When U.S. companies dodge taxes, is it unpatriotic?

[Spungo]

"I signed an awareness petition calling for higher taxes on someone other than me" #stickingittotheman

"I decided to not vaccinate my children so they won't get austism" #stickingittotheman

"I'll join Occupy Wall Street and hang out for a few months disrupting the local residents' lives" #stickingittotheman

"I shop at Whole Foods rather than big corporations like WalMart" #stickingittotheman

We don't have enough regulations. I suggest we expand the government so the rich people with political connections have even more power" #stickingittotheman

 

[piasabird]

Don't you dodge taxes?

How is it unpatriotic? Don't you really think patriots are just terrorists? Get real here!

 

[MongGrel]

Was there ever a question? American "liberals" have gone from fighting the man to licking his boots over the past 40 years.

You are just one odd, bit of a pathetic person just from observation lately.

Just an opinion I suppose.

 

[MongGrel]

Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand was coddled as the daughter of a pharmacist, in a family of atheists who were ethnically Jewish. She entered college just before the Bolshevik Revolution, and studied mostly -- almost exclusively -- languages and classical philosophy. I have no indication that she took any credits in economics, other social sciences or the hard sciences. There's not much indication of mathematics in that education. She became enamored of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, also a favorite of Adolf Hitler.

Then she entered "Russian Film School" -- a graduate program. With some other students, she demonstrated against the expropriation of private property; she would later become bitter because they'd taken her father's pharmacy. Initially, the Communists weren't going to let her graduate from film school, but they actually relented, and she did graduate.

Then, she came to the States, headed for Hollywood, and quickly became a protégé of Cecil B. deMille. She was fully employed all during the Depression, able to dine daily at restaurants and live "above it all." She began producing her prolix writings, for instance, "We, The Living," pouring out her vitriol against the regime that made her life so hard by allowing her to graduate from film school. [Graduating, while millions of folks in USSR were relocated, starving, trying to rise out of the aftermath of the Revolution.]

I can only speculate about some . . teenager . . . rummaging around the shelves of her daddy's pharmacy, but in her new life as an American, she became a speed freak.

If you examine the wordy novel "Atlas Shrugged," it seems likely the role of a main character was really a Rand fantasy -- to be a railroad heiress and a "wealth creator." Otherwise, the values she promoted -- pure selfishness, atheism, free love -- were fairly contrary to positions held by most Americans.

At the end, she had done nothing with the royalties from her books: she was destitute. Diagnosed with lung cancer (having been a chain smoker all her life), she filed for Social Security and Medicare. Most certainly -- because she said so -- she was ashamed to take the benefits she worked for all her life.

At most, her works are prolix fiction: the output of a career narcissist who used 1,000 words where 100 would do the trick. None of her works has ever been taken seriously by academics of literature or literary history, and -- no -- that consensus wasn't born of some liberal plot against her thinking. They just tend to think her drivel was worthless.

If you intend to expose yourself to thousands of pages of fictional drivel, you should also expose yourself to other (real) American authors like Steinbeck, or F. Scott Fitzgerald, or Upton Sinclair.

Could I have been a "wealth creator" in this mythical sense? Sure. But the last thing I wanted to do with my life was to seek a career on Wall Street. I wanted to do something "meaningful."

In sum, philosophy will get you about as much as a dime for a cup of coffee, no less than religion. There is no "scientific method," no interplay of empirical data-gathering and deductive logic we trace back to Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon. It is often a construct of someone's idea of "how things should be," with no consideration of "how things are."

So much for the "wealth creators" who gamble with huge fortunes, perhaps no less ignorant than anyone else, who may have come up with a silver-spoon in one hand and a gold cell-phone in another. These aren't "problem solvers." They're predatory outsourcers.

How Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard Came Up With Their Big Ideas

http://www.cracked.com/video_18426_ayn-rand-5Bplaceholder5D.html

 

[soccerballtux]

I don't have any sympathy for them.
It's just capitalism and public company doing what's best for shareholders.

