Now go, get going, take your stickup business, and live and work in your favored countries, instead of trying to bring us down to their levels.
Posted on 06/10/2004 8:03:39 PM PDT by neutrino
The Department of Homeland Security recently awarded what could be a $10 billion border security contract to Bermuda-abased Accenture. My guest tonight says it is outrageous and wrong to reward a company for abandoning our country.
Congresswoman Rosa DeLaura has authored legislation that would prevent government contracts from being awarded to foreign companies. In her statement, she said, "The United States should not be doing business with those who want all the benefits of citizenship without any of the responsibilities."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Maybe you think having American tanks in Germany protects our business interests in Germany, but I consider that naive. If we have a WTO dispute with Germany we're not going to launch Operation Reforger and invade to settle things. Why do you think American taxpayers should keep subsidizing Germany's defense?
And as nothing outside US territorial waters is necessary to protect, we can get rid of the US Navy, and just have a coast guard.
We don't have to get rid of our Navy. It serves as a wonderful deterrent. You're tossing out absurdities to distract from the actual issue.
Now, as far as doing business in Germany, if a US company does business in Germany and pays taxes in Germany, those taxes are deductible from the US tax bill, and particularly in the case of Germany, the taxes are higher than US taxes, so the US company doing business in Germany, pays no US taxes on its German profits.
Ignorance is curable. Here's your first dose of medicine. "WASHINGTON, December 12, 2003 - A newly released National Association of Manufacturers study comparing costs faced by manufacturers in the U.S. and its nine largest trading partners shows that, contrary to common perceptions, corporate tax rates in America are higher than they are in all major competitor nations except Japan." link1 link2
However, Bermuda has lower taxes than the US, so as it is a US company, it must pay the differential.
Yep, and that's crap. If a company is doing business elsewhere in the world, protected by the laws of that country, they shouldn't be paying taxes to the U.S. government. This Congressional moneygrab is hurting American competitiveness in the world, leaving businesses the choice of leaving, or losing business.
Otherwise, it can rely on the Bermuda Navy to protect it overseas, and in the US as well.
Another absurdity. When we have trade disputes we don't put the White Fleet off a nation's coast and train the guns on their ports. Get real. Besides, when the Middle Eastern dictators 'nationalized' the oil infrastructure we had built, did the Marines go save that investment? The closest we've come to doing that is our history of invading the Banana Republics of Central and South America. And those weren't good deals for the American taxpayer, those were the American taxpayers bailing out companies that had gone overseas where they didn't have the property protections of American laws. They accept the risk for the reward, they should pay the risk when it comes due. This would actually encourage businesses to stay in the U.S. Why do you support a policy whereby corporations can get taxpayers to hedge their overseas risks with our money and our sons?
Great - we can pull in the US Military, world wide and save many Billions. And, if you get into trouble in Lybia, you can rely on the Lybian government to get you out of it.
As well they should. If company XYZ decides to accept the risk and invest resources to create jobs in Libya, why should American taxpayers bail them out? Why should the American taxpayer be used to create incentives for companies to invest overseas? It really seems like you haven't thought this out.
However, you must understand those mid-east hostages, that Reagan got loose, might disagree with you, that they need to rely on the Syrian and Iranian governments to release them.
Kidnapping Americans is not akin to foreign governments changing their property laws. Some overseas governments are socialist, and those who would invest in them instead of the U.S. should bear that risk premium - not the U.S. taxpayer.
21 - "Some overseas governments are socialist, and those who would invest in them instead of the U.S. should bear that risk premium - not the U.S. taxpayer."
EXACTLY - So we agree - LOL !!!
21 - "Maybe you think having American tanks in Germany protects our business interests in Germany, but I consider that naive. If we have a WTO dispute with Germany we're not going to launch Operation Reforger and invade to settle things. Why do you think American taxpayers should keep subsidizing Germany's defense?"
Tell me about it. Protecting Ford, and IBM and Opal(General Motors) and many other American business interests, against the Soviets was my job in Germany a number of years back.
21 - "We don't have to get rid of our Navy. It serves as a wonderful deterrent. You're tossing out absurdities to distract from the actual issue."
LOL - deterrance - wow - what do we need to deter? Youall free-traitors are shipping my jobs overseas, so there is nothing to protect. In fact, I think, protecting you is counter-productive for me. I would pull back my money from protecting you right in this country, and stop any of my taxes which help to protect you.
