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 ...
At the bottom is a link to a poll on Lou Dobbs website, and also a link to Congresswoman DeLaura's website. From the article, the CongressWoman has "authored legislation that would prevent government contracts from being awarded to foreign companies". If you support such legislation, as I do, then you can contact her office.
Yes, I know that the CongressWoman is a dem. Keep in mind that our President, George W. Bush, ran on a platform of putting aside partisan differences for the good of the country. I believe we would do well to follow our President's guidance.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To take the Lou Dobbs poll, go to http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to contact Congresswoman DeLaura's proposed legislation, her office may be contacted on the WWW at http://www.house.gov/delauro/IMA/issue.htm
If you want on or off my offshoring ping list, please FReepmail me!
I certainly hope so. Depending on foreign countries for critical defense supplies strikes me as dangerous.
Neal Boortz addresses the reining idiocy on this issue pretty well:
BANNING THAT EVIL BERMUDA COMPANY
It's called the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program, and it's run by Accenture LLP, a U.S. Company who's parent company is registered in Bermuda. Accenture is based in Virginia. Accenture has a contract to provide security services to the U.S. Government. Some Democrats in Congress are waging a successful campaign to have the law changed and that contract cancelled ... all because Accenture's parent company is incorporated in Bermuda.
So ... why is this company incorporated in Bermuda? Not one out of ten Americans really understands. It's because of our tax laws. Our draconian corporate tax regulations actually force companies out of this country for their own fiscal health.
We'll illustrate this by considering a fictional consulting company called BoortzCorp. BoortzCorp does business in the United States and seven European countries providing deprogramming services for government officials suffering from OCCD (Obsessive Compulsive Compassion Disorder). We'll consider two scenarios; one where BoortzCorp is incorporated in the United States, the other where BoortzCorp is based in Bermuda.
BoortzCorp, U.S. Since BoortzCorp is a U.S. corporation federal tax regulations will require BoortzCorp to pay federal corporate income taxes on every single penny it earns. It doesn't matter whether that money is earned in the U.S. or not. If BoortzCorp earns $15 Million in Belgium it will not only have to pay whatever taxes are due on those earnings in Belgium, but in the United States as well. Now the U.S. tax laws will allow a credit to BoortzCorp in the amount of the taxes paid to Belgium, but since U.S. corporate income taxes are generally higher than most other nations, there will be additional taxes due to Washington. In some enlightened foreign countries there are no corporate income taxes at all. In that case, the U.S. collects the full amount.
BoortzCorp Bermuda. The corporate management of BoortzCorp is getting a bit tired of paying income taxes to the feds on earnings of overseas subsidiaries. BoortzCorp could expand its business and hire additional people if the earnings could be reduced by lowering the tax burden. So BoortzCorp reincorporates in Bermuda. The home office stays in the U.S., as do all but about five employees. But now the tax laws are different. The BoortzCorp subsidiary operating in the United States will pay corporate income taxes to the U.S. government on earnings made in the U.S. The BoortzCorp operation in Belgium, however, will pay income taxes on earnings realized in Belgium, but will owe nothing to the U.S. government for those earnings. That will leave BoortzCorp with additional cash that can be used to hire additional people, expand the business, or pay dividends to shareholders, many of whom, by the way, live in the United States.
So ... if BoortzCorp makes the decision to incorporate to Bermuda, does this make BoortzCorp evil? What has gone to Bermuda? Virtually nothing, just a set of incorporation documents and five administrative employees. Everything else is exactly as it was. Everything, that is, except that now BoortzCorp isn't paying taxes to the U.S. government on earnings from operations overseas. Does it make anything other than good sense for BoortzCorp to make the move offshore?
Let's think about foreign corporations doing business in the U.S. Let's say there is a German company, KrautCorp, that does exactly the same type of work that BoortzCorp does. KrautCorp operates in the United States. BoortzCorp U.S. operates in Germany. KrautCorp will pay taxes to the U.S. government on earnings realized in the U.S., but not on earnings realized in Germany. BoortzCorp will pay taxes to the German government on earnings realized there, but will also pay taxes on its German earnings to the U.S. government. Since the tax burden to Boortz Corp U.S. is higher, KrautCorp has a competitive advantage. It can undercut BoortzCorp prices and still earn exactly the same profit. In other words, the U.S. corporate tax laws give a competitive advantage to foreign corporations. Now that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
So why are Democrats attacking Accenture, and why are Republicans once again caving in? Because it's good politics. As I said, you can't find one out of ten Americans who understand the tax picture I outlined above. When Democrats start hyperventilating about corporations moving overseas to avoid taxes, they never seem to mention that the only taxes that will be avoided are taxes on overseas earnings. U.S. voters listen to the rantings and ravings of the Democrats and decide that these corporations are evil and should be punished. If a Republican disagrees with the Democrats' campaign to punish the corporation they are condemned for putting the interests of their corporate friends above the needs of the people. Since the people don't have a clue what's really going on, the charge sticks.