 

[BoberFett]

You are just one odd, bit of a pathetic person just from observation lately.

Just an opinion I suppose.

The truth hurts, eh?

 

[D-Man]

When U.S. companies dodge taxes, is it unpatriotic? Misleading Title

Following the tax code to the letter of the law is legal and Patriotic for paying your fair share by following the law.

 

[TheSlamma]

I don't have any sympathy for them.
It's just capitalism and public company doing what's best for shareholders.

and never what is best for their customers and exactly why customer satisfaction with most companies is abysmal.

 

[Oldgamer]

This is all part of a gross myth. One person or institution's "freedom" can affect the "freedom" and well-being of millions adversely.

I also must despise that Wall Street moron who insinuated that we should all emulate the 2-percenters. Must people come up in life with a limited, but realistic set of expectations. They prepare themselves to be employable in any number of useful avenues. If they didn't make themselves available to employers, there wouldn't be any wealth creation.

Here's my take on one source of this myth.

Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand was coddled as the daughter of a pharmacist, in a family of atheists who were ethnically Jewish. She entered college just before the Bolshevik Revolution, and studied mostly -- almost exclusively -- languages and classical philosophy. I have no indication that she took any credits in economics, other social sciences or the hard sciences. There's not much indication of mathematics in that education. She became enamored of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, also a favorite of Adolf Hitler.

Then she entered "Russian Film School" -- a graduate program. With some other students, she demonstrated against the expropriation of private property; she would later become bitter because they'd taken her father's pharmacy. Initially, the Communists weren't going to let her graduate from film school, but they actually relented, and she did graduate.

Then, she came to the States, headed for Hollywood, and quickly became a protégé of Cecil B. deMille. She was fully employed all during the Depression, able to dine daily at restaurants and live "above it all." She began producing her prolix writings, for instance, "We, The Living," pouring out her vitriol against the regime that made her life so hard by allowing her to graduate from film school. [Graduating, while millions of folks in USSR were relocated, starving, trying to rise out of the aftermath of the Revolution.]

I can only speculate about some . . teenager . . . rummaging around the shelves of her daddy's pharmacy, but in her new life as an American, she became a speed freak.

If you examine the wordy novel "Atlas Shrugged," it seems likely the role of a main character was really a Rand fantasy -- to be a railroad heiress and a "wealth creator." Otherwise, the values she promoted -- pure selfishness, atheism, free love -- were fairly contrary to positions held by most Americans.

At the end, she had done nothing with the royalties from her books: she was destitute. Diagnosed with lung cancer (having been a chain smoker all her life), she filed for Social Security and Medicare. Most certainly -- because she said so -- she was ashamed to take the benefits she worked for all her life.

At most, her works are prolix fiction: the output of a career narcissist who used 1,000 words where 100 would do the trick. None of her works has ever been taken seriously by academics of literature or literary history, and -- no -- that consensus wasn't born of some liberal plot against her thinking. They just tend to think her drivel was worthless.

If you intend to expose yourself to thousands of pages of fictional drivel, you should also expose yourself to other (real) American authors like Steinbeck, or F. Scott Fitzgerald, or Upton Sinclair.

Could I have been a "wealth creator" in this mythical sense? Sure. But the last thing I wanted to do with my life was to seek a career on Wall Street. I wanted to do something "meaningful."

In sum, philosophy will get you about as much as a dime for a cup of coffee, no less than religion. There is no "scientific method," no interplay of empirical data-gathering and deductive logic we trace back to Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon. It is often a construct of someone's idea of "how things should be," with no consideration of "how things are."

So much for the "wealth creators" who gamble with huge fortunes, perhaps no less ignorant than anyone else, who may have come up with a silver-spoon in one hand and a gold cell-phone in another. These aren't "problem solvers." They're predatory outsourcers.

And -- please -- don't try and lump Steve Jobs or Bill Gates into that crowd. True -- Gates came up with a $2 million trust-fund, bailed out of Harvard, and didn't need to keep body and soul together while melding both his technical prowess and business acumen to build a great company.

