Businesses Dont Leave the U.S. Because of Lack of Patriotism
You decide.
http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/13/ge-exxon-walmart-apple-business-washington-corporate-taxes.htmlLarge corporations are smart, they make money but they have an arm of the corporation that loses.
JMHO wrote:
I disagree. It is only the larger Corporations (Apple, GE, Wal Mart, etc) who succeed in paying little taxes. But, try and tell that to the smaller corporations who don't have the deep pockets. They either have to pass the cost onto the consumer, or absorb the cost and hope they can stay in business. Don't lump all corporations into one group.
Dummy Boy wrote:
What's the fair tax....?
I think no tax, such as not paying social security would be fair, but I know at least 2 retirees would be pissed if I stopped paying...
What if one makes the low end of the poverty line, they don't pay taxes now, it's pretty fair to them (in their eyes)...oh surprise, you've never paid taxes, here's your bill...hmmm don't think that will work???
Currently, my mortgage is deductible, oh sorry, you gotta pay now....hmmm
Your plan cannot be implemented, bankruptcy would be faster....and underground economy emerges.....just like in North Korea.
What's the fair tax....? br br I think no tax, su... (
show quote)
dummy boy-how about personal exemptions for each member of the family ,home only mortgage deduction and Social Security/disability income exemption. Balance taxed at wh**ever rate it needs to be for the country to operate. Good Luck America !!!
'What if one makes the low end of the poverty line, they don't pay taxes now, it's pretty fair to them (in their eyes)...oh surprise, you've never paid taxes, here's your bill...hmmm don't think that will work???'
Sure they pay taxes unless the taxes on food, electric, gas and so forth don't count.
Dummy Boy wrote:
What's the fair tax....?
I think no tax, such as not paying social security would be fair, but I know at least 2 retirees would be pissed if I stopped paying...
What if one makes the low end of the poverty line, they don't pay taxes now, it's pretty fair to them (in their eyes)...oh surprise, you've never paid taxes, here's your bill...hmmm don't think that will work???
Currently, my mortgage is deductible, oh sorry, you gotta pay now....hmmm
Your plan cannot be implemented, bankruptcy would be faster....and underground economy emerges.....just like in North Korea.
What's the fair tax....? br br I think no tax, su... (
show quote)
Dummy Boy wrote:
It's funny, most corporations do not pay taxes and have a pretty good method going to "hide the weanny" on profits. In a way, I would argue that it is, disingenuous for this author to suggest that they aren't being unpatriotic by finding a way to permanently sever job creation in the US. It is clear that this is a way to profit renters and further erode job growth...what's patriotic about that? Wouldn't we be concerned if it were defense contractor?
i dont think obama or the demorats have the right to call someone unpatrotic.
JMHO wrote:
President Obama will deliver a speech today railing against corporate inversions. That is the process whereby a U.S. business merges with a foreign business and moves the new joint businesss headquarters to the foreign country. Inversions have been a hot topic recently because well-known businesses such as Walgreens, P****r, and Medtronic have been looking to engage in the process.
The president, like others before him, decried this practice because he believes it displays a lack of patriotism. However, inversions have nothing to do with love of country. They are all about U.S. businesses keeping up with their global competition.
When a U.S. business inverts it continues paying the same amount of tax it always has on its U.S. income. Any business, no matter where headquartered, pays the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate which is the highest corporate tax rate in the world on income earned within our borders.
The policy causing all the problems is the extra tax the U.S. levies on the income its businesses earn in foreign countries. This is known as a worldwide tax system. The U.S. is the only industrialized country that taxes the foreign earnings of its businesses.
The worldwide system makes it difficult for U.S. businesses to compete with their international brethren because those businesses dont face an extra layer of tax when they invest in a growing new market. The extra tax U.S. businesses face makes certain investments unattractive for U.S. businesses that remain attractive to their competitors.
As I explained in a recent paper:
Foreign businesses unencumbered by the worldwide U.S. tax system are free to make investments that the U.S. worldwide tax system makes unprofitable for U.S. businesses. In these situations, U.S. businesses decline in standing compared with their foreign competitors because foreign businesses enjoy increased earnings and enhanced global efficiency from making investments that the U.S. worldwide system forces U.S. businesses to forgo.
