[Gunslingr3]

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.

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.

[XBob]

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 !!!

[XBob]

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.

[XBob]

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.

[XBob]

LOL - thanks for the reference - 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. I know, I have lived there, and in numbers of other countries. Europe, or Canada, now that's a different story, and look at their costs.

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.

[XBob]

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%

[XBob]

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.