|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
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.
There is no question that that is the case.. it's COGS or Cost Of Goods Sold. Anytime you add to that number, the end result is higher prices for the consumer (you and me)
But let's be real here.. Corporations didn't avoid or evade thier obligations to pay income tax so they could keep prices down... They did it to enhance profits.. and in some of these companies, that additional profit resulted in bonues to executives.. So basically, by finding seemingly legal ways to defraud the Federal Government (you and me), they got a bonus...
Quote:
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.
Lest you forget, WE, the american people, are the government. Yeah, I know, we don't act like it sometimes, but we are.
As for the price increases, hell man, they would raise the prices anyway.. For years, they have gotten away with avoiding Federal income taxes, and guess what, prices still increased....
Fearing price increases isn't a reason to allow them to move jobs overseas and get incentives to do so and to avoid paying the proper amount of income tax.
By the way, and this is just a personal thought here, if a company wants to move jobs off shore, I don't like it, but it's thier jobs,, they gotta do what they gotta do I guess.. But to offer incentives to do so,,, now that's just STUPID! Who the hell thought of that? Let's string them up 
Quote:
Take me for example. While small business wise, I am a business.
No, Arch we can't look at you or me in this light.. we are not the ones that are being dealt with here.. You and I don't have off shore offices that we deem as our HQ just to avoid paying taxes.
I own a small business also Arch,, and I fight all the time to keep my costs down.. But that's what we have to do to stay competitive... That does NOT absolve us of our obligation to pay income taxes.. No getting around it.
I said it months ago and many on here told me I was out of my mind (which I think we all knew long before a few months ago),, if you will remember, I said, Big Corporations have loopholes that the little guy (you and me) can't take advantage of because of our size..
Some on here thought I was overstating it.. I was not.
Quote:
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.
It is a double edges sword, but it's NOT NEW. It didn't just decide to happen yesterday. It's not any surprise that corporations have to pay taxes. What IS a surprise to many it seems, is the lengths they would go to avoid them...
Quote:
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.
Yes, the consumer always pays for everything.. shipping and handling, cost of manufacturing, cost of testing, cost of getting whatever government approvals that may be needed,, ie: FDA, or whatever. We as consumers also pay for R&D of products.
It's all loaded in there... It's the COGS.... why should taxes be any different..
Again, let me say this,, for years, corporations have been able to avoid or evade (depending on your perspective) paying federal income taxes using these loopholes,,,, and prices still went up.. and bonues were paid to execs.
Increased prices of goods sold to consumers is a horribe reason to use to get anyone to say that corporations should be allowed to avoid/evade taxes.
One way or the other, the consumer still pays.. Taxes left uncollected from corporations are eventually picked up by the consumer in other ways anyway.. we pay, no matter what..
#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 |
For the topic that I have been beating on, I don't have to keep anything in mind at all except that American courts operate under the Presumption of Innocence. There is absolutely no justification in the United States of America, at all, for presumption of guilt. None, ever.
I have no problem with him going after tax havens, etc.... What I would have a problem with is the methods being proposed.
Good idea that I can support, bad implementation that should have him flogged for even suggesting 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:
For the topic that I have been beating on, I don't have to keep anything in mind at all except that American courts operate under the Presumption of Innocence. There is absolutely no justification in the United States of America, at all, for presumption of guilt. None, ever
Yeah, I know and I don't disagree with you at all on that issue..
Quote:
I have no problem with him going after tax havens, etc.... What I would have a problem with is the methods being proposed.
Good idea that I can support, bad implementation that should have him flogged for even suggesting it.
I know I promised I would, but I haven't had a chance yet to listen to his entire speech.. I don't like heavy handed approachs to things either.
I have to believe that if he changes the laws or rules as he's proposed, then requires enforcement, that should be enough to stop the abuses.
I'll have to hear him say that everyone is guilty until proven innocent before I get up in arms.. again, I haven't listened to the video link you provided yet, but I have a hard time believing he'd say that... But I'll listen for myself when I get a chance and I'll admit to be incorrect if I turn out to be.
