1st, as has been repeatedly noted, the H1-B program was a governmental intrusion into the free market. We permitted a half million non-citizens to come over here to the US and take US jobs -- no other country (other than a few oil states) permits the reciprocal action. Try going to Canada, for example, to compete for a job there.
Impact: loss of US jobs to US citizens, drop in tax revenue. Most of these jobs were the taxpaying equivalent of the engine on the train, paying a lot of taxes. That is gone. More on this in point 4. And of course as has been previously pointed out, there is a trickle down job effect. When the higher paid workers get cut, they don't take their kids to the Chuckie Cheese birthday parties, Chuckie Cheese lays off a worker. They paint their own house, local painting companies all lay off a worker. They cancel the addition to their house, the home renovation company lays off a worker.
2nd, outsourcing is a separate and old issue. I think "free market" economics should play out here, except for industries that are clearly supported by foreign governments who intend to capture market share by wiping out competition. In that case our Constitution permits us to use tariffs to balance the playing field and they should be used judiciously to do so. IMO.
3rd, when US corporations move offshore to avoid taxes, they are expecting the best of two worlds. First, they get to do business in the US, sell to US customers, take advantage of a tax subsidized infrastructure (roads, rail, criminal justice system, civil justice system, and so on), but then not pay taxes to help support the very infrastructure they are taking advantage of. This is an issue. I do not offer a solution but point out that there is a conflict between a corporation that considers itself "multinational", and the civic ethics of the American consitutional nation state.
4th and finally, our military expenditures are greater than the next 7 to 10 highest funded militaries combined. Because of our military strength, our "allies" can afford to not spend money on their militaries (Canada is a perfect example), and so they can either subsidize their industries or cover their social programs at a lower tax rate if they so choose. In any case, as point 1 indicated, replacing a half million of our more highly salaried workers cuts into the tax revenue to support this military.
I chose Stanley Tools as an example to avoid that rebuttal. The tools that Stanley makes in the US are taxed, the profits on tools manufactured here are taxed. What Stanley was trying to avoid was paying taxes on goods made overseas and sold overseas. A wrench made in China being sold to a worker in Germany resulted in the profit being taxed in the US. Multinationals like to make foreign subsidiaries - like a whole company in China that does nothing but manufacture tools with Stanley's name on it.
A fine example of that was when IBM was going a great job around the world, they had an office in South Africa. Due to the government giving endless grief to companies doing business in South Africa during the aparteid years, IBM spun off a business called SBM and the new company employees still could receive IBM training and benefits, but the new company didn't have a US nexus so they didn't have to fork over any portion of the profits to the US.
#1: Offshoring a job reduces the tax revenue associated with that job. H1-B's, on the other hand, still pay U.S. taxes on their income. I do not wish to rehash old H1-B arguments, but their effect on tax revenues is minimal.
#2: I agree.
#3: You are correct, but you stop short. We should eliminate corporate income taxes (as well as personal, in my opinion) simply because the corporation doesn't "pay" the tax. The consumer does.
#4: I do not have a big problem with spending on defense that is disproportionate to other countries. But, that spending should be efficient, and should reflect the ultimate mission of protecting the people and interests of the U.S. Iraq, as far as I'm concerned, met that criteria. I was not, and am not, so sure about Kosovo, among others.
2nd, outsourcing is a separate and old issue. I think "free market" economics should play out here, except for industries that are clearly supported by foreign governments who intend to capture market share by wiping out competition. In that case our Constitution permits us to use tariffs to balance the playing field and they should be used judiciously to do so. IMO.
I favor the imposition of tariffs in those industries that have been specifically harmed by foreign nations predatory trade practices and in those industries we deem strategically vital to our national defense. Further at a minimum all subsideis for US companies moving capital offshore should be done away with now. OPIC World bank etc.
I do not have a solution for those nations getting a free ride on American defense expenditures.