So .. now we have the Democrats in the House, who understand this situation completely, making political points with their ignorant constituents. Republicans are going along because they know that the voters are as dumb as cypress knees on this issue, and they don't want to be painted as favoring "big business" over the American people.
Why are the free traitors so determined to injure domestic U.S. companies that make jobs for U.S. citizens and pay U.S. taxes? Perhaps they just don't like America. Very well - let them do business elsewhere.
"Going offshore" in this case means getting a mailbox at a Bermuda post office.
Tariffs = Taxes.
The conservative solution would seem to be reducing taxes on companies that stay in the US, rather than raising them on foreign companies? But, then again, a lot of paleocons have very few conservative positions.
We have companies in the U.S. that sell to the U.S. mareket, hire U.S. citizens and pay U.S. taxes.
And there are companies that locate offshore, whether via a legal fiction or otherwise. They sell to the U.S. market, don't hire U.S. citizens, and avoid paying U.S. taxes.
Now, think carefully. Which is better for the U.S. and her people?
Offshoring - treason by any other name would smell as foul.
Did you read what Boortz wrote? Accenture doesn't avoid a penny of taxes for doing business in America. What they avoid is paying taxes to the U.S. government (that overseas companies don't have to pay) above and beyond what a foreign government imposes for doing business in that foreign country.
Why are the free traitors so determined to injure domestic U.S. companies that make jobs for U.S. citizens and pay U.S. taxes?
You don't get it! The injury is imposed by a Congress (and ignorant public support like yours!) that insists on taxing the business any corporation based in America conducts OVERSEAS. Overseas companies don't have to pay taxes to the U.S. government for business they do OVERSEAS. Any overseas company pays taxes for business it conducts IN America, just as an American company does. The difference, that is negatively impacting the competitiveness of our companies, is that when they conduct business OVERSEAS we have to pay additional taxes to our government that overseas companies don't. This means we lose business (as this tax burden not borne by foreign companies drives up the price of American goods and services), and jobs, because of the greediness of the U.S. Congress and it's indifference to the additional burdens it places on our companies WHEN THEY DO BUSINESS OVERSEAS.
Perhaps they just don't like America. Very well - let them do business elsewhere
Good God, would you actually read what Boortz wrote. Your ignorance is appalling and it's costing your neighbors their jobs!
Correct so far.
And there are companies that locate offshore, whether via a legal fiction or otherwise. They sell to the U.S. market, don't hire U.S. citizens, and avoid paying U.S. taxes.
WRONG! Accenture still has hundreds, if not thousands of U.S. employees, and the business it conducts IN AMERICA is subject to American taxes. Where they avoid paying taxes to America is when they do business in Germany. When they do business in Germany, they are able, by virtue of no longer being incorporated in America, to pay only German taxes, just like companies competing for the same business located in Germany, or any other country.
Now, think carefully. Which is better for the U.S. and her people?
What's better for the U.S. and her people is to quit trying to put additional tax burdens on our companies when they do business OVERSEAS that makes them uncompetitive when bidding for that business with companies not located in the U.S. and subject to the same Congressional greed.
Offshoring - treason by any other name would smell as foul.
Your ignorance is what smells so foul. You're complaining about a non-existent problem (Accenture DOES pay taxes to the U.S. government for the business it conducts in the U.S., just like any other company) and not seeing the real one (that our Congress is forcing up the price of American goods and services on overseas markets by demanding tax revenue from business conducted OVERSEAS). You don't realize (yet, I'm optimistic you'll realize if you take the time to read) that this policy of taxing what American companies do in OTHER COUNTRIES is driving companies out of the U.S. because they can't compete if they stay here and have to pay taxes to both the country overseas that they do business in as well as the U.S.
10 - Got a great idea, gunslinger.
How about, as they are a Bermuda corporation, we let the Bermuda Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines protect their interests overseas.
And also, they could pay the US government, from Bermuda, for operating their business here in the US, and we could tax any profits on the Bermuda operation from the US too, with a speial export profits tax.
