|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090504/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_taxesBy PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 26 mins ago WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama plans changes to tax policy certain to be unpopular with corporations with international divisions and individuals who use tax havens. Obama's two-part plan, which he is slated to unveil at the White House on Monday, also calls for 800 new federal tax agents to enforce the system. The president's proposal would eliminate some tax deductions for companies that earn profits in countries with low tax rates, as well as consider U.S. citizens who use tax havens in the Bahamas or Cayman Islands guilty of violating U.S. tax laws. If Obama wins congressional approval for the changes — and he faces a challenge on Capitol Hill — it could deliver $210 billion in tax revenue over the next decade. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was to join Obama for the 11 a.m. comments. Officials described the administration's plan ahead of the announcement on the condition of anonymity so they wouldn't upstage the president's remarks. However, they acknowledged the political challenges facing the plan. The administration won't seek a complete repeal of overseas tax benefits and, although the rule changes are narrower than some anticipated, business leaders still oppose them as a tax hike. Obama aides countered that the plan is a step toward a massive overhaul of international financial regulations the president has promised. In exchange, Obama said he was willing to make permanent a research tax credit that was to expire at the end of the year and is popular with businesses. Officials estimate that making the tax credits permanent would cost taxpayers $74.5 billion over the next decade. But administration aides said 75 percent of those tax credits paid workers' wages; given the struggling economy, aides were reluctant to do anything that could add more Americans to the unemployment rolls. It was small comfort. Companies who shelter profits in international accounts stand to lose billions if Obama's plan becomes law. Under the existing regulation, those companies pay taxes only if they bring the profits back to the U.S. If they keep the profits offshore, they can defer paying taxes indefinitely — and many do. Obama's plan wouldn't go into effect until 2011; Obama has said he does not want to tinker with tax revenues until his $787 billion stimulus plan has run its course. The proposals, however, were far from complete, and aides said this was just one piece of the administration's plan for sweeping overhaul. First up: Companies won't be able to write-off domestic expenses for generating profits abroad. For instance, administrative tasks performed in New York for a London office would not be tax deductible in the United States. Administration officials depicted the move as a way to close unfair tax loopholes that encouraged companies to send jobs overseas. They argued that if it costs the same amount to do business in, say, Ireland as in Iowa, why not do it entirely in Des Moines? Officials said Obama would characterize the move as a way to keep jobs in the United States and fight a system that is rigged against U.S. companies who keep their entire business operation domestic. Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts. If financial institutions cooperate with Washington and disclose details when asked, Americans could invest anywhere they like. Obama officials also said they would close a Clinton-era provision that would cost $87 billion over the next decade by letting U.S. companies "check the box" and treat international subsidiaries as mere branch offices. Officials said it was meant as a paperwork shortcut that is now a widely used and perfectly legal way to avoid paying billions in taxes on international operations. This article bothers me on multiple levels.
- "the president's proposal would eliminate some tax deductions for companies that earn profits in countries with low tax rates" ----- but if an international company has branches all over the world and one, or a few are locations that earn profits with low tax rates - will there also be tax breaks for those branches that either don't make a profit or have high tax rates? Also, does the administration realize that if you tax corporations more that they will have less money to pay employees? I know I've oversimplified it, but...
- "Companies won't be able to write-off domestic expenses for generating profits abroad. For instance, administrative tasks performed in New York for a London office would not be tax deductible in the United States." ----- So, they move the admistrative tasks to London, relieving the New York administrative workers of their duties.
- "They argued that if it costs the same amount to do business in, say, Ireland as in Iowa, why not do it entirely in Des Moines?" ----- this one made me laugh out loud. Has anyone in this administration ever worked for an international company? Lets say World HQ for a company is in Des Moines and an international office is in Dublin, Ireland. Lets also say it costs the same to run the two offices. Lets then say that the company decides to move the functions in the Dublin office to Des Moines. After relocation costs, does anyone really think that it would still cost the same? Reality says that the 6 or 7 hours time difference means you pay staff more to work 2nd shift to support the customers in Ireland. Reality also says if you don't support at the same level, customers fill find someone else to get their product or service. And what if it is a manufacturing plant or warehouse - what will the extra shipping costs and delays in delivery cost the company? Sure they pass it on to the customers, but customers will find the product cheaper elsewhere and leave. Again, I'm oversimplifying, but less than the administration
- "Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts." ----- seriously? Guilty until proven innocent? Please someone tell me I read that wrong.