Last edited by Damanshot; 05/05/09 08:15 AM.
#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 |
Quote:
American courts operate under the Presumption of Innocence.
There is a whole separate U.S. court system dealing specifically with tax cases. A court long ago established where you can forget your Constitutional rights, a court where your insistance of presumption of innocence and my wish for the privacy of my papers both go out the window.
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/about.htm
Simply on a Constitutional basis I would have voted for Ron Paul because of his stance on eliminating the IRS and replacing it with nothing. (I would also support the Fair Tax if they would make a simple change and implement it in a way that guarantees we wouldn't get stuck with both a 30% sales & services tax and an income tax. The way it is written now scares me.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
OBAMA WANTS TO CHANGE THE TAX CODE By Neal Boortz @ May 5, 2009 8:25 AM President Obama is trying to follow through on his campaign promise to close tax loopholes and clamp down on all of those evil rich people and corporations who dare to put their money in overseas accounts where they have more potential to grow. Obama says, "If financial institutions won't cooperate with us, we will assume that they are sheltering money in tax havens and act accordingly." Read that again - please. Either cooperate with us or we're going to assume you're breaking the law. I may be wrong, but don't we have a long and valued tradition whereby the government assumes innocence until guilt is proven? Guilty until proven innocent ... sounds about right. Just another change we can believe in. So what exactly is Obama's plan? Well for starters, companies that generate profits abroad would not be able to write off any domestic expenses. This is commonly referred to as "deferral." The thought behind this is that it will reduce the incentive for American companies to base some or all of their operations in countries that won't gouge them to death with taxes. Obama also wants to overhaul regulations known as the "check-the-box" rules, which give companies the ability to decide where their subsidiaries should be taxed. Another part of Obama's plan is to .... Imagine this ... hire more government hacks! Not just any hacks, but 800 new agents for the IRS in order to better enforce the tax code. Here's your bottom line. There is somewhere between $10 and $13 trillion dollars of American wealth that have been sent overseas where those dollars can be free to work and produce wealth in places where tax treatment is more favorable. These dollars are fleeing tax tyranny and looking for freedom, much like people in East Berlin tried to get over that wall to find freedom in the west. The East German communists shot those people down in cold blood. Obama wants to do the same to your money. He's and his Democrat pals are erecting an economic Berlin Wall to keep your money from escaping their tyranny. http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Quote:
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.
It seems to me the agenda here has less to do with closing loopholes and is intended to expand the U.S. tax base to foreign consumers who buy products from American companies. I don't mind foreigners kicking into the American till, I just question if the plan will work?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
First, let me apologize to you,, I didn't catch what you were saying yesterday when you posted the following... my only excuse is that I was jammed up with work and I skimmed way to much... Quote:
"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.
To the first part of that,, what's new about it? The cops do that all the time.
Whenever someone is being questioned, if they avoid giving answer, the cops automatically assume guilt and set out to prove it.. That's absolutely nothing new about our legal system or our society..
Not sure how you can assume any more than that...
As for the second part of that about institutions not wanting to send out 1099's, you have to ask yourself, why wouldn't they be willing to send them out if everything is perfectly legal? what are they hiding?
It is the job and the duty of the IRS to collect taxes from individuals and corporations... They tell you up front that any information gathered may be used in the collection of said taxes..
The only person or corporation that has anything to fear is the one that is evasive and involved in hiding assets or income. Those are the guys he's going after and frankly, I'm finding little to be alarmed about.. It's about time someone did that.
It appears that you are thinking he's going to go against all that we hold dear in order to catch these corporations.. but I fail to see it that way at all.. it sounds to me like he plans on getting the loopholes closed then use all means available to the IRS under the law to capture future tax revenues...
I got no problem with that..
I'm confused why anyone would have a problem with that..