You keep trying to steal my jobs, my opportunity, and my profits. What's your address, so I can send my free-traitor friends, crooks and thieves and burglers, to make some money, robbing your house, and your opportunities and your wealth. And so I can contact my congressman to prevent any of my tax money from being used for your protection.
Now go, get going, take your stickup business, and live and work in your favored countries, instead of trying to bring us down to their levels.
international corporate tax rates
Corporate Tax Rates, January 2001, %
Canada: 42.1%
Japan: 42%
Italy: 40%
Belgium: 39.8%
United States:39.7%
Germany: 39.4%
France: 35%%
Greece: 34.8%
Netherlands: 34%%
Australia: 33%
Austria: 33%
Denmark: 30%
Britain: 29.9%
Sweden: 28.5%%
Switzerland: 26%%
Ireland: 20%%
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/corptax.html
Corporate Tax Rates and Yours
This whole debate over off-shore shell companies, and how they're used to avoid taxes, is taking place against the bigger backdrop of an overall decline in the amount of taxes paid by U.S. Corporations. In 1960, corporations paid 24% of all federal taxes. In the 1970's, that share fell to 15%. As recently as 1996, it was 12%. Now, corporate taxes make up only about 8% of U.S. revenues. That, Bob McIntyre, of Citizens for Tax Justice, says, is the result of all sorts of loopholes and laws, written by politicians friendly to corporations.
US actual corporate tax rates,Citizens for Tax Justice has compiled the U.S. profits, federal income taxes and taxes paid for ten major American corporations. Click on the image below to compare the personal tax rate for an American family of four and corporate tax rates of some of the country's largest companies for 1999-2000.
javascript:openWindow('taxes_pop/index.html','popop', 590, 458);
Microsoft 1.8%
GE 13.3%
Ford 5.7
Worldcom 2.9
IBM 12.4
GM (minus) -1.2%
Enron (minus) -39.5%
ElPaso Energy(minus) -26.6
Colgate-Palmolive 0.9
Navistar 2.4%
21 - "Yep, and that's crap. If a company is doing business elsewhere in the world, protected by the laws of that country, they shouldn't be paying taxes to the U.S. government. This Congressional moneygrab is hurting American competitiveness in the world, leaving businesses the choice of leaving, or losing business."
Then leave, stop being american companies, and don't pay american taxes, and don't have any access to AMERICAN markets.
i agree...If they call themselves American companies then they have to pay a portion of American taxes. Maybe not all, but some. If not, then I want to see those that don't attend public school stop paying for those taxes. We all pay taxes for things we don't use.
EXACTLY - So we agree - LOL !!!
No, you think American businesses that sell goods and services to people in other countries should pay not only the local taxes in those countries but also should pay additional taxes to the U.S. government.
LOL - deterrance - wow - what do we need to deter?
Anyone who would consider aggression against the U.S. As Washington put it in his Farewell Address, "...remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it..."
Threats can arise in less time that it takes to build a Nimitz class carrier, so I don't mind having a few to deter aggression.
Youall free-traitors are shipping my jobs overseas
Good god, you STILL don't get it. It is the actions of the U.S. Congress that is making U.S. companies unable to compete abroad. When forced to kick extra taxes to the U.S. government just because an American based company is selling goods or services in Germany raises the costs of those goods and services. When such additional costs push the price of American made goods and services above a foreign competitor, that doesn't have to kick extra money to the spendthrifts in Washington D.C., U.S. companies either lose the business to competitors (and thus American employment and profits fall) or they simply go out of business. Instead of having Congress place additional burdens on our companies that drive up their costs beyond international competitors, why not remove the government imposed costs instead of driving them out of business with additional taxes?
Go live and work and sell your products in China or Mexico. Personally, I don't want to live like a Chinaman or a Mexican, or even a Japanese, at their prevailing wages and their costs of living.
You still don't get it. Public school education? It's not about living there. Right now if I own a widget factory in the U.S. and sell widgets to Germany, I have to pay taxes to the German goverment and the U.S. government for whatever profit I make by selling widgets to Germany. American competitors based in other countries that sell widgets to Germany only pay taxes to Germany for the widgets they sell there. The consequence is a cost differential for American companies directly related to the greed of the U.S. Congress. If the German goes for the lower priced widget (that doesn't include taxes to America for a good not sold in America) the American widget plant loses customers. So they lose revenue, so they can't make payroll.