Last edited by clwb419; 05/04/09 10:19 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
lol, when I saw the title of this thread on the main index, it was shortened to say "Obama to crack down on bus"
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
I can't really read your comments, you put them in Blue and against the Black it's impossible to read.. would I be out of line asking you to change it to another color like White for instance or leave that portion Orange... anything.. It's really hard on the eyes.....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Just Highlight it like you were going to copy and past it. Makes it real easy to see.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
Done, good call out. I played with a couple colors for my comments to the quoted text, and blue easiest to read for me...other than the obvious orange 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.
This is absolutely terrifying, and beyond comprehension that this notion is even being entertained. What is scarier, is that it will probably get passed.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Thanks man,.,,, it's a bummer getting old, but it beats the alternative by a mile.... 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
It's definitely a double edged sword ... and I think they are looking at this pretty myopically. You don't want companies outsourcing everything overseas, but you also want your domestic companies to be competitive against international competition. This is going to be a major wrench in the works for that. But of course, this won't get enacted until 2011 ... so this will be the next President's problem. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Sounds like some good stuff, right stuff, but it also sounds like something that will kill some businesses.. I'll try and watch the press conference at 11 this morning...
I remember during the campaign that Obama wanted to stop giving tax incentives to companies that ship jobs overseas... I never understood why we gave them breaks in the first place.. so i'm ok with that thinking.. But this isn't what I had in mind...
As for a quick passage, I doubt it happens.. This will NOT be a rubber stamp approval....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
If you do get a chance to watch it, please fill me in. I'll still be working, and even if I wasn't I'm not sure it'll be on TV over here. It'll be interesting to see what he says versus the content of this article.
I'm not against reducing tax breaks as a whole, I just have some concerns about the seemingly short-sightedness. I hope it was bad journalism, bad information, or a combination...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
I don't know enough about all of this to decide what parts are good or bad. When the other side is given I'll be able to have an opinion. There is one exception... Quote:
"Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts." -----
This is complete BS.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts." -----
<`r />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is complete BS.
I don't know where you have been, but I'm guessing you never had a run in with the IRS.. they have always assumed your guilty without having it proven... Just saying... That's been my experience....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Well, I totally mised the conference if it was televised... Just as I was getting ready to watch it I got a flurry of customer calls and just couldn't stop to listen in.. Dang it...
Did anyone see the thing...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478 |
I just want to clear one thing up. The above article is stating the following. Quote:
First up: Companies won't be able to write-off domestic expenses for generating profits abroad. For instance, administrative tasks performed in New York for a London office would not be tax deductible in the United States.
The following CNN article states.
Quote:
Among them, reforming the "deferral" rule that lets U.S.-based multinationals take deductions on their expenses supporting overseas operations but defer paying income tax on the profits they make from their overseas operations. They only need to pay U.S. income tax on those profits if and when they bring that money back to the United States.
The administration proposes that the companies must also defer taking their deductions until their overseas profits are brought back to the country. It estimates the change would raise $60.1 billion in revenue over 10 years.
Web page
I am slightly skeptical of how this will work and the impact it will have, but it is not as bad as it originally sounded.
here is the rest of the article
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama on Monday spelled out his proposals to close corporate tax loopholes on U.S. multinational corporations and crack down on overseas tax havens.
The goal is to help create new jobs in the United States and make the tax code fairer.
"I want to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world. 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," Obama said in announcing his proposals on Monday morning.
But tax policy experts and corporate lobbyists say such measures, unless accompanied by a reduction in the corporate tax rate, will push more companies to move their operations -- and jobs - overseas to more tax friendly countries.
The White House and Treasury Department laid out three proposals that they say will eliminate the current tax advantages U.S.-based multinationals get for investing and creating jobs abroad.
Among them, reforming the "deferral" rule that lets U.S.-based multinationals take deductions on their expenses supporting overseas operations but defer paying income tax on the profits they make from their overseas operations. They only need to pay U.S. income tax on those profits if and when they bring that money back to the United States.
