The Cost of Keeping Companies in the United States [BUILDING A WALL TO KEEP US IN!]

New York Times ^ | SEPT. 6, 2016 | BRENT GLOVER and OLIVER LEVINE

[expat_panama]

How should we stop corporations from leaving the United States, as both presidential candidates have vowed to do? After Pfizer announced this year that it wanted to merge with the Ireland-based Allergan in a maneuver known as a corporate inversion, the Obama administration put in new tax rules that effectively scuttled the deal.

President Obama characterized inversions as a way American companies to “get out of paying their fair share of taxes here at home.” Last month, the Chamber of Commerce sued to block the new rules, saying that the administration “simply rewrote the law unilaterally.”

We need to put aside the politicized allegations that inversions are a way for corporations to cheat the rest of America. This sort of language confuses the issue and obscures a central fact: All of these corporations are owned by shareholders who should, in theory, reap the benefits of a lower corporate tax bill...

...we have created policies where inversions benefit some shareholders at the expense of others...

...taxable shareholders lost...

...Fifteen percent to 20 percent of shareholders in the deals we studied were made worse off from inversion...

...For older Americans who plan to bequeath shares to spouses or heirs, an inversion is especially costly...

...one group of shareholders writes a large check to the government for all shareholders to reap the benefits of lower corporate income...

...tax-exempt investors enjoy a nice return from inversion of 4 percent to 7 percent...

...Foreign shareholders also benefit...

...a third group that benefits: corporate executives...

...we should abandon the policies that have punished long-term and older taxable American shareholders... ...we have the worst of policy effects: unintended consequences and no intended ones.

[expat_panama]

Attacks on evil businesses will continue and worsen until businesses stop trying to leave.

[expat_panama]

Useful links:

...tax rules that effectively scuttled the deal...  

...President Obama characterized inversions as a way American companies to “get out of paying their fair share of taxes here at home.” Last month, the Chamber of Commerce sued to block the new rules...

[wastoute]

Curious, it is never the fault of the politicians that drove the business offshore...

[ConservativeMind]

A very low corporate tax, coupled with some amount of a tariff, will help businesses voluntarily stay in the US.

[Steven Tyler]

Pfizer did not pay a tribute to the Clinton foundation

[BuffaloJack]

Businesses will only stay if they can be profitable.
They can’t be profitable if foreign made products, supported by foreign government subsidies are cheap enough to kill off American made goods. It’s time for heavy tariffs of this foreign junk.

[Bryanw92]

>>Curious, it is never the fault of the politicians that drove the business offshore...

....because when the phone rings and it’s the corporate donor on the line, the politician picks up on the first ring. It’s an incestuous relationship, a chicken or egg conundrum, where the American worker always loses.

[expat_panama]

Good Morning and happy "Uptrend Resumes" Day!  In rising trade NASDAQ up a half % hits a new high and the S&P500 follows along w/ +1/3%.   Futures traders right now are subdued, at +0.27% for stocks but they're up a roaring +2.88% for metals --gold and silver have been powering up to $1,348.59 and $19.97.

Today's econ reports:

7:00 AM MBA Mortgage Index
10:00 AM JOLTS - Job Openings
10:30 AM Crude Inventories
2:00 PM Fed's Beige Book

Recommended related threads:

• Conservative Values Lead to Happiness
• Donald Trump Discusses “the false economy”
• Norway runs deficit for first time in over 20 years
• (CNN Money) Problem: Most Americans don't believe the unemployment rate is 5%
• Goshen Coach intends to close facility in Elkhart (About 160 layoffs, Indiana)
• IBD/TIPP: Economic Hopes Slip, Democrats Feel Blue

[Redmen4ever]

they government wants to keep the productive here so it can tax them at high rates

[ctdonath2]

Walls hinder movement in both directions.

[Neoliberalnot]

Another fraudulent article from the NYtimes.

[Ben Ficklin]

Donald Trump slams Pfizer's disgusting megamerger

[arthurus]

You stop corporations from leaving and bring back those that have left and some others, to,lots of others,by drastically reducing the onerous regulation of American Business, by reducing the taxes on American business, also drastically, and by eliminating all the American international banking regulations and the taxes on money earned outside of the USA.
If we can do all that without succumbing to the temptation to put up a tariff wall, America will become the manufacturing and business hub of the world and the decline of the middle class will reverse.

[webstersII]

“Walls hinder movement in both directions.”

And that’s a good thing sometimes.

[bert]

The correct way to do it is to hedge taxes by spreading around all over the world.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Meanwhile, people in record numbers are continuing to give up their US citizenship.

Now why is that?

[randita]

Tariffs punish consumers by making all the foreign goods we buy more expensive.

Corporate tax reductions and easing of regulations should be the first steps toward keeping businesses here.

[palmer]

Sticks are all the Democrats have, choose smaller or larger. Hillary will also shower a few politically correct businesses with breaks especially for a nice donation. In contrast Trump is going to make deals. He will threaten with the stick like he did with Carrier but that's just a negotiation tactic.

The real difference is he will lower nominal rates and take the tax break issuance power away from politicians. That will make a huge difference in the long run.

[expat_panama]

Walls hinder movement in both directions.

This one will also prevent new business from starting up and hiring.

[expat_panama]

Another fraudulent article from the NYtimes.

Saying it's 'fraudulent' implies that the writers knew what they were talking about and intentionally chose to lie.   imho they don't, they're just biased.  Look at this line:

"We need to put aside the politicized allegations that inversions are a way for corporations to cheat the rest of America. This sort of language confuses the issue and obscures a central fact: All of these corporations are owned by shareholders who should, in theory, reap the benefits of a lower corporate tax bill... "

If the sentence were accurate it would have been:

"Crazy Marxists running things say inversions are a way for corporations to cheat the rest of America; Marxists either don't know or they don't want to know that these corporations are owned by shareholders have already earned the benefits of a lower corporate tax bill... "