Posted on 10/13/2011 7:36:27 AM PDT by 92nina
Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) today released a report from his Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (Homeland Security Committee). It asserts that the 2005 repatriation round was a failure. In support of this, the report gives nine conclusions. Below, each are refuted:
U.S. jobs were lost, not gained. The report claims that the top 15 repatriating companies shed 21,000 jobs after the repatriation round. This is a classic case of selective reporting. From January 2005 to January 2008, the U.S.. economy created 5.4 million jobs. Since that time, the economy has shed nearly 7 million jobs. If anything, the repatriation round created jobs. One can hardly blame the economic shocks totally-unrelated to and later than repatriation for the subsequent job losses.
Research and development expenditures did not accelerate. This shows central planning run amok. It's not enough for companies to only have to pay taxes once on income they earn overseas. Now central planners in Washington want to tell them how to use it.
Stock repurchases increased after repatriation. As we have already pointed out, this is a good thing since it boosted the nest eggs of all Americans with IRAs, 401(k) plans, and traditional pensions.
Executive compensation increased after repatriation. And what would have happened absent repatriation? The fact is, highly-profitable companies need to attract top talent in order to stay competitive, provide value for shareholders, and continue to provide consumer benefits to all Americans. This means paying a competitive, market compensation package for high-performing executives.
Only a narrow sector of multinationals benefited. So if everyone can't benefit from an improvement to tax law, it can't happen at all? Let's not forget that repatriation is not some gift to employers--it partly corrects a gross double taxation which shouldn't be there at all...
Read more: http://www.atr.org/levin-report-repatriation-draws-flawed-conclusions-a6519#ixzz1afjGsEH9
(Excerpt) Read more at atr.org ...
Take this article and others I found to the fight to the Libs on their own turf; put the Left on the defensive at Digg and at Reddit and in Stumbleupon and Delicious
* Of course, I pulled that number out of my, um, my hat - just like Obama did with his job numbers.
While I find all of their points about the levels of Executive compensation debate-able, I strongly disagree with Senator Levin that Government should determine appropriate levels of Executive compensation. My personal opinion is that many companies were paying their executives top dollar for mediocre performance, but the people who should be making that decision in it's particulars are the boards of the companies.
One part of this that confuses me is how are these overseas profits generated, are they from profits earned by manufacturing product overseas, or is it from selling (domestically produced?) product overseas?
While I find all of their points about the levels of Executive compensation debate-able, I strongly disagree with Senator Levin that Government should determine appropriate levels of Executive compensation. My personal opinion is that many companies were paying their executives top dollar for mediocre performance, but the people who should be making that decision in it's particulars are the boards of the companies.
I agree in part, the Board of Directors determine what the executive should be earning. The Board, however, needs oversight from the stockholders. When the executive pay exceeds the worth of the executive(s), the stockholders have to tell the Board to cut the largess. In some cases, that means turnover at the top. So be it. If an executive is turning in mediocre performance, he (or she) should be shown the door.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.