Obama the village idiot

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Why are companies moving overseas? Because it's CHEAPER. If we lower the cost of doing business here, there's less incentive to move jobs overseas.

thats wishful thinking and not based on Historical business trends below is the biggest reason why the head leaves and the body stays in the US ... but they need lower taxes its comical

http://americansfortaxfairness.org/t...ax-inversions/

Inversions largely occur on paper. Corporations typically do not move their executives or operations overseas.
Corporations that invert continue to enjoy the benefits of operating here — they just dodge a lot of taxes.
A dozen U.S. firms are currently considering doing a corporate inversion.
Walgreens could dodge up to $4 billion in U.S. taxes over five years if it inverts. One-quarter of its sales are from Medicare and Medicaid.
Medtronic plans to move its corporate address to Ireland, a tax haven, to avoid paying U.S. taxes on $20.5 billion in offshore profits.
U.S. corporations already dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.
U.S. corporations hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here. An inversion can let firms dodge paying taxes on those profits.
Big corporations say that the 35% U.S. corporate income tax rate is too high. But many companies pay much less because of loopholes in our tax code — many pay at a rate of less than 20%.

26 corporations paid no U.S. income taxes from 2008 to 2012, including General Electric, Boeing and Verizon. 111 companies paid no income taxes in at least one of those five years.

You deny that companies move overseas because it's cheaper?

Please, tell me why companies move manufacturing out of the country? Because it's more expensive?

"Inversions largely occur on paper. Corporations typically do not move their executives or operations overseas"

So what happened to all the manufacturing jobs that have been lost in the last 30 years? Are all the workers still in the US, hiding somewhere?

What was going to happen if Carrier moved all those jobs to Mexico?

God Almighty, anything to avoid admitting I am correct about anything.

Put down the Kool Aid and think for two seconds...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Inversion does not contradict Jim's reason companies physically move elsewhere. The reason they do so, as Jim stated, IS to lower the cost of production.

Inversion, as you have pointed out, is not about physically moving production to another country in order to lower production costs such as employee wage compensation packages, more attractive regulatory structure, and lower infrastructure costs, etc. Instead, inversion ships the "head" elsewhere to save not on production costs pers se, but in order to save on taxes.

So, yes, as Jim said, corporations physically move in order to save on production costs.

And, yes, corporations invert their "heads" elsewhere to save on taxes.

Ironically, inversion saves the jobs of American workers. The U.S. governments lose corporate tax revenue. But the employees keep their jobs.

But both types of perfectly legal moves depend on lower costs elsewhere. So competitively lowering the costs of production and taxes here would help in reversing both trends.

"Ironically, inversion saves the jobs of American workers."

Exactly. 5 years ago, my insurance company moved its "headquarters" to Bermuda. We rent a tiny, tiny office, and they have a Board Of Directors meeting there once a year, to prove that it is really the HQ. Even though the office is vacant 51 weeks out of the year.

That saves us a few million each year in taxes. Much of which was used to grow the company, meaning more people have good, white collar jobs, with which they pay mortgages and put their kids through college.

[wdmso]

Seem you guys only like to focus on 1 part at a time

Business left for cheap labor little to no regulation and Inversions all combined to see these companys leave

they made profits in the USA greed moved them from the USA

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Ironically, inversion saves the jobs of American workers."

Exactly. 5 years ago, my insurance company moved its "headquarters" to Bermuda. We rent a tiny, tiny office, and they have a Board Of Directors meeting there once a year, to prove that it is really the HQ. Even though the office is vacant 51 weeks out of the year.

That saves us a few million each year in taxes. Much of which was used to grow the company, meaning more people have good, white collar jobs, with which they pay mortgages and put their kids through college.

ok keep drinking that Kool aid. and you just answered why Conn budget it off ... your company bailed to not pay its taxes Sweet

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

Inversion could also describe the democrats sudden embracing of conservative principles as it relates to all things Trump

Paul, Wayne..if you wander over to the National Review you will find the editors and "Never Trumpers" making the identical arguments against the Carrier episode that you've been making....

news flash....Conservatives don't like the Carrier deal and government intervention picking winners and losers and all of that...

that you can't differentiate between a bail out of a failing company, pouring money into new startups who happen to be politically connected and offering tax incentives to keep a thriving company with existing jobs was just an aside...

Conservatives didn't like Obama doing this and they don't like Trump doing this...

ironically the left didn't seem to mind Obama doing this sort of "investment" but is outraged that Trump may in some shape or form and is even more OUTRAGED that there is not more outrage from Conservatives toward Trump

this has been a pattern throughout the campaign if you've been paying attention.....

sorry....just don't share your outrage I guess....