The additional taxes demanded by the U.S. for business that happens everywhere else in the world is putting our companies at a disadvantage. The reality of supply and demand is that they can incorporate somewhere else, where the U.S. government can't tax them for business done OUTSIDE of the U.S., so they can stay in business (the widget factory itself stays in Ohio, it's not going to Bermuda), or they go out of business.
Now go, get going, take your stickup business, and live and work in your favored countries, instead of trying to bring us down to their levels.
Stickup business? The only people in the 'stickup business' is the U.S. Congress who demands tribute for business done in other countries. Nothing is being 'brought down' except an excessive tax burden. The factory stays in the U.S., employing U.S. workers, who are able to compete with the rest of the world when the U.S. Congress doesn't put additional costs on their goods sold overseas.
If your level of comprehension is indicative of the average American, Boortz is right. American manufacturers are going to be driven out of overseas markets (thereby driving up our trade deficits by limiting our ability to sell to other countries) because Democrats can play on your ignorance. Congrats, dummy, you're officially part of the problem.
28 - "If not, then I want to see those that don't attend public school stop paying for those taxes. We all pay taxes for things we don't use."
Excellent example.
It's all part of being a good citizen, and promoting the general welfare, so we can have a good and great country.
Did you notice that there are only four countries on that list with higher corporate tax rates than the U.S.? Congrats on contradicting yourself ("in the case of Germany, the taxes are higher than US taxes"), and pointing out that for a U.S. business to sell goods in Germany, France, Greece, Netherlands, Australia, Austria, Denmark, Britain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ireland requires them to pay additional taxes to the U.S. government that their competitors don't have to.
They pay taxes to the U.S. for business conducted IN the U.S. Can you grasp that distinction? Why should a company pay taxes to the U.S. for business not conducted in the U.S.?
29 - "Right now if I own a widget factory in the U.S. and sell widgets to Germany, I have to pay taxes to the German goverment and the U.S. government for whatever profit I make by selling widgets to Germany. "
German Taxes are deductible from US taxes, so, even at the official tax rates I posted above, that is only .3% (3/10ths of a percent), certainly not bankrupting, and as I lived and worked in Germany, I know GM, Ford, and IBM do business there, and if you look at their actual tax rates (I posted above), they also pay no US taxes on their German operations.
Then look these differentials for France 4.7%, Greece 4.9%, Netherlands 5.7%, Australia 6.7%, Austria 6.7%, Denmark 9.7%, Britain: 9.9%, Sweden: 11.2%, Switzerland 13.7%, Ireland 19.7%. Customers in those countries don't have to pay that premium to the U.S. government, so U.S. companies lose revenue, and can't employ as many workers. Not because our workers aren't good enough, but because the Congress is so greedy they want a cut of business that happens anywhere in the world.
I know GM, Ford, and IBM do business there, and if you look at their actual tax rates (I posted above), they also pay no US taxes on their German operations.
As if all the thousands of U.S. corporations have the millions of dollars to shower on politicians like GM, Ford, and IBM.
040612 The Corporate Tax Game
2004-06-12
18:45:42
BusinessWeek > March 31, 2003
http://www.keepmedia.com:/Register.do?oliID=225
The Corporate Tax Game
by Nanette Byrnes and Louis Lavelle; With Howard Gleckman in Washington and bureau reports | Mar 31 '03
Walk into any of the thousands of hotels run by Marriott International Inc. in glamorous cities and vacation spots around the world, and you know what to expect. The plush carpeting and twinkling chandeliers don't change much from Philadelphia to Paris. But there is something surprising about the company that manages the Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, and Renaissance chains: It has a sizable investment in, of all things, coal-treatment machinery.
Huh? Coal-scrubbing machines may not sound exactly synergistic for an elite hotelier, but the investment serves a different profit center, one that has become increasingly important for Corporate America: tax management, a euphemism for old-fashioned tax avoidance. Using tax credits stemming from a section of the tax code meant to encourage production of fuel from nonconventional sources, last year Marriott recorded a net tax benefit from the coal machines of $74 million. It expects a similar savings in 2003 -- in all, more than double its initial $60 million investment. That bonus was the biggest factor in driving the company's effective tax rate down to 6.8%, from 36.1% in 2001, as Marriott clearly disclosed to shareholders. That tax boon accounted for more than a quarter of last year's $277 million in earnings.