The administration proposes that the companies must also defer taking their deductions until their overseas profits are brought back to the country. It estimates the change would raise $60.1 billion in revenue over 10 years.
It also proposes to offer a $74.5 billion tax cut over 10 years to companies by making permanent the research and experimentation credit given to companies that do their research and development in the United States.
"That's like saying I'm going to cut off you right arm but I'm going to let you keep your driver's license. No one expected the R&E credit to go away," said Clint Stretch, managing principal for tax policy at Deloitte Tax, whose clients use the tax breaks at issue.
The current R&E credit is set to expire at the end of 2009. But typically, lawmakers have temporarily extended the credit every year.
Companies will welcome the credit being made permanent, Stretch said. But because they never expected to lose the credit, the net effect of the two proposals "is a $60 billion tax increase on U.S.-based business."
The administration also wants to make it harder for companies to "abuse" the foreign tax credit. Currently companies may claim a credit against their U.S. income taxes for taxes they paid to another country. Amending that rule would raise an estimated $43 billion over 10 years, according to the administration.
The proposed changes to the deferral and foreign tax credit rules will make for a tough sell to the business community. Republicans are all but certain to reject the proposal, but Democratic support is far from a lock, Stretch said.
One key player in that fight will be Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. In a statement Monday, he said his committee is already working on similar proposals, such as clamping down on offshore tax havens.
But, Baucus added, "further study is needed to assess the impact of this plan on U.S. businesses."
Another pivotal player will be House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who put forth a number of similar international tax reform proposals in 2007.
"I applaud President Obama's commitment to simplifying our tax code and look forward to working with the administration to close these loopholes," Rangel said in a statement.
Proponents of these kinds of corporate tax changes had also been expecting that the top U.S. corporate tax rate would be reduced. Most other countries have lower corporate tax rates.
The deferral and foreign tax credit changes alone are more likely to discourage companies from investing in the United States, Stretch said. But a simultaneous reduction in the corporate rate, he added, would have a better shot at creating jobs here because there wouldn't be such a stark advantage to moving operations to more tax-friendly countries.
One change the administration proposed on Monday that can be made without congressional approval is a regulatory change in the way the IRS handles so-called "check the box" rules.
Those rules currently let companies shift income from one foreign subsidiary to another in a tax haven, thereby escaping taxation. Obama would require some foreign subsidiaries to be treated as separate corporations for U.S. tax purposes. The administration estimates the change could raise $86.5 billion over 10 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
Thanks for posting this. It does clear that up somewhat. For those of you much smarter than I, I have a follow up question on that item, as well as another. First, Quote:
Among them, reforming the "deferral" rule that lets U.S.-based multinationals take deductions on their expenses supporting overseas operations but defer paying income tax on the profits they make from their overseas operations. They only need to pay U.S. income tax on those profits if and when they bring that money back to the United States.
The administration proposes that the companies must also defer taking their deductions until their overseas profits are brought back to the country. It estimates the change would raise $60.1 billion in revenue over 10 years.
Is this just robbing from Peter to pay Paul? It seems to me that the intent is to just get money now and delay the inevitable, unless companies never bring the money back in the country. I think it also incentivizes (if that is a word) companies to wait until down years to take their deductions to lessen the impact. Though maybe that is the same as it is now?
Quote:
The administration also wants to make it harder for companies to "abuse" the foreign tax credit. Currently companies may claim a credit against their U.S. income taxes for taxes they paid to another country. Amending that rule would raise an estimated $43 billion over 10 years, according to the administration.
I agree with the article that this may be a tough sell. I can understand having to pay the difference between other country taxes and US taxes if the other country taxes are lower - to true up. I can't see companies being happy with getting double dipped. Am I missing something here?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
I don't know where you have been, but I'm guessing you never had a run in with the IRS.. they have always assumed your guilty without having it proven... Just saying... That's been my experience....
Daman: What the IRS assumes for its course of business and what a court of law in the U.S.A. assume are two totally different things, and for us to even entertain the notion of having a court of law assume guilt for ANYTHING under ANY circumstance cannot be tolerated and certainly not allowed.