A bail out that is paid back and a Tax deal that requires no re payment

How are they the Same ?? and if Conservatives didn't like Obama doing this and they don't like Trump doing this...

their awful silent in there opposition

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

if Obama did this he'd be "brilliant", "courageous", "forward thinking"......

and....who cares that policymakers in Beijing are stunned?



great headline....

December 4, 2016

Liberals outraged by Trump using a phone







Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz4RrVZ13C7
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

If you dont see this unilateral disregard for US protocol or see it as Tough Talk towards China by the President elect or see the bigger implications on the world stage ... I can't help with that .. and to pull the if Obama did it card it would be seen differently is a weak argument Like But But Bush

Looks like the American thinker Blog has a nationalistic appeal

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seem you guys only like to focus on 1 part at a time

You focused on one thing, inversions, and disregarded production. I guess it's ok when you do it. Actually, I focused on both being methods of evading costs. And both can be addressed by changing our government regulations and tax structure, as well as wage contracts--all which, as they are now, make it significantly cheaper to move either production or tax liability elsewere.

Business left for cheap labor little to no regulations and inversions all combined to see these companys leave.

That's basically what I said, but not in as a demeaning manner as you.

they made profits in the USA greed moved them from the USA

In the global economy, they made profits worldwide. Why should they only satisfy the greed of the U.S.government and of American workers (to use the same demeaning rhetoric you use)?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

If you dont see this unilateral disregard for US protocol or see it as Tough Talk towards China by the President elect or see the bigger implications on the world stage ... I can't help with that .. and to pull the if Obama did it card it would be seen differently is a weak argument Like But But Bush

Looks like the American thinker Blog has a nationalistic appeal

1) from what I understand SHE called HIM to congratulate him on his victory

2) she is the democratically elected President of Taiwan...I assume she can call whoever she wants

3) F*@k the Chinese "policy makers"..a corrupt and authoritarian regime threatening everyone in the region

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

A bail out that is paid back and a Tax deal that requires no re payment

How are they the Same ?? and if Conservatives didn't like Obama doing this and they don't like Trump doing this...

their awful silent in there opposition

Paul insisted there was no difference...ask him

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seem you guys only like to focus on 1 part at a time

Business left for cheap labor little to no regulation and Inversions all combined to see these companys leave

they made profits in the USA greed moved them from the USA

The CT budget is tanking because of stupid spending. We have high tax rates applied to very high incomes. Add to that, hundreds of millions a year from the casinos. That's more than enough.

Yes, you are right about why companies leave. Companies exist to make money. Do you not make decisions based on your financial self-interest?

The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay, and less attractive for them to leave. Do that, and more will stay.

I presume you have never worked for a business that ever had to balance revenue with expenses.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The CT budget is tanking because of stupid spending. We have high tax rates applied to very high incomes. Add to that, hundreds of millions a year from the casinos. That's more than enough.

Yes, you are right about why companies leave. Companies exist to make money. Do you not make decisions based on your financial self-interest?

The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay, and less attractive for them to leave. Do that, and more will stay.

I presume you have never worked for a business that ever had to balance revenue with expenses.

The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay..

By basically giving them what ever they want ? maximizing their profits by diminishing their Tax responsibilities reducing their regulation . pass the risk to the tax payer . to keep 1000 jobs with a low % they will be there when the tax incentives sunset .. not my idea of the Big picture .. I get it greed is good ... but these are muti billion dollar profit companies .. not the man on the street plumber company or guy who runs 4 trucks ... no ones giving them a thing Because they cant leave nobody cares about them.. they are sold the same BS about de regulation and taxes but the reality it never trickles down to them

So dont even try to compare local business with Carrier

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay..

By basically giving them what ever they want ? maximizing their profits by diminishing their Tax responsibilities reducing their regulation . pass the risk to the tax payer . to keep 1000 jobs with a low % they will be there when the tax incentives sunset .. not my idea of the Big picture .. I get it greed is good ... but these are muti billion dollar profit companies .. not the man on the street plumber company or guy who runs 4 trucks ... no ones giving them a thing Because they cant leave nobody cares about them.. they are sold the same BS about de regulation and taxes but the reality it never trickles down to them

So dont even try to compare local business with Carrier

"By basically giving them what ever they want "

Again, you are responding to something that I never said (you have that habit, in case you didn't know). No - not give them whatever they want. But we need to take our boots off of their throats. Reasonable taxes, reasonable regulations. Stop acting like business is some limitless ATM that your labor union can raid whenever it feels like.

Have you ever worked in the private sector? Ever?

"to keep 1000 jobs with a low % they will be there when the tax incentives sunset "

Oh, so now you're a fortune teller, too. Impressive.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The solution, is to make it more attractive for companies to stay..

By basically giving them what ever they want ?

You keep phrasing it as if government is the giver. Government does not give. It takes. It restricts. It limits freedom.