Both of those guys were college dropouts, who had the opportunity to attend Harvard or Stanford (in Jobs' case) and chose a different path. Jobs could putter and work in his parents' garage with Wozniak; he had a place to live. People with less to fall back on don't drop out of college if they can help it.

Jobs didn't even have the technical expertise: his forte was graphic design. And neither of those men would try and tell you that the companies they built were their own, exclusive creation. They depended on a team of people -- many of whom just landed on the right checkerboard square at the right time.

Very good post.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't know why anyone would consider this unpatriotic, companies have no loyalty. At the same time, I also have no idea why we have so many people in congress and the people who vote for them who are always championing to make things better for the corporations at the expense of their employees and customers.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Let ME make this straight, lobbying Congress and funding elections to get tax breaks is unpatriotic by those that profit from such laws.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I don't know why anyone would consider this unpatriotic, companies have no loyalty. At the same time, I also have no idea why we have so many people in congress and the people who vote for them who are always championing to make things better for the corporations at the expense of their employees and customers.

Are you unobvious? They do that to keep campaign contributions coming in and high paying after office retirement jobs.

 

[ivwshane]

Are you unobvious? They do that to keep campaign contributions coming in and high paying after office retirement jobs.

Lol, I forgot about that reason/s

 

[RandomWords]

Is it unpatriotic to move from New York to Wyoming because of the lower taxes? There's your answer. We should gas everyone in Wyoming. Those traitors.

We don't have enough regulations. I suggest we expand the government so the rich people with political connections have even more power" #stickingittotheman

Screw them, we're Americans! We don't want taxes on US income, we want taxes on EVERYBODY'S income dammit! 'Murica!

When you go around saying things like "if you don't like the tax system in the U.S. you're free to leave," you shouldn't be surprised when someone takes you up on it. And dmcowen tells us the country is better off if the rich do leave, so you should be happy about this.

Lol... those are some of my favorite quotes. Unpatriotic? No more so than an American citizen looking for every loophole they can to reduce or make their taxes lower just so they don't have to pay them. Half the people in the US don't even pay taxes because they are considered too "poor" and actually can get PAID at the end of the year - No, I do not mean a refund - I mean paid extra money... and to think - they also get welfare...



Solution: Go to just a Sales Tax - corporations will have to pay it on all their products; the poor will have to pay it on all theirs (like that iPhone they just got); the rich will have to pay it on all theirs - exclude food and water - create a comparable importation tax (so corporations don't automatically just get all their supplies from overseas) and walla - everyone pays taxes fairly with hardly any loopholes. Granted - I'm sure government would make it more complicated than this. It wouldn't even have to be that significant. You can even keep the income tax for corporations and people making over 2 million a year... the government will have money rolling in from everywhere.

 

[Cozarkian]

Solution: Go to just a Sales Tax - corporations will have to pay it on all their products; the poor will have to pay it on all theirs (like that iPhone they just got); the rich will have to pay it on all theirs - exclude food and water - create a comparable importation tax (so corporations don't automatically just get all their supplies from overseas) and walla - everyone pays taxes fairly with hardly any loopholes. Granted - I'm sure government would make it more complicated than this. It wouldn't even have to be that significant. You can even keep the income tax for corporations and people making over 2 million a year... the government will have money rolling in from everywhere.

Sales tax also allows you to tax tourists and illegal income (since drug dealers and people paid under the table still spend the money the earn that they don't report). It also encourages people to save and invest so they have more savings upon the retirement.

The downside is that a sales tax is regressive, because it taxes a higher % of income on the poor. You can reduce that burden by not putting the tax on necessities like food and clothing. Of course, if you do that, taxing only luxuries, then any downturn in the economy has a large impact on tax revenues, since the first thing that people stop buying is luxuries.

 

[piasabird]

The real problem is too many federal employees. What group of federal employees are growing faster? Is it the Military or is it the IRS? Too many federal employees that do nothing but waste our money.