Quote:
The administration proposes that the companies must also defer taking their deductions until their overseas profits are brought back to the country.
Wow, something that I can actually applaud!
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know where you have been, but I'm guessing you never had a run in with the IRS.. they have always assumed your guilty without having it proven... Just saying... That's been my experience....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daman: What the IRS assumes for its course of business and what a court of law in the U.S.A. assume are two totally different things, and for us to even entertain the notion of having a court of law assume guilt for ANYTHING under ANY circumstance cannot be tolerated and certainly not allowed.
Purp, what I was referring to is the stories you hear about the IRS attaching accounts without warning..
I was also referring to a time when I was audited 3 times in 5 years in the 90's. Each time, it was assumed I owed more taxes than I said I did in my returns.. each time, I paid an attorney/CPA to go with me to audits, each time I was able to prove I was right and they were wrong..
On one occasion, I had the IRS agent crapping his pants when I started throwing receipts at him that were in the package of info I provided that they didn't even look at... I guess I must have looked like some scary maniac ready to go postal or something.. (my accountant did say that I even scared him that day, hey, I was hung over,,, what can I say)
Anyway, my experience with the IRS is that they automatically think you are guilty of tax fraud until you prove otherwise.. and that, from my experience, is a fact.
As for a court of law finding you guilty before proving it,, I'm with you on that, but in this case, the IRS would first have to assume you are guilty before it got to a court of law... IT still starts with the IRS.. if it gets to a court, you will be able to defend yourself...
Obamas words, if they were his words, were poorly chosen and as a former constitional law professor, he, I believe would know better..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
As for a court of law finding you guilty before proving it,, I'm with you on that, but in this case, the IRS would first have to assume you are guilty before it got to a court of law... IT still starts with the IRS.. if it gets to a court, you will be able to defend yourself..
I caught the part where you were obviously referring to previous run-ins with the IRS, and what I was clarifying was that in no way, shape or form should a Court in the United States of America EVER assume Guilt before Innocence - regardless of topic.... and that is precisely what he is wanting them to do.
Simply put, Obama is attempting to unhinge one of the foundational underpinnings of American society. Whether or not that is his intent is anyone's guess, but that is precisely what he is going after. You don't simply erode that Right away for the IRS, and only the IRS, and not have that eventually continue on to all judicial proceedings. To believe so would be the ultimate in blind faith and naivete.
And you call them "poorly chosen words" as if to be an apologist for, or make light of, such a thing, but they aren't poorly chosen if that is what he meant, and I do believe that is what he meant. And precisely what you said: As someone well educated with the law, he most certainly DOES know these things and I highly doubt such a thing would be so poorly worded from them as to have it misconstrued... and if it comes from his Administration, they ARE ultimately his words. The fact that you offhandedly dismiss it with "if it gets to a court, you will be able to defend yourself..." is really quite disturbing man. I think you are completely missing the point that it should never get to that point.
The simple fact that that sentence actually made it to print should, quite litterally, scare the crap out of everybody that reads it.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
and what I was clarifying was that in no way, shape or form should a Court in the United States of America EVER assume Guilt before Innocence - regardless of topic.... and that is precisely what he is wanting them to do.
and I agree with you... I don't want that either... I'm just not sure you are correct when you say that that is precisely what he is wanting them to do.. Unless I missed something, I haven't seen in writing or on TV that that's what he's said..so far, just a reporter...
I know I missed his presser this morning.. did you see it, did he say that's what he wants or is this the interpretation of a reporter.. Just asking cause I don't know..
I feel like I'm in a shelter today,, so damn busy... Good busy I might add...
Quote:
And you call them "poorly chosen words" as if to be an apologist for,
I'm going to ask again cause I haven't seen him actually say any of this,, did you hear or read his quotes....
As for me saying it was poorly chosen words, that's based entirely on his history as a constitutional Law Professor... I'm saying that he has to know better..
Please excuse me for not getting all up in arms about this like you are... I still haven't heard him say it. Perhaps you have... if so, I'll stand corrected later,, but for now,, I'll wait and see...
Last edited by Damanshot; 05/04/09 02:43 PM.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 33
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 33 |
If you people can't see how this will help to keep jobs in the U.S, so sorry. Your job could be next if this doesn't pass. Companies finding tax shelter's and incentives to hire overseas is just about over. Thank You Mr. President.