If you believe that government governs best when it governs least, then you probably have an understanding of why and how this country was founded. And if so, you probably favor the freest market possible which is cherished and protected by government. And you probably view that market as the free association and exchange among the citizens. And you probably believe that government does not give us freedom, rather it protects our freedom.

If you believe that government governs best when what is most important is its needs, and those needs are decided by it, and it ultimately decides what the market is--that it decides what association and exchange is allowed among the citizens, then you probably reject the principles upon which this country was founded, even if you think you don't. And, if so, then any belief you have that the Constitution is being followed by a government which decides what the market is and how the citizens must associate and exchange, and that you actually defend and protect that document when you support such a government, then your belief is based on ignorance. And you probably believe that government gives us freedom.

maximizing their profits by diminishing their Tax responsibilities

"Responsibility" cuts both ways. In a global market, it is the responsibility of our government to protect our market against the competitive burden placed on it by other governments which can entice our competitors to produce goods more cheaply than we, and can thus damage our companies' ability to not only compete in the global market, but to do so at home against products produced by foreign companies who take advantage of cheaper production costs elsewhere. Tariffs might be the worst way. It would actually be best to not tax companies at all. Taxing their employees and executives, if anything is to be taxed, should be the extent of it. Otherwise, make the taxes and regulations competitive rather than deterrent.

reducing their regulation .

That phrasing evinces the notion that being regulated is a responsibility of those who are regulated. And it reinforces the progressive ideal that government has unlimited power to regulate.

pass the risk to the tax payer .

The tax payers are more at risk when the production of the goods they buy is taxed more rather than less. The more the goods are taxed, the less possible pool of money there is for the companies to distribute to its tax paying employees. Or the more it will cost in higher prices to those tax payers who buy the goods. Most of the tax will be paid by the tax paying customers twice--sales taxes and the transfer of company or corporate taxes to the price of the goods.

Of course, at least I guess, by "risk to the tax payer" you mean that the less taxes the government collects, the more that "tax payers" will have to foot the bill for government's notion of what it's responsibilities are (re this go back to what government is best, that which governs least or most). Well . . . see . . . it's government expansion of its "responsibilities" which is the greatest risk to the tax payers. Corporations aren't going to pay those taxes. If those taxes are not evaded, they will be passed on to the consumer. Ergo, the government will have effectively raised the taxes of "tax payers" while persuading them that it didn't, that it socked it to the corporations.

The least "risk" to the tax payers would be to shrink government "responsibility" and, if taxing is necessary and right, to tax the actual people who work for or own the companies not the company as a separate entity. Even less risk to the tax payers would be smaller government--placing the "tax payers" responsibilities for their well being more on themselves rather than giving that responsibility to government. Making the people responsible for themselves, to greater self-governance rather than being responsible for supporting an over-reaching nanny state.


to keep 1000 jobs with a low % they will be there when the tax incentives sunset ..

They shouldn't sunset. To be effective, they should be permanent policy for all companies.

not my idea of the Big picture ..

Your idea of the big picture is too narrow.

I get it greed is good ...

Are you referring to government "greed"? Or is that a good "greed"? That's a very judgmental word.

but these are muti billion dollar profit companies .. not the man on the street plumber company or guy who runs 4 trucks ... no ones giving them a thing Because they cant leave nobody cares about them.. they are sold the same BS about de regulation and taxes but the reality it never trickles down to them

So dont even try to compare local business with Carrier

Is the man on the street plumber paying corporate taxes as well as income tax? The "little" guy doesn't have to incorporate. Who do the small business guys want to care about them? Maybe their customers, friends and family? Do they want government to "care" about them? Or would they prefer to get it off their back, as the phrase goes? Do they want less government regulation? Do they find ways to minimize their tax "responsibilities"? Do they want government to take care of them? Or are they what stands in the way of government control of our society.

In our high tech time, some (many) things are more efficiently and cheaply mass produced by large corporations rather than by small businesses. Does that necessitate big, all-powerful government to combat the expansion and consolidation of such corporations? Or is that combat merely a cover for those who prefer all-powerful centralized government? Can a model of self-government exist in a world dominated by giant corporations?

I think so. I think those giants can only dominate in concert or collusion with giant government. I do not think they can dominate a free, self-governing people. That is obviously debatable. But I think that we can only be dominated if we allow ourselves to be, either by corporations or government . . . or their fascistic combination.

Does less regulation and taxation of business, whether that business is small or huge, create more of a bond with it? Or does greater taxation and regulation create more of a bond between government and business.

With lesser control, the bond is amicable, and protective of each for the other. With greater control, the bond is resentful, coercive, corruptive, and prone to consolidation, either by force of government, or necessity of business survival. The ultimate consolidation being business and government in a fascistic consolidation.

The "big picture" is far bigger than talking points about "greedy" corporations and the little guys. It involves system of government, liberty, and the "road to serfdom."