 

[RandomWords]

The downside is that a sales tax is regressive, because it taxes a higher % of income on the poor. You can reduce that burden by not putting the tax on necessities like food and clothing. Of course, if you do that, taxing only luxuries, then any downturn in the economy has a large impact on tax revenues, since the first thing that people stop buying is luxuries.

There are plenty of clothing shops at ridiculous discounts and yard sales that would still exist. Clothing should be taxed. Food, it depends on the food - but overall it shouldn't be taxed - and that is about the only thing. You can even put a higher sales tax on luxury goods over 100K in addition and it wouldn't be so bad. It doesn't put the tax burden on the poor - it puts the burden pretty equally on everyone depending on what you buy... and it should be equal on EVERYONE - not just primarily put on the upper 50% of the people actually paying taxes in this country. The poor would still pay less of the taxes because they won't be able to afford as much. Also, I believe in my program, I allowed for the income tax to still exist on people/corporations making over 2 million a year - so they would still be putting most of the tax burden on the very rich like people LOVE to do.

The illegals would also pay taxes - which will be good, as will everyone who avoids taxes now. Even tourists, it's true. To me, those are all benefits. With that kind of turnout, the sales tax wouldn't even have to be very high to equal what the government is bringing in on income tax.

but you are right - downturn in economy will have an impact on revenues. However - I think it could still be manageable if you taxed everything but food - because people still will buy other things than food unless we are just in a situation like the Great Depression... in which case - that would affect any income tax we had as well because there wouldn't be any income that is taxable under our current income tax laws.

 

[Michael]

Inversion has been making the news a lot recently. An American company buys another company overseas and structures the deal to move the official HQ out of the USA to the foreign country. With the tax residence changed, they are no longer subject to USA tax rules that govern companies (and people) that are considered "resident".

To be clear, they do not stop paying USA taxes, they simply start paying taxes only on income made in the USA. To understand this, you need to understand that the USA is one of the only countries in the world that taxes residents on world-wide income. You can be living in Singapore and never set foot in the USA and owe US taxes. You can be a company that sources all raw materials overseas, makes the product overseas in an overseas factory and owe US taxes on the money you make.

Individuals cannot easily escape this (there is an exemption for the first $100K you make and you do get credit for most foreign taxes paid, but no real escape). The government knows the current tax system is not competitive and the rule for companies is that you pay the taxes when you import the money back to the USA. You owe the taxes when the income is earned.

This has trapped so much money overseas as repatriating it is so expensive that most companies use that as a last option.

The nominal USA tax rate on companies is also extremely high by world standards, but there are so many special incentives in the tax code that the actual taxes paid end up being much lower.

Inversion is a way to get around worldwide tax rule. In theory, all that trapped cash actually is now available for investment in the USA much cheaper than ever before.

Congress has known that the tax code is completely screwed up and is getting worse (both parties). Every few years they talk about fixing it but the cosmetics keep blocking it. They need to lower the rate, tax income on origin only (or use a much smaller rate for overseas earnings) and wipe out most of the incentives that exist today.

However, lowering the rate means screaming headlines about how companies are paying less than individuals (ignoring the fact that the tax code does that already, but hides it). So nothing ever gets done because the leadership vacuum in Washington only gets worse.

Companies that use inversion are not "unpatriotic". They are behaving rationally in the face of an irrational tax code and government.

Michael

 

[1prophet]

The mentality that allowed America to put a man on the moon

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

The present day mentality of the welfare queen all the way up to the wallstreet king and why America is being passed up by the rest of the world.

It's all about me, Greed is good, profit only matters, they are doing it for the shareholders, if you are poor and/or struggling it's your fault, etc., etc.

 

[Sattern]

The american dream turned from being a hobby to not caring about anybody or thing as long as there is money to be made.

Business is a game now so you either play it or be played by somebody with more knowledge and experience than you. That's just what the world shifted to. It's sad to many, but necessary to bring the economy to new heights.

 

[hal2kilo]

How Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard Came Up With Their Big Ideas

http://www.cracked.com/video_18426_ayn-rand-5Bplaceholder5D.html

Lol. Nice link. He,he.