Dawg Gone
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
He may have read a lot of Law Books ; But he dam sure skipped Econ & a bunch of History class's
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 33
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 33 |
Quote:
He may have read a lot of Law Books ; But he dam sure skipped Econ & a bunch of History class's
LOL Yeah look where GWB got us on all the History and Econ knowledge he had! 
Dawg Gone
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
So, they move the admistrative tasks to London, relieving the New York administrative workers of their duties.
And face the British tax rates? No chance.
On the surface, this seems like a mixed bag...good intentions wrapped up in bad bureaucracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
If you people can't see how this will help to keep jobs in the U.S, so sorry. Your job could be next if this doesn't pass. Companies finding tax shelter's and incentives to hire overseas is just about over. Thank You Mr. President
I'm not sure how much of this is about job retention... Some of it clearly is, but certainly not all of it..
There are many loopholes in the tax law that have favored big business for a lot of years. But I'm not 100% sure any of this addresses the real excesses.
I've had MSNBC on and have been switch back and forth to FOX and nothing,, Not a freaking word about any of this... At least not that I've heard anyway..
You would think that this would be a story that should dominate the headlines on TV.....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
If you people can't see how this will help to keep jobs in the U.S, so sorry.
And if you can't see how this will hurt companies overall profitability because they won't be able to compete globally, I don't know what to tell you. It's a double edged sword. Sure you're telling companies to keep the jobs and money over here, but you're also forcing them to produce products at the highest cost of living.
Quote:
Your job could be next if this doesn't pass.
Or my job could go the way of the auto industry. You're hurting a companies ability to sell overseas, and hoping that they can recoup the costs domestically .. while also hoping that Americans don't buy cheaper foreign products.
Quote:
Companies finding tax shelter's and incentives to hire overseas is just about over. Thank You Mr. President.
As is there ability to compete against foreign competition. But who cares, as long as it sounds good on the surface? It's a double-edged sword and it's going to be difficult to see if the benefits will outweigh the negatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
I must have missed where I typed that it will not help keep jobs in the US? I don't remember stating that anywhere (though I readily admit to oversimplifying things).
Some people see both sides of the coin and are realistic. This is not perfect and the way the original article was written made it seem pretty poor to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
while also hoping that Americans don't buy cheaper foreign products.
And therein lies the problem...the same people touting this likely look for the absolute cheapest product available when making a purchase. There are not many people willing to pay a premium on domestically produced items, of which not many exist anymore anyhow.
It is a very difficult situation and one that I do not believe can be fixed until the countries where these items are being sourced from have a standard of living closer to the United States, Canada, Europe, etc. When half of the population of a country lives in poverty, it is very easy to find cheap labor and that is where business will go in this global economy.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Purp,, I caught only a snippet of info,, apparently there was a presser this morning.. but unfortunatly, they are not spending any great amount of time on this subject..
They played one snippet and it was so quick, I'll be honest, I couldn't absorb it quick enough... I guess we'll see what's said tomorrow.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
I use to laugh at the Hippocrates ( United Mine Workers ) running to WalMart every weekend to shop !
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
There is this: web page "If financial institutions won't cooperate with us, we will assume that they are sheltering money in tax havens and act accordingly," Obama said. You can hear the words right from his mouth in the video on that page. What that says, is that if you have any money in a foreign insititution that decides that it doesn't want to send out 1099 forms, they will assume your Guilt and act as they see fit. Perhaps this is what the author was referring to... it sure sounds like he will be asking the IRS and courts to presume guilt. Interestingly (not surprisingly?), the original text for the original article in this thread has been changed.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Thanks purp,, I'll check it out later....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 478 |
Purp.
I understand what you are saying and we cannot get rid of innocent until proven guilty. I am not sure that this case is that straight forward.
It seems to me that Under the current laws (agree with them or not) the IRS has a right to know exactly how much you make each year.
For all intense in purposes this is a warrant. if someone purposefully places their money in an institution that will not honor the warrant then they have purposefully denied the Government their legal right to asses your finances.