There's nothing illegal about what Marriott is doing, and in fact nothing unusual. The federal income tax rate for corporations is 35%, but few pay that much. Over the past decade, companies across the U.S. have aggressively pursued tax-reduction strategies like Marriott's. Many have achieved the Holy Grail of corporate finance: steadily growing profits coupled with a dramatically shrinking tax burden. To reach that goal, they are taking extraordinary steps -- everything from making tax-favored investments to shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions overseas to reincorporating in Bermuda or other tax havens.
Companies have also been helped in their quest by a tax code that has become ridiculously complex, a result of the annual welter of revisions from Congress and dogged work by an army of lobbyists. But in the late 1990s, the hunt for tax breaks became a much bigger business. For one thing, a new class of professionals -- Wall Street investment bankers -- joined the legions of lawyers and accountants hawking tax-management services (page 84). ``Squadrons of lawyers, accountants, and Wall Street structured-finance experts have made an art form of minimizing the U.S. multinational's effective tax rate within this maze of the U.S. tax code, tax treaties, and global tax systems,'' says Selva Ozelli, international tax editor for RIA, a New York provider of tax information and software.
As the economic expansion reached its zenith, there was a much bigger pot of earnings to protect -- and bigger expectations to meet each quarter. Tax avoidance became a competitive sport, with even blue-chip companies aggressively benchmarking their effective tax rates against those of rivals. According to a recent Harvard University study, U.S. companies avoided paying tax on nearly $300 billion in income in 1998. ``In the bubble years there was a huge drive to increase earnings by any means,'' says former Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Donald C. Alexander. ``One of the means was minimizing tax payments.''
While the recent corporate scandals have shone a harsh light on weak corporate governance, excessive executive pay, and deceptive accounting, corporate tax avoidance has continued, largely under the regulatory radar. But that could change. The Treasury Dept. on Feb. 27 unveiled new regulations designed to curb what it describes as a proliferation of abusive tax shelters -- transactions that cross the line from tax minimization to tax evasion. Even in Congress, which has been slow to tackle tax reform, there's hope that the big tax-cut bill to be pulled together later this spring will address some of the worst abuses. Some in Congress have also called on the Securities & Exchange Commission to consider a prohibition against accounting firms selling tax advice to audit clients.
Tyco and Enron may have been the masters, but it's not just corporate rogues that have taken tax games to new extremes. After all, Enron Corp. modeled its massive tax department on that of General Electric Co. and a host of other big companies, according to a recent Senate committee report. Tech companies like Microsoft, Cisco Systems, and Compaq Computer proved adroit at shrinking their tax bills in the '90s through many means. Claiming unfair competition from lower-taxed overseas competitors, manufacturers have taken steps, too. Cooper Industries Ltd. reincorporated in Bermuda last May. Stanley Works dropped plans to move domiciles to Bermuda last summer after a backlash from lawmakers.
That kind of corporate maneuvering, combined with a long-term trend in Congress of shifting more of the tax burden to individuals, has driven corporate taxes down dramatically over the past four decades. In 1965, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 4% of gross domestic product, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development which includes local, state, and federal income and capital-gains taxes in its calculation. By 2000, that figure had dropped to 2.5%. That's the reverse of the OECD nations as a group, which saw aggregate corporate tax receipts climb from 2.2% of GDP 38 years ago to 3.6% in 2000.
What has tax experts and academics puzzled is why the decline has picked up steam in the past few years. In 2002, corporate tax receipts fell to just 1.5% of GDP, far more than any change in the tax rules can explain. Many blame a greater willingness to push the envelope on tax management. ``Companies are being much more aggressive,'' says University of Michigan Business School economist Joel B. Slemrod. ``It became more acceptable to play the tax lottery.''
So who's to blame? It's hard to fault companies for trying to minimize their tax bills by any legal means. But the system has gotten out of hand. A Byzantine tax code has created endless opportunity for well-financed companies to game the system. Massive resources in the form of tax lawyers, strategists, and lobbyists and shelter-type investments are aimed at nothing more productive than lowering corporate tax bills. That leads to economywide inefficiency and waste. It also leads to basic inequities when tax rates are determined by the ability to fund a sophisticated tax department.