Now, they could make separate deals, with Germany, France, Iraq, Indonesia, Philippines, and all of those 68 countries, to protect them, around the world. And the Bermuda commercial attaches around the world could support all their business operations, in all those countries too.
I understand Bermuda has an extensive, world wide military operation, that even goes out 12 miles, in some coast guard cutters.
Love it - then we could do this with all American companies working overseas, and pull all of our military from all over the world, back to our shores, and all those Liberian flag vessels - the Liberians could protect.
Yes. Love your idea. It would save many billions of dollars and probably save many lives of our military personnel too.
Great - love it !!!
The security that you seek seems kind of FDRish, does it not? Apparently though, you FDR loving "conservatives" either missed or have forgotten what your hero had said regarding fear!
Those jobs being at Wal-Mart as greeters, perhaps? Or are you referring to the 60 year old sackers at the local supermarket? Maybe you mean the elderly fellow in the security guard uniform?
High paid service jobs, certainly! Why, they may make as much as fifty cents over minimum wage!
The ignorance of free traitors appalls me. They love to protect the interests of China, India, and Bermuda. They like it even better when they can hurt Americans.
This is a very tough issue; in Wisconsin, the same battle is being fought in a different way. Some Wisconsin firms have incorporated subsidiaries in Nevada (zero income tax) and vest those NV corp's with the Wisconsin corp's intellectual property, such as trademarks, design drawings, etc.
Then the Wisconsin corp pays a bunch of dollars to the NV corp for use of those IP's which are held by the NV corp. This payment is, of course, deductible from income in Wisconsin. Thus, the WI. corp minimizes its tax payment to Wisconsin and is able to distribute earnings to shareholders from the NV corp.
This is a device pushed by KPMG/Peat. WI's Department of Revenue got into high dudgeon and sued; we're talking about $100 million or so in income taxes, penalties, interest, etc., from only TWO companies for the last 6+ years' income.
Now all you have to do is substitute Bermuda for NV and the USA for WI.
Many of the Bermuda-incorporated entities manufacture hand tools: Cooper Industries is just one, and Stanley Tool tried, but got smacked down by a public outcry.
I know why these guys did this: they were being ripped to shreds by cheapo Chinese import tools--that began around 10-15 years ago, and the situation was explained to me by a number of tool-industry people.
In short, what are these firms to do? They are caught between a rapacious government (either US or WI--what's the diff?) and an even more rapacious set of competitors.
The answer, to me, is obvious: simply STOP taxing Corporate income, and move to a consumption tax, which levels the field to a great extent by creating a 20% 'sales' tax on ANY tool you buy, whether US or PRC-made.
There are other adjustments which should be made to the trade treaties, as well, but this is a start.
Are you under the impression our military should be sent overseas to protect Accenture's investments there? I'm not.
And also, they could pay the US government, from Bermuda, for operating their business here in the US,
You dolt. They ALREADY DO PAY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TAXES FOR OPERATIONS IN THE U.S.! Dammit, people would you READ so you could comment intelligently on the issue! The issue is whether or not, when they operate in Germany or any other foreign country, whether they should pay local taxes AND have to pay additional taxes to the U.S. government FOR THE BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. This effort by the U.S. Congress to tax businesses that operate in other countries raises the cost of U.S. goods and services overseas, making them less competitive, making them lose business, and driving them either out of business, or out of the U.S. to escape the double taxation their competitors aren't faced with.
and we could tax any profits on the Bermuda operation from the US too, with a speial export profits tax.
That's what Congress does now, and why businesses flee the U.S. if they try to conduct overseas business. Boortz is right, 9 out of 10 Americans ARE too damn stupid to understand the actual issue. This is heartbreaking...
Now, they could make separate deals, with Germany, France, Iraq, Indonesia, Philippines, and all of those 68 countries, to protect them, around the world.
They DO. When operating in 'Germany, France, Iraq, Indonesia, Philippines, and all of those 68 countries' they are subject to LOCAL laws and taxes, they shouldn't additionally be subject to U.S. taxes that their competitors (subject to the same local laws and taxes) don't have to pay.
There are other adjustments which should be made to the trade treaties, as well, but this is a start.
Actually, ninenot, it may surprise you to know that I agree with much of what you say. In many instances, these companies and their management - as well as the shareholders - don't want to go offshore. They have to because of the squeeze you mention.