I am not a legal expert but what happens to an individual who refuses to allow the cops to search their premises when they have a warrant?
By knowingly telling the government in any other instance that they cannot examine your property when they have a warrant you are charged with a crime. You get your day in court, but you are as good as guilty, when the cop testifies that you knowingly with full account of the warrant refused to allow the police to search your property.
Why is telling the IRS that they cannot see your financial documents when they have written law stating that they have the right any different?
By physically stating or taking an action that denies the government its right to see your financial records you have committed a crime.
I have no problem with the government charging people with a crime if they refuse to honor the IRS request to see all thier records, but it depends on what they are charged with.
As long as they are charged with "contempt of court" or "refusing to disclose information" I am fine with that.
I would have a problem if the individual is charged with tax fraud. Without the documents, there is no proof that the individual committed tax fraud, and any sane court should find them innocent of it.
But by refusing the legal request to see said documents. The individual is guilty of a crime.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
Quote:
If you people can't see how this will help to keep jobs in the U.S, so sorry.
And if you can't see how this will hurt companies overall profitability because they won't be able to compete globally, I don't know what to tell you. It's a double edged sword. Sure you're telling companies to keep the jobs and money over here, but you're also forcing them to produce products at the highest cost of living.
These companies that are manufacturing products overseas for pennies on the dollar ... i.e. charging Americans $100 bucks for shoes that cost 5 bucks to make? Is a good thing?
So forcing companies to keep their plants in the USA hurts American's how? Add on the fact that they are making these companies actually pay taxes instead of using loopholes to get out of paying what they owe hurts us how?
Yes it will reduce their profit. But....Personnely I could care less that these CEO's dont get there multi-million dollar bonus for earnings.
I maybe dumb but cutting out the loopholes that these companies have been exploiting for years is a good thing... imho
This is about helping USA recover and become strong. I dont know about you but I'm sick of big business running our government.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
as long as they are charged with "contempt of court" or "refusing to disclose information" I am fine with that.
I still haven't looked at the link that Purp provided and I will shortly, but to this point,, having had a bit of experience doing battle with the IRS (I'm small potatos) they don't just come to you, drop a search warrent and bust in.. They contact you first either by mail or phone. They request, in a rather professional manner, that you comply... if you refuse, then they will go all midevil on your heiny....
They take steps to appear reasonable but in reality, they are tough birds'.. point being,, in the end, they are, as you say, entitled to the information by statue or law or rule,, whatever. And they will use whatever means is at thier disposal to get it. As they should.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
It all seems so unconstitutional to me:
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers , and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,267
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,267 |
j/c
Why would you do business with uncooperative banks unless you were trying to get away with something? Even so, seems to me it would be easy to prove innocents if you were on the level, just turn over the records. I'm paying my share I have no sympathy for the big money tax cheats.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
I think it's important to stress that he's trying to stop jobs from being shipped overseas.. something he promised to do during his campaign.. And it appears that he wants to stop companies from Ducking taxes by using off shore havens inappropriatly... On the surface, I see nothing wrong with that... I don't understand why anyone would want corporations to get away with paying less taxes than the tax codes say the owe... You all would be upset if I did it.. It's not fair that I have to follow the laws and they don't.. Quote:
The president's plan would limit the ability of U.S. companies to defer paying U.S. taxes on overseas profits. At the same time, Obama would step up efforts to go after evaders who abuse offshore tax shelters.
Can someone tell me what's wrong with that?
Right now, a company with overseas operations tells us they are paying taxes in another country, then tells the other country they are paying taxes in the US..(refusing to give an accounting of the income) in essence getting away without paying taxes on those overseas profit to anyone..
Tell me,,is that what anyone thinks is fair.. There are over 18,000 businesses that have stated that thier HQ's are in the Cayman Island,,, OVER 18,000 AMERICAN companies...
427 subsidaries are listed for Citigroup in countries that allow them to disregard US Taxes... We bailed out Citigroup... we bailed them out and they are avoiding taxes, seemingly legally, but by abusing a tax code... all because of a loophole..
They are not alone.. Morgan Stanley has over 200 such HQ's overseas,, we bailed them out also,, and there are others as well.