If U.S. businesses dont do anything to remedy this disparity, their relative profitability will fall as they take a pass on more and more growth opportunities their foreign competitors eagerly chase. Eventually this would put the viability of their businesses in jeopardy.
The preferred liberal fix to this problem is to make it harder for businesses to invert by requiring foreign shareholders to own a larger portion of a merged business (50 percent compared to 20 percent under current law) before the headquarters can be moved from the U.S. This change would only make matters worse.
Business will still find ways to remain competitive, such as by selling themselves outright to foreign competition. Raising the threshold could backfire by sending the message to businesses that the U.S. tax system will remain uncompetitive and could become more hostile to investment, causing more to want to flee our shores.
The only fix for this problem is tax reform that reduces the corporate tax rate and stops taxing the foreign income of U.S. businesses. Instead of demonizing U.S. businesses that are trying to do best by their shareholders, employees, and customers, Obama would better serve the country by spending his time working with Congress to make tax reform a reality.
Curtis Dubay
President Obama will deliver a speech today railin... (
show quote)
See always distortion of the law.
Inversion---Corporate loophole allows companies to avoid federal taxes by shifting there tax domiciles overseas. This law was put in place by Mount Rushmore Reagan. So a corporation makes 50 million moves 25 million out of this country into a country with less tax regulation then into banks in the Caribbean. This way the corporation only pays taxes on 25 million instead of $50 million. Then they use tax loopholes on the $25 million left in this country so when you add it all up most corporation pay zero taxes.
What Obama wants if you made $50 million in this country why not pay taxes on the $50 million then you can invest where ever you want. I don't know but makes sense to me.But Mount Rushmore Reagan at his best changed that with Inversion.
Now to make it simple to you TP folks. If you made $50,000 last year. You figure your normal deduction such as home child etc, and we say it comes to $8,000 you pay a tax on $42,000. Now what corporate welfare in place if a corporation makes $50,000 in profits they immediately move $25,000 out of the country now all they show is $25,000 in earnings. Then they get into all the other corporate loopholes allow by the IRS and let's say it comes to the same number of $8,000 that corporation only pays taxes on $17,000. But believe me if you want to read the IRS laws on corporate loopholes they are allowed many more deduction so that $8,000 figure is very low. Now let's say that the company that made the $50,000 profit is a oil company or a corporate farmer they now receive corporate subsidies from the federal government. So in a sense this corporation pays no taxes and in some cases we cut a check to them.
Now cheesecake Megan Kelly explains it differently that these corporation do pay taxes called payroll taxes. Yes they do but it's money made by employees based on my wages it's my money they pay. Now the other thing Cheesecake did show the corporate estimated tax based on corporate earnings paid monthly. But cheesecake left out the part when they file at years end they get it all back just like the TP folks when they file there taxes. But a lot more.
JMHO wrote:
President Obama will deliver a speech today railing against corporate inversions. That is the process whereby a U.S. business merges with a foreign business and moves the new joint businesss headquarters to the foreign country. Inversions have been a hot topic recently because well-known businesses such as Walgreens, P****r, and Medtronic have been looking to engage in the process.
The president, like others before him, decried this practice because he believes it displays a lack of patriotism. However, inversions have nothing to do with love of country. They are all about U.S. businesses keeping up with their global competition.
When a U.S. business inverts it continues paying the same amount of tax it always has on its U.S. income. Any business, no matter where headquartered, pays the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate which is the highest corporate tax rate in the world on income earned within our borders.
The policy causing all the problems is the extra tax the U.S. levies on the income its businesses earn in foreign countries. This is known as a worldwide tax system. The U.S. is the only industrialized country that taxes the foreign earnings of its businesses.
The worldwide system makes it difficult for U.S. businesses to compete with their international brethren because those businesses dont face an extra layer of tax when they invest in a growing new market. The extra tax U.S. businesses face makes certain investments unattractive for U.S. businesses that remain attractive to their competitors.
As I explained in a recent paper:
Foreign businesses unencumbered by the worldwide U.S. tax system are free to make investments that the U.S. worldwide tax system makes unprofitable for U.S. businesses. In these situations, U.S. businesses decline in standing compared with their foreign competitors because foreign businesses enjoy increased earnings and enhanced global efficiency from making investments that the U.S. worldwide system forces U.S. businesses to forgo.
