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.
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.