we need a president who will lead the country back to
taxes and regulations that encourage american jobs.
The thing I love about American capital is that it has no loyalty to this country unless it asks the US taxpayer to bail them out with bail outs, low-interest loans, grants, subsidies, government contracts and special provisions in the tax code.
Don’t demand the US government protect your assets overseas when these foreign governments want to nationalize your assets.
My philosophy is American capital can do what it wants, but don’t ever come hat in hand to the federal government for anything.
Capitalism is good; crony capitalism is not good.
It would seem to me that a tax policy could be used to encourage companies to continue to produce their product in the United States. If companies were taxed for their offshore profits, but not for their onshore profits, they might think differently.
While I’m not generally in favor of taxing corporations, it can be argued that those kinds of taxes are really nothing more than consumption taxes, since only the purchasers of that company’s product pay the tax.
I truly believe a flat tax, with perhaps a simple one or two step progression of rates is the fairest way to tax people and corporations.
Gross earnings < $20,000 = 5% tax
> $20,000 < $200,000 = 10%
> $200,000 = 15%
The above rates would be adjusted for inflation, but gross incomes would be the measuring stick. No deductions for anything.
Is this that giant sucking sound R.P. was talking about?
Where is Patriotism? Why the bowing down to the almighty dollar?
Why do we let unions kill jobs here in America?
Sickening!
A little bit of devils advocate here, not as a defense for everything that some big companies can do, but:
If the total numbers are driven by similarities to the three companies shown above - Oracle, GE and Caterpillar, then their anecdotal evidence suggests that the statistics, plus the context, company by company, may be less significant (in terms of U.S. “losses”) than they seem.
Both Oracle and GE did not have fewer U.S. employees. They both did grew more in employees outside the U.S., than in the U.S. because of acquisitions of foreign companies and their own growth overseas. While GE’s drop in its total U.S. employees was during a period when GE was selling divisions and subsidiaries to others; a process it is not done with yet.
When a U.S. based company, like GE, sells a U.S. based business or some U.S. operation, that may show up in the numbers as “fewer U.S. employees”, for them and for “U.S. multinationals”, but, in that case it does not represent fewer “U.S. jobs”. For instance, NBC and it’s jobs are not going away when its ownership shifts from “multinational” GE to “domestic” Comcast.
When Toyota greatly increased how much of it’s production it shifted from its own plants to hundreds of outisde contractors, mostly domestic, it probably reflected a “reduction” in the total number of Japan-based “Toyota” jobs, but was not a reduction of “Japanese jobs” per se. Much of that same sort of thing has been going on in the U.S. “multinational” car industry for more than a decade. Jobs have not just shifted from Ford, GM and Chrysler (and seen as fewer employees on their payrolls) to contractors overseas, they have shifted work from themselves to U.S. contractors as well; in addition to selling off operations to U.S, businesses. That may have affected their own “number of jobs” more than it affected “U.S. jobs”.
By that understanding, every job that leaves the payroll of a U.S. multinational company is not necessarily a job that leaves the U.S., and every time a company’s jobs grow more overseas than in the U.S. it is not necessarily at the expense of U.S. jobs and can be attributed to growth of the company’s business in other markets.
I think it’s possible that what is being seen in the “U.S. multinational” “number of employees” statistics is likely to be seen in the numbers for “multinationals” worldwide.
That’s not to dismiss the fact that there are fewer manufacturing jobs in particular. But, not all of that loss was “exported”; a good amount came from a huge increase in automation and robotics. Almost nothing made today requires as many “manufacturing plant floor” workers to produce as was required 10, 20 and 30 years ago. And manufacturing as a whole is not at the end of those advances either. The other shift in manufacturing and in multinationals has been the movement of jobs and job categories to the payroll of someone else - [”let’s focus on our core business and hire some other outfit to do that”]. Some of that does involve “export” of jobs, but not all. Some just moves jobs from a bigger company to a smaller company in the same job market.
Keep doing it, big shots. Let’s see your experiment in globalism through. Oh, and be ready to move permanently to your preferred countries, because policies will probably change abruptly at some point in time.
And Trump shall win.