#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: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
President's Tax Proposal Riles Business By JOHN D. MCKINNON WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's plan to revamp international tax rules stirred opposition from many multinational businesses and questions among a few leading lawmakers. But even if the proposal doesn't advance rapidly, policy makers said a broader corporate-tax overhaul is becoming increasingly likely over the next two years. Mr. Obama, speaking in the White House grand foyer Monday, vowed to push forward with his plan, which would curb some of the biggest overseas tax advantages enjoyed by multinationals. He said it was a way to restore fundamental fairness while also encouraging more U.S.-based jobs. The U.S. tax code has made it "all too easy for a...small number of individuals and companies to abuse overseas tax havens, to avoid paying any taxes at all," the president said. "And it's a tax code that says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India, than if you create one in Buffalo, New York." Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said further study is needed to determine the impact of the plan on U.S. businesses. "I want to make certain that our tax policies are fair and support the global competitiveness of U.S. businesses," he said. One question committee staff is exploring is how abusive some of the corporate tax practices are. Several other Senate Democrats, including Carl Levin of Michigan, were more supportive. As a senator, Mr. Obama had co-sponsored legislation with Mr. Levin that attempted to crack down on offshore tax abuses. Rep. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said the Obama plan would strengthen investment and job creation in the U.S. The White House plan has three main elements affecting businesses. It would curb corporations' ability to park their overseas business earnings indefinitely outside the U.S. and avoid U.S. taxes, a practice known as deferral. The plan would change the legal treatment of many international subsidiaries that companies have used to shift earnings into low-tax offshore havens. And it would put new limits on corporations' ability to use offshore subsidiaries to generate unjustified foreign-tax credits. White House officials said the plan is an attempt to reduce the role of small tax-haven countries that have eroded the tax bases of developed countries such as the U.S. Business groups on Monday warned that Mr. Obama's plan would eliminate American jobs, not add them. They said the current rules are aimed primarily at putting U.S. companies on an equal tax footing with international rivals, many of which benefit from favorable tax treatment by their home countries. "The overseas operations of U.S. multinational companies support jobs and higher living standards here at home," said John Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executives of major corporations. Such an argument could appeal to lawmakers who will be weighing the Obama proposal -- and who are concerned about employment rates in their home districts during the economic downturn. A Treasury official said the administration's plan also aims to right an imbalance created by U.S. tax policy between multinationals and the small businesses that generate the bulk of American jobs but generally don't qualify for these tax breaks. A coalition of business associations and corporations, known as PACE, or Promote America's Competitive Edge, also criticized the Obama plan. It announced the establishment of a Web site, www.pace4jobs.org, as a source for information on corporate tax issues. Several congressional aides and other observers said the Obama corporate-tax plan could provide the basis for a broad corporate-tax overhaul, given the deep federal budget deficits expected in the next couple of years. "We've put ourselves in a fiscal hole so deep it's hard to comprehend, so we're going to have a major tax debate sooner or later," said business tax lobbyist Ken Kies. "My guess is that these [Obama proposals] will be considered in that context." White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs termed the proposal "a down payment on longer-term tax reform" that the administration already is considering. Businesses hope to win a lower corporate rate in exchange for curbs on overseas breaks in an overhaul. Some of Mr. Obama's ideas could be implemented this year, some observers said, particularly as Congress searches for revenue later this year to offset the costs of initiatives, such as extending expiring tax breaks for research, fixing the muddled estate tax, or possibly expanding health care. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124144387757983265.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
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?
Yes ... supply and demand dictate the market price. If people don't want to pay $100 for shoes, then they won't pay for it.
Quote:
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?
Commercial taxes are ALWAYS a bad thing. That tax just gets tacked onto the price of the good, and gets paid by the consumer anyway ... and then people wonder why they want to send jobs overseas where the cost of living is cheaper anyway.
Quote:
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 don't think you understand how global businesses work. I get the feeling that people think these corporations have a US office for a CEO and a couple of VPs, and send everything else off-shore to make all their money for them. 