Those inequities become even starker when lobbying is taken into account. Major companies can afford to hire high-powered lobbyists to push for tax breaks, creating yet more complexity with added loopholes and exceptions. In the mid 1990s, for example, Microsoft pushed for a tax break on exports similar to one that had been extended to other intellectual property creators, including movie studios and record companies. After being rebuffed by the IRS in 1995, Microsoft's lobbyists took the issue to Congress. The result: an 86-word provision, shoe-horned into a 1997 budget-reconciliation bill, extending the break to software companies. ``Microsoft felt like it should get equal treatment under the tax law,'' says spokeswoman Caroline Boren, who declined to say how much the legislation saved the company or how much the lobbying effort cost.
Copyright © 2000-2004, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
XBob, do you own a company? Have you owned a company? Do you think most, or even many, operate on the scale of Marriott or IBM, and can buy Congressional perks?
'Course this is all distraction from the reason Accenture reincorporated in Bermuda and the fact that the U.S. Congress is placing additional taxes on companies that sell goods and services produced in America overseas that make them less competitive. Keep obfuscating... I'm sure it's easier than acknowledging you didn't know what you were talking about...
29-"No, you think American businesses that sell goods and services to people in other countries should pay not only the local taxes in those countries but also should pay additional taxes to the U.S. government."
If they would make the stuff here in the US, with US employees, we could share the burden, have jobs, lower the tax rates, and ALL make money selling our output overseas, but as long as these corps persist in exporting our jobs and our technology, and then attempting to market their overseas produced products in this country, they can go to hell.
You're sharp enough to be a dem, why don't you fix your party registration?
Keep in mind that our President, George W. Bush, ran on a platform of putting aside partisan differences for the good of the country.
Why is forcing U.S. based companies to pay taxes for goods and services sold overseas 'good the for the country' when it makes them uncompetitive and hampers their ability to sell their goods and services overseas, thereby reducing their revenue, and of the number of U.S. employees they can hire?
34 - "Then look these differentials for France 4.7%, Greece 4.9%, Netherlands 5.7%, Australia 6.7%, Austria 6.7%, Denmark 9.7%, Britain: 9.9%, Sweden: 11.2%, Switzerland 13.7%, Ireland 19.7%. "
Those countries aren't the problem. It's China, Mexico, Indonesia, and the third world economies which are killing our competetiveness.
I don't mind competing with the countries you mention, and I happen to like French wine, Greek halava, Dutch Gouda Cheese, McDonalds Australian beef hamburgers, Arnold Schwartzeneger (Austrian), Danish Blue Cheese, British Stiltson, Swedish blonds, Swiss watches, and Irish and Scott's whiskey.
And you're sharp enough to be a Republican. Why try to drive Republicans away?
Why is forcing U.S. based companies to pay taxes for goods and services sold overseas 'good the for the country' when it makes them uncompetitive and hampers their ability to sell their goods and services overseas, thereby reducing their revenue, and of the number of U.S. employees they can hire?
Keep in mind that the U.S. is getting rid of its industrial base as well as the infrastructure needed to reconstitute the industrial base. We are also losing the expertise needed to produce.
The U.S. is producing about 50,000 new engineers per year. China and India are each generating about 300,000 to 330,000 new engineers annually. A greater number of engineers tends to correlate with more innovation. Nations that do not innovate fall behind in global competition.
The present U.S. export profile shows us to be net importers in nearly every category except aircraft, aircraft parts, natural resources, and agricultural products. With the exception of aircraft and aircraft parts, this is the export profile of a third world nation. Moreover, we are building up foreign debt as we do this.
China, meanwhile, is building its industrial and military base. It is training more scientists and engineers. Per the National Science Foundation, fewer Americans are pursuing graduate degrees in engineering and science. Of those foreign nationals who obtain such degrees in the U.S., more are returning to their home countries.
We are weakening ourselves at the same time that a resurgent China is becoming stronger. The military and geopolitical implications are obvious. It is not in the best interests of any U.S. citizen for America to be supplanted by China as the worlds sole superpower.
There are more important things than cheap prices for consumers. Among those are the ongoing security of our nation.
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.