And don't tell me it's a tax increase either.., the rates aren't going up,, but what they are gong to have to pay taxes on, that is going to go up because of the closing of a loophole that has cost the tax payer billions...,
Someone has said,, I think it was Sen. McConnell, he called it a tax increase... LOL,, rhetoric.. and false.. it's not.
Obamas plan seems to just stop people from evading taxes...
If I have this right, and I think I do, Companies take income that is earned in the US, Say it's earned in for instance in the Cayman Islands, and thus is tax exempt.... I'm no expert, but that sounds like Tax Evasion to me... either way, it's abuse..
Basically that's as far as I got on this, I still have more to read, but I'm beat,, long day...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
I think it's important to stress that he's trying to stop jobs from being shipped overseas.. something he promised to do during his campaign.. And it appears that he wants to stop companies from Ducking taxes by using off shore havens inappropriatly...
On the surface, I see nothing wrong with that... I don't understand why anyone would want corporations to get away with paying less taxes than the tax codes say the owe... You all would be upset if I did it.. It's not fair that I have to follow the laws and they don't..
Quote:
The president's plan would limit the ability of U.S. companies to defer paying U.S. taxes on overseas profits. At the same time, Obama would step up efforts to go after evaders who abuse offshore tax shelters.
Can someone tell me what's wrong with that?
Right now, a company with overseas operations tells us they are paying taxes in another country, then tells the other country they are paying taxes in the US..(refusing to give an accounting of the income) in essence getting away without paying taxes on those overseas profit to anyone..
Tell me,,is that what anyone thinks is fair.. There are over 18,000 businesses that have stated that thier HQ's are in the Cayman Island,,, OVER 18,000 AMERICAN companies...
427 subsidaries are listed for Citigroup in countries that allow them to disregard US Taxes... We bailed out Citigroup... we bailed them out and they are avoiding taxes, seemingly legally, but by abusing a tax code... all because of a loophole..
They are not alone.. Morgan Stanley has over 200 such HQ's overseas,, we bailed them out also,, and there are others as well.
And don't tell me it's a tax increase either.., the rates aren't going up,, but what they are gong to have to pay taxes on, that is going to go up because of the closing of a loophole that has cost the tax payer billions...,
Someone has said,, I think it was Sen. McConnell, he called it a tax increase... LOL,, rhetoric.. and false.. it's not.
Obamas plan seems to just stop people from evading taxes...
If I have this right, and I think I do, Companies take income that is earned in the US, Say it's earned in for instance in the Cayman Islands, and thus is tax exempt.... I'm no expert, but that sounds like Tax Evasion to me... either way, it's abuse..
Basically that's as far as I got on this, I still have more to read, but I'm beat,, long day...
Keep in mind though, that corporations don't pay tax.....not the way most people think of "tax".
I can't say that I like it, I won't say that it's right, BUT, when you raise corporate taxes what you in essence do is raise the price of the product they majufacture.
Who benefits? Well, the gov't. does, as they get more tax money - at least short term. Who pays? The commonfolk like you and me, because the businesses will raise the price in accordance to the tax increase.
Take me for example. While small business wise, I am a business. If a tax were imposed on my business, I would figure out how much that tax cost me for every job I did. Then, I would raise my prices accordingly. Who pays? Not Arch's business, but Arch's customers.
And if the raise put me out of business? I'm out of business. In my situation, that hurts only me. Suppose I was a business that employed 500 people. The prices would be raised to compensate for the tax increase (and yes, no matter how you slice it, it's a tax increase). If the customers paid the increased price, great. If I went out of business due to the increased price, my 500 employees suffer.
It's a double edged sword. Can't say I like the fact that businesses get of paying some taxes, but by the same token I can't say that having businesses pay more is beneficial either.
Again, this is all with the understanding that businesses don't pay taxes, customers of the business do.....and honestly, if people don't understand that concept there is no use talking to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
all you really need to do to protect our companies, is to institute a VAT tax on goods coming into the country of about 17%
then pass legislation that combats currency manipulation, and closed markets...
nothing wrong with cleaning up a tax loop-hole, but they will just raise prices......who's gonna compete with them? nobody right now....
its needs to be fair and profitable to manufacture here....right now its not....
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Obama to crack down on business
taxes
|
|
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