Back to your $100 shoe for $5 dollar example ... that $95 dollars in "profit" doesn't go to the CEO's pocketbook. When it comes to selling a shoe, you need to have marketing guys, sales guys, distribution guys, customer service guys, etc, etc. Those are onshore jobs, that pay a lot better. If you can produce a product for cheaper offshore ... because the cost of living is a lot lower, and you can find a lot more people willing to work for less than our minimum wage ... that means more white collar jobs over here. That $95 isn't profit ... it's going to all other aspects of the business ... much of which is still over here.
Plus raising the cost of production, will likely mean raising the price of the shoe, unless you don't plan on marketing, selling or distributing the shoes. once that happens, domestically, you have to worry about American consumers not buying cheaper foreign products over the expensive American ones. (and we usually know how that works out) ... Globally, we pretty much kill ourselves, because not only are our products going to manufactured at a higher cost, now you have to pay for shipping it to global regions.
Quote:
I maybe dumb but cutting out the loopholes that these companies have been exploiting for years is a good thing... imho
I may be dumb ... but forcing all companies to work like the auto industry ... doesn't have me all excited about the future.
Quote:
This is about helping USA recover and become strong. I dont know about you but I'm sick of big business running our government.
It's a hell of a lot better than big government running our government. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
It's a hell of a lot better than big government running our government.
Right....I mean at least Big Business has made money all Big Government has ever done is waste money......
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682 |
Quote:
I don't think you understand how global businesses work
He isn't the only one...there are a bunch of them running around this place.
Good post. 
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Excl,, All I'm interested in is two things..
1. Stop the incentives for corporations that ship jobs overseas.. There is NO REASON for the american people to subsidize that activity.. I don't care if they have workers overseas,, that's fine, that's thier decision. I just don't want to subsidize it...
2. Stop the tax dollars from getting away from the US. Close the loop holes that allow corporations to evade/avoid paying US Income Tax.
#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: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think you understand how global businesses work
He isn't the only one...there are a bunch of them running around this place.
And some of them are business people. Makes you wonder how they survive in the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 33
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 33 |
Quote:
I don't think you understand how global businesses work. I get the feeling that people think these corporations have a US office for a CEO and a couple of VPs, and send everything else off-shore to make all their money for them.
Sorry, many do. Granted not the big boys, but many certainly do excacly that.
Quote:
Back to your $100 shoe for $5 dollar example ... that $95 dollars in "profit" doesn't go to the CEO's pocketbook. When it comes to selling a shoe, you need to have marketing guys, sales guys, distribution guys, customer service guys, etc, etc. Those are onshore jobs, that pay a lot better. If you can produce a product for cheaper offshore ... because the cost of living is a lot lower, and you can find a lot more people willing to work for less than our minimum wage ... that means more white collar jobs over here. That $95 isn't profit ... it's going to all other aspects of the business ... much of which is still over here.
I'm sorry that's not totally correct. Most big corporations have more... or as much white collar jobs you mention in their localized area's. Take China for example.. their pay scale for white collar workers is 80-90% same pay scale as American white collar jobs. You think they don't need marketing people, or MGR's and leaders to run their show there? I've seen the job postings and their pay scale is slightly lower, but not as much lower as you'd think.
Now when we lay off people here, guess what? They don't! They can't!...wana know why? The U.S. companies agreed to get the federal tax break for every job they create. Now take that job away and the U.S. corporation loses that tax break in that fiscal year. Guess who get's laid off? Yep...good ole boys and girls from the U.S.
Yep put the onus on our local state governments to pay unimployment compensation NOW, GREAT! Now our new president has to bail out the states again for what GWB admin started.
You do the math, it adds up big time or they wouldn't be doing it! The Chineese gov't even pays for construction of new buildings and leases them to the corporations at rates that pay for the construction in a due time. It's very lucritive for U.S. companies to do this.
Don't take my word for it. Go to Google earth and fly to Singapore. Take a look at the modern city they have built by expoiting our tax dollars and jobs. While all our local economy takes the hit and nose dives...the Chineese are advancing fast...at lightspeed in the global market. Their goal is to grab as much as they can before we can get a handle on it.
