxes based on whats left over after all my costs.
"Sure honey, go shopping... Its a Tax writeoff"
"But Honey, Those 11 Lap Dances lowered our overall tax liabilities"
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
I still don't understand your point. What "funny accounting"?
In what way does the US tax code give a benefit to a company tied to relocating jobs overseas?
Many of the twists and turns in the corporate tax code is a result of attempting to keep the playing field level for US companies that compete and operate overseas and because of special rules that the Congress has added for areas they want companies to spend extra money on and thereby give them a tax break for doing so.
I have worked in senior finance positions with multinational companies and have lived overseas as an expat. I'm struggling to see the tax benefit of offshoring jobs. I know there is a cost benefit, but the deferral of profit rules currently in effect were an attempt to not tax the profits unless they're in the USA.
So what exactly is your point?
Michael
Using your own logic, that is the system live within it.
But the reason why? Because somewhere down the line the congress wrote tax laws that wont allow individuals to deduct expenses. One of the biggest complaints about our tax laws is health care deductions. Individuals who carry their own health care cant deduct the costs against their revenues while a business can. One of McCains proposals was to give a refundable 5000 dollar tax credit for a family who pays for their own health care. He was ridiculed for it.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
To be very clear, I am in full support of the current US actions against UBS and the proposed extension of this to other tax evasion schemes. That includes Cayman and BVI entities set up purely to avoid taxes instead of for valid legal and administrative reasons.
Michael
that is the overall point i guess of my posts Michael, I am for 100% loophole closure and sactioning and punishment of Tax evaders.
But too many people here even consider closing tax loopholes and shelters wrong because they are too busy Tea-baggin each other
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
This hasn't got anything to do with the US economy.
People need to stop accepting without question Washington DC's description of laws (like an "environmental protection' law that actually lessons standards etc).
Notice the article right-away tells you what the thing will do before they even tell what the law is. Most stop reading at the 1st paragraph.
See the underlined part above?
It's mostly about taxing US firms on profits they don't even make here.
Thus, what it's about is affecting US firms competitiveness abroad when competing with foreigners in foreign markets. We're putting ourselves at a disadvantage.
How does that possibly help the US economy? It can't.
Other countries tax only profits made within their borders. If we did that, this wouldn't even be an issue. Our US companies would be like European and other companies and therefore not taxed on profits overseas. You just pay the tax to the foreign country where the profit arose.
In the short-term this raises more revenue for the US government, and puts us at a competive disadvantage against foreigners (non-US firms and people). That's no help in raising revenue in the long-term, or any help to to the domestic US economy. In the end it's effect will be to shrink the size of US international businesses; not a good thing.
What gives the US the (moral) right to tax profits made in other countries? Isn't that the business of other countries? (I realize the gov has the legal right, that's why I say "moral right').
The Democratic paryt has never once articulated a single decent or compelling argument as to how our tax policy encourages out-sourcing of jobs. What this law wil likely do is stop out-sourcing of "business" by hurting us in foreign markets. Shouldn't everyone be on a level playing field? This sure as heck doesn't do that, in fact it's just the opposite.
Fern
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
You do not share my point of view unless you define "loophole".
My definition of a loophole is the application of the tax code in manner that was not intended or forseen when the code was written. A recent example of this is the paper industry getting a windfall from a rule meant to promote renewable energy.
The current tax code intends to defer taxes on profits made overseas as long as they remain overseas. That is not a loophole.
Tax evasion is not a loophole. It is a criminal activity where the tax payer underreports income that is subject to US taxation.
What Obama is proposing is a tax increase on US business by taxing the profits they make overseas as if they were made in the USA. That I do not support as I find it shortsighted and highly likely to destroy jobs and hurt the image of the USA around the world. Right now, US companies are all over the place and are highly sought after to work for. The current proposals, as I understand them, are politically motivated and are an attempt to pay back the Democratic base voters (union members) for their support.
Again, to be clear, I understand the motivation from paying back your supporters and it should be expected. It is part of every democracy. However, I am looking at the proposals from a company driven point of view. I think they will be very damaging and will set back US business significantly.
Michael
you mean, politics today are all about supporting those who supported/paid for your run into office? no way...
politics today is such a joke that i would not be surprised to see some major overhaul in the next 4 or 8 years when someone slips up and royally fucks up.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Michael
Would I be wrong in concluding that a change such as this could ultimately result in US corporations divesting themselves of all foreign operations? On paper at least.
If Intel has to pay US taxes on a processor produced in Germany and sold to a German in addition to German taxes, why would they care to continue owning a German factory?
Would I be wrong in concluding that a change such as this could ultimately result in US corporations divesting themselves of all foreign operations? On paper at least.
If Intel has to pay US taxes on a processor produced in Germany and sold to a German in addition to German taxes, why would they care to continue owning a German factory?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter