[Jfool]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...latchy/3226240

I'll say it even if the media won't: How about learning something from the "tax havens" and making corporate taxes less oppressive in the US? Its been discussed before, but it is still the elephant in the room that the left will not mention.

[adamwagg]

How oppressive are they? I'm interested in the general structure (not arguing that they are or aren't - I just have no idea)

I know over here the main corporate tax rate is 30% on profit. Though I know there are other state based taxes on things for larger corporations.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Jfool

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...latchy/3226240

I'll say it even if the media won't: How about learning something from the "tax havens" and making corporate taxes less oppressive in the US? Its been discussed before, but it is still the elephant in the room that the left will not mention.

There's no benefit to it; the "tax havens" don't actually produce anything. They incorporate in places like Jersey or Lichtenstein, rent 50 sq. feet of an office, hire a secretary and hold board meetings once a month in said office, and keep their staff, their factories, the things they make and do, in another country. So they hire our workers, use our resources, and then don't pay for the privelege of using our workers, our resources with their paltry 2.3% effective tax rate. This is felonious tax evasion, nothing more and nothing less.

[Jfool]

... Yes that's all true. And yet, still my question goes unanswered. Why not focus on what's driving this behavior (high taxes) instead of trying to make it worse?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

... Yes that's all true. And yet, still my question goes unanswered. Why not focus on what's driving this behavior (high taxes) instead of trying to make it worse?

The bidding war would have the offshore sites at or below 1% (after all, that's 1% they don't have otherwise). How low would you like to go? No taxes on corporations at all? Cool. I'll incorporate myself (as well most everyone above a certain income).

That said: you don't understand what it being discussed.

The corporations are actually filing their off-shore taxes as a loss... a deduction against US taxes.
What's currently being discussed is removing that deduction; disallowing corporations from benefiting twice from offshoring.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The bidding war would have the offshore sites at or below 1% (after all, that's 1% they don't have otherwise). How low would you like to go? No taxes on corporations at all? Cool. I'll incorporate myself (as well most everyone above a certain income).

That said: you don't understand what it being discussed.

The corporations are actually filing their off-shore taxes as a loss... a deduction against US taxes.
What's currently being discussed is removing that deduction; disallowing corporations from benefiting twice from offshoring.

I donot propose "no taxes on corporations at all". I propose lowering them to make the US a competetive place to do business. Its nice that you could expand on the issue, but you avoided my question by posing a hyperbolic answer.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

I donot propose "no taxes on corporations at all". I propose lowering them to make the US a competetive place to do business. Its nice that you could expand on the issue, but you avoided my question by posing a hyperbolic answer.

No. I answered your question, and also addressed the article: two separate things.

To specifically answer your question again: It is not in out best interest to lower corporate taxes to near zero, which would be the inevitable requirement to compete with off-shore tax shelters who have nothing to loose in bringing their own shelter-taxes near zero.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No. I answered your question, and also addressed the article: two separate things.

To specifically answer your question again: It is not in out best interest to lower corporate taxes to near zero, which would be the inevitable requirement to compete with off-shore tax shelters who have nothing to loose in bringing their own shelter-taxes near zero.

Okay, let's go with the exageration. Then, I ask why not?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Okay, let's go with the exageration. Then, I ask why not?

"Why not" lower our corporate taxes to zero? Because we'd loose money. The individual taxpayer would be subsidizing the corporations by paying for the infrastructure they need to operate.

And do note that the corporations haven't moved to the Cayman Islands or Bermuda. They are still here in the US. They have a little closet in a building somewhere off-shore that they funnel their money through.

No. If we were discussing corporations actually leaving the US (such as IBM or GM and their big off-shoring programs) you might have a point. But that's not what's at stake.

We are talking about companies that operate in the US, using resources paid for by our people, and hiding their profits by funneling them out of country.

And even that isn't actually what is being discussed by the administration... merely removing allowing the businesses to claim foreign taxes as a tax deduction here.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by Jfool

I donot propose "no taxes on corporations at all". I propose lowering them to make the US a competetive place to do business. Its nice that you could expand on the issue, but you avoided my question by posing a hyperbolic answer.

Heres the thing, but keep in mind I am a capitalist, and I want low taxes: The US does not need to lower taxes to be competitive. The tax rate (according to what I have read) is 35%, although of course loopholes and deference, and whatever people do, will always make sure a corporation does not pay nearly that much in taxes (to the point in the article where it says 2.3%). This rate is much more than other countries, so according to theory companies will move to lower tax environment? Not completely true. The US is the most dominant market in the world, its economy is far more massive than any economy in the world, and thus companies want into it, with smaller regard for things like taxes. Sure if they had more restrictions businesses may not want to expand there, but at current rate the ease of doing business and security far outweighs the burden on additional taxes.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

"Why not" lower our corporate taxes to zero? Because we'd loose money. The individual taxpayer would be subsidizing the corporations by paying for the infrastructure they need to operate..

Actually, it was "near zero".

The article states we're going to recover $210 billion over a decade. Considering the amount earmarked so far this year, we should be looking elsewhere for the cash... or else change our strategy.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And do note that the corporations haven't moved to the Cayman Islands or Bermuda. They are still here in the US. They have a little closet in a building somewhere off-shore that they funnel their money through.

No. If we were discussing corporations actually leaving the US (such as IBM or GM and their big off-shoring programs) you might have a point. But that's not what's at stake..

Sorry, I was confused because it says "not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores..."

So I guess the motive isn't to move jobs off shore, but I'm supposed to think it is.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

We are talking about companies that operate in the US, using resources paid for by our people, and hiding their profits by funneling them out of country.

And even that isn't actually what is being discussed by the administration... merely removing allowing the businesses to claim foreign taxes as a tax deduction here.

Again, the emphasis falling on the behavior, not the cause of it. Didn't the obscene spending so far this year teach us anything? We're gonna recover $210 billion from business, over a decade, and earmark trillions in one year on ___??

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

The article states we're going to recover $210 billion over a decade. Considering the amount earmarked so far this year, we should be looking elsewhere for the cash... or else change our strategy.

We are looking elsewhere.

You seem to be implying that we should not be looking here... that we should not seek to collect unpaid taxes. If that's that case: why do you feel that?

Sorry, I was confused because it says "not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores..."

So I guess the motive isn't to move jobs off shore, but I'm supposed to think it is.

They are both issues, but the one covered under the discussed initiative does not involve (a signifigant amount of) jobs. It covers the bolded part of the article below.

But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens."

Though even that's misleading (unless there is a new initiative since the one I am familiar with), because we are not yet attempting to stop over-seas shelters... just deducting them from domestic taxes.

Again, the emphasis falling on the behavior, not the cause of it. Didn't the obscene spending so far this year teach us anything? We're gonna recover $210 billion from business, over a decade, and earmark trillions in one year on ___??

So throw out the baby with the bath water and don't collect taxes? How does that fix our spending?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

This is felonious tax evasion, nothing more and nothing less.

well, it may be tax evasion, but there is nothing felonious about it.