I've seen this operate first hand. The U.S. corporations only read the bottom line just for the stock holders. Please don't go telling us it's helping the U.S. economy at all.  It may be a double edged sword at times, but one edge of it couldn't cut thru butter IMO.
Quote:
Plus raising the cost of production, will likely mean raising the price of the shoe, unless you don't plan on marketing, selling or distributing the shoes. once that happens, domestically, you have to worry about American consumers not buying cheaper foreign products over the expensive American ones. (and we usually know how that works out) ... Globally, we pretty much kill ourselves, because not only are our products going to manufactured at a higher cost, now you have to pay for shipping it to global regions.
I agree that may be the case. But alternative is folding up shop and sending it all oversea's... U.S. corporation's must take a better look at using localized workforce and marketing along with the globalized markets like China to work better together for both sides. As it stands right now they are winning big and we are losing big. Why??? Well maybe because they have many more mouths to feed and it's a life and death desperation for them to do it.
Maybe when it becomes a life or death situation here in the U.S. we'll all understand this a little better.
Dawg Gone
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
I've seen this operate first hand. The U.S. corporations only read the bottom line just for the stock holders. Please don't go telling us it's helping the U.S. economy at all.
While I don't agree with most of what you are saying, this to me is the largest problem. Stockholders and public companies - I've brought this up many times on this board in various threads. Publicly traded companies care about one thing and one thing only - the shareholders. They do not give a darn about the people working for them - they are an expense and the less of them at the lower the price the better. It drives me nuts to see companies that bring in 4 billion in profit in a quarter and then lay people off because they missed the Wall Street estimates.
Public companies go back to extreme greed - a few of the lucky ones that made it to the top get insane amounts of money in stock options. The last place I consulted at, the CEO got run out and has been cashing in his shares - over $20,000,000 so far and he has more. They then outsource $8-$10/hour jobs to India to save a few bucks leaving almost 100 people unemployed. The customer service now stinks and is pretty much useless - but the stock went up because they saved some money on the bottom line.
An example of a non-public company that "gets it" in my opinion is SAS (the largest private software company in the world). Their CEO has resisted going public, stating he has plenty of money and no need for the excesses that an IPO would bring. They have a 3% turnover rate - software companies typically are in the 20% range. They have free daycare, free lunches and a bunch of other stuff to - if you are interested, Google them to find more info. Happy, well treated employees = a successful business. Too many companies today CLAIM to see that, but very few actually follow through with it.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Sorry, many do. Granted not the big boys, but many certainly do excacly that.
I agree, but let's not cut off our nose to spite our face either. I have an in-law relative who outsources a bunch of engineering design work and then has a skeleton crew here to secure the contracts, because they can under-bid everyone. I can see trying to close up loop-holes with something like that.
But then I work for a large printer company. We pretty much HAVE to outsource all our ink and printer production, otherwise our products would be 20-30% higher in cost than a lot of competitors ... and they still employ a great deal of Americans. Sure you can remove all tax benefits of moving off-shore, and we get the short-term improvment of more local jobs ... but what happens in 10 years when nobody buys our products? Everyone loses their job.
I think it's funny that they are trying to pass these tax laws as a war on "big evil corporations" ... when you see the little guys doing it just as much ... if not more.
Quote:
I'm sorry that's not totally correct. Most big corporations have more... or as much white collar jobs you mention in their localized area's. Take China for example.. their pay scale for white collar workers is 80-90% same pay scale as American white collar jobs. You think they don't need marketing people, or MGR's and leaders to run their show there? I've seen the job postings and their pay scale is slightly lower, but not as much lower as you'd think.
Well of course they do, they sell those products in those countries too!
Quote:
Now when we lay off people here, guess what? They don't! They can't!...wana know why? The U.S. companies agreed to get the federal tax break for every job they create. Now take that job away and the U.S. corporation loses that tax break in that fiscal year. Guess who get's laid off? Yep...good ole boys and girls from the U.S.
I'm not sure what you are saying here? Are you saying the US corporation loses a tax-break in the foreign country if they lay somebody off ... so they lay somebody off here instead? Go figure ... a business gets tons of tax incentives in another country, and thus the jobs go there. Maybe we should look into that?