I'd like to see a consumption tax, as you propose. Doing away with corporate income tax is fine, too. The trade treaties need a major rework - we in the U.S. have every right to protect our national interests. The Chinese, Indians, Japanese and others do this with considerable success. We should too.
So you’re saying that a company that decides to incorporate in Bermuda in order to avoid paying their fair share of taxes according to American law, should have the same benefits as American companies that pay their fair share. If they don’t like the law they can campaign to get the law changed, just like I plan to campaign against giving my tax money to a non-American company. Instead they decided they would rather not be an American company.
Lockheed and the other competitors on this contract have to pay their fair share of taxes, but you and Boortz, seem to think they are foolish for being an American company and paying American taxes when all they have to do is incorporate in Bermuda.
I don't like paying income taxes, but I will pay my fair share in order to be an American. Some actors and actresses have become citizens of other countries to avoid paying their fair share. Shame on them and shame on companies that decide to go this route. If I don't like the taxes I pay, I can fight to get them lowered or vote people in that plan on lowering my taxes.
Fair share? Why should a company doing business in Germany pay taxes to the U.S. for the business it conducts in Germany? Particularly when companies based in countries besides the U.S. doing business in the Germany aren't forced to feed the greedy spendthrifts in Washington D.C. when they do business in Germany?
should have the same benefits as American companies that pay their fair share.
What are you talking about? The other businesses in the world don't have to pay the U.S. government for the 'privilege' of doing business outside of the U.S.
If they don?t like the law they can campaign to get the law changed,
And when Congress in their greed to get a hand in every pocket refuses and American based business can't compete overseas and they go out of business? What then genius?
just like I plan to campaign against giving my tax money to a non-American company. Instead they decided they would rather not be an American company.
It's not a matter of being 'an American' company, it's a matter of surviving the immutable reality of supply and demand. If the U.S. Congress insists on riding our companies backs while they do business overseas while other nations don't, we will continue to see companies go overseas in order to stay in business.
Lockheed and the other competitors on this contract have to pay their fair share of taxes, but you and Boortz, seem to think they are foolish for being an American company and paying American taxes when all they have to do is incorporate in Bermuda.
Damn, you don't get it! Lockheed, Accenture, and ANY OTHER COMPANY IN THE WORLD that does business IN the U.S. pays taxes to the U.S. government. It doesn't matter WHERE they are incorporated.
Lockheed and Accenture are operating on an even playing field in the U.S. The actual issue is whether American companies must pay additional taxes to the U.S. government when they do business in OTHER COUNTRIES. If Lockheed tries to do business in Germany, it must pay taxes to the Germany government AND the U.S. government. Companies in any other country aren't forced to pay taxes to the U.S. in addition to the German government when they do business in Germany. So long as Congress insists American businesses pay tribute to the U.S. government when doing business OUTSIDE of the U.S. we will see American companies lose out to competitors from other countries that don't have to pass along the additional cost of a rapacious U.S. government. THAT'S the issue, and I haven't seen one person who is upset about Accenture's incorporation in Bermuda that understands that. Boortz is right, you're ignorant, and the Republicans are forced to play to you lowest common denominator types because they know the Democrats will.
I don't like paying income taxes, but I will pay my fair share in order to be an American.
How sad that you think paying taxes is what makes you an American. What percentage of your life sent to D.C. for bureaucrats to spend constitutes your 'fair share', comrade? How many Trillions do you think should be spent by Washington D.C. each year? Can you concieve of a limit, or is it whatever they demand of you?
If I don't like the taxes I pay, I can fight to get them lowered or vote people in that plan on lowering my taxes.
And when they don't? What do you do when you find your company is losing overseas contracts to companies that don't have to shovel money into Washington D.C. for the work they do in Berlin, London, or Tokyo? When you can't meet payrolls because Washington insists that any money you make OUTSIDE the U.S. is theirs before you can use it to buy equipment, hire staff, and repay loans? Do you shut the doors and tell your employees, sorry, I voted but the dumb bastards don't get it and I can't afford to keep the doors open? Or do you open a little office in Bermuda, so that when you do work in the U.S. you pay taxes only to the U.S., and when you do business in Germany, you only pay taxes to Germany?
Reference your previous rant, we can now withdraw all our military from all over the world, which protects US business interests overseas. Wow, that would save a lot of money.
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.
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.
However, Bermuda has lower taxes than the US, so as it is a US company, it must pay the differential. Otherwise, it can rely on the Bermuda Navy to protect it overseas, and in the US as well.
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.
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.
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.