If U.S. businesses dont do anything to remedy this disparity, their relative profitability will fall as they take a pass on more and more growth opportunities their foreign competitors eagerly chase. Eventually this would put the viability of their businesses in jeopardy.
The preferred liberal fix to this problem is to make it harder for businesses to invert by requiring foreign shareholders to own a larger portion of a merged business (50 percent compared to 20 percent under current law) before the headquarters can be moved from the U.S. This change would only make matters worse.
Business will still find ways to remain competitive, such as by selling themselves outright to foreign competition. Raising the threshold could backfire by sending the message to businesses that the U.S. tax system will remain uncompetitive and could become more hostile to investment, causing more to want to flee our shores.
The only fix for this problem is tax reform that reduces the corporate tax rate and stops taxing the foreign income of U.S. businesses. Instead of demonizing U.S. businesses that are trying to do best by their shareholders, employees, and customers, Obama would better serve the country by spending his time working with Congress to make tax reform a reality.
Curtis Dubay
President Obama will deliver a speech today railin... (
show quote)
He can't because he has sugar coated and lied . He just played with words and you fu?king minions believe it
JMHO wrote:
Talks like a liberal, espouses liberal rhetoric, loves taxes, must be a liberal.
No, pal...you're flat out wrong! You lefties love to say corporations do not pay taxes, and it's a false narrative. Corporations either pay the tax, or pass the cost onto the consumer. If their competition is not great, it's easy to pass it on to the consumer. Some of the larger corporations, the ones who contribute heavily in campaign donations, or have lobbyist's on their payroll, succeed in some tax breaks enacted by Congress. You cite Caterpillar as having these breaks, instead they are a big example as to why companies move offshore, their global competition is stiff. As long as we maintain the highest corporate tax rate in the world, companies will continue to move off shore. You don't have to disagree with me, all you have to do is just watch them move...they're doing it everyday. If they thought the tax picture was as good as you claim, they wouldn't move.
Talks like a liberal, espouses liberal rhetoric, l... (
show quote)
I don't understand how you cannot THE dots, you are incredibly wrong about what I am saying.
I stated that I don't believe in high taxes and I don't disagrees with you, it's as if you're quoting someone else's post.
You see my name and make your statements. I espouse high taxes. I'm just telling you the facts. Corporations don't pay high taxes.....because of loopholes.....CAN YOU SEE THIS, DO I NEED TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS, THAT HELP.
tdsrnest wrote:
See always distortion of the law.
Inversion---Corporate loophole allows companies to avoid federal taxes by shifting there tax domiciles overseas. This law was put in place by Mount Rushmore Reagan. So a corporation makes 50 million moves 25 million out of this country into a country with less tax regulation then into banks in the Caribbean. This way the corporation only pays taxes on 25 million instead of $50 million. Then they use tax loopholes on the $25 million left in this country so when you add it all up most corporation pay zero taxes.
What Obama wants if you made $50 million in this country why not pay taxes on the $50 million then you can invest where ever you want. I don't know but makes sense to me.But Mount Rushmore Reagan at his best changed that with Inversion.
Now to make it simple to you TP folks. If you made $50,000 last year. You figure your normal deduction such as home child etc, and we say it comes to $8,000 you pay a tax on $42,000. Now what corporate welfare in place if a corporation makes $50,000 in profits they immediately move $25,000 out of the country now all they show is $25,000 in earnings. Then they get into all the other corporate loopholes allow by the IRS and let's say it comes to the same number of $8,000 that corporation only pays taxes on $17,000. But believe me if you want to read the IRS laws on corporate loopholes they are allowed many more deduction so that $8,000 figure is very low. Now let's say that the company that made the $50,000 profit is a oil company or a corporate farmer they now receive corporate subsidies from the federal government. So in a sense this corporation pays no taxes and in some cases we cut a check to them.
Now cheesecake Megan Kelly explains it differently that these corporation do pay taxes called payroll taxes. Yes they do but it's money made by employees based on my wages it's my money they pay. Now the other thing Cheesecake did show the corporate estimated tax based on corporate earnings paid monthly. But cheesecake left out the part when they file at years end they get it all back just like the TP folks when they file there taxes. But a lot more.
See always distortion of the law. br br Inversion... (
show quote)
Typical bent left-wing socialist view. Nice try Comrade.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