Quote:
You do the math, it adds up big time or they wouldn't be doing it! The Chineese gov't even pays for construction of new buildings and leases them to the corporations at rates that pay for the construction in a due time. It's very lucritive for U.S. companies to do this.
Don't take my word for it. Go to Google earth and fly to Singapore. Take a look at the modern city they have built by expoiting our tax dollars and jobs.
They aren't exploiting our tax dollars, they are exploiting our tax policies. While we seemed to be determined to tax our evil corporations to death, and force them to pay as much in min wage salaries, environmental restrictions, and other overhead ... they are determined to make it as easy as possible for business to actual operate ... knowing it will bring jobs.
Quote:
While all our local economy takes the hit and nose dives...the Chineese are advancing fast...at lightspeed in the global market. Their goal is to grab as much as they can before we can get a handle on it.
I've seen this operate first hand. The U.S. corporations only read the bottom line just for the stock holders. Please don't go telling us it's helping the U.S. economy at all. It may be a double edged sword at times, but one edge of it couldn't cut thru butter IMO.
That's just your opinion ... your alternative is to force US corps to keep jobs here, pay for all the overhead and higher salaries and somehow try to stay competitive. Sure, we might have more local jobs for a little bit, but what happens when all US companies are out of business in a couple years?? It's a lot more double-edged than you give it credit for.
Quote:
I agree that may be the case. But alternative is folding up shop and sending it all oversea's... U.S. corporation's must take a better look at using localized workforce and marketing along with the globalized markets like China to work better together for both sides. As it stands right now they are winning big and we are losing big. Why??? Well maybe because they have many more mouths to feed and it's a life and death desperation for them to do it.
Why? Because, they have some borderline criminal laws for working conditions, salaries, environmental controls, and other corporate expenditures. How do you compete against that?? There's no easy answer. That's why it's a double edged sword. We can let our corps dip into some of this market, send some of our jobs over there ... and try to stay competitve in the long term ... or we can force them to do everything over here, and hope they stay in business in the long term.
We'd probably be a lot more successful at keeping jobs here if we actually tried to solve some of the roots of the problem, like reducing cost of living over here by (gasp) reducing minimum wage. Or getting the UN to have EVERYONE agree to the same environmental restrictions, rather than holding the US to an obscene standard and letting China off with an "exemption", because they are some sort of "developing nation".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
Quote:
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%
Do you mean above and beyond existing Customs duties?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
What I don't get > Is why such a large # of my fellow Countryman don't get it ???  Just this simple :# 1: You have to compete in a Global Market place ( which we are now ) # 2 : If you can't compete where you are , you move ( ie otra Country ) or # 3 You go out of Biz ( no jobs ) That's it ... No need to write a five hour dissertation or a Right vers Left paper .. Management vers Labor ... blah , blah .. KISS
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Nice...simple and to the point. It really is that simple, and I don't understand how people cannot see that.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
Its almost like some can add 1 + 1 and it will equal 2 ... yet they argue as if it equals 3 ... its really amazing .. I never really understood how unintelligent of a society we truely have until I started reading the Tailgate Lot .. I knew there was a reason i avoided it for 5 years .. *L* .. Look at what one of the menZa's says here ... 1. Whenever the COGS goes up that cost is passed onto the consumer through higher prices ... so when we close these tax loopholes the taxes the corps have to pay will just simply be passed onto us via higher prices ... 2. We should not allow the corps. to avoid paying these taxes just to keep the COGS down .... so hes saying even though the corps won't be paying these taxes .. we the CONSUMERS WILL ... we should NOT ALLOW THE CORPS TO GET OUT OF PAYIING THEM ... well ACCORDING TO HIM the corps aren't paying them either way anyhow .. *LOL* .. 1 1 = 2 .. but this menZa is arguing it equals 3 .. then he has this buet ... 1. Were the gov't ... 2. We need to close the loopholes on the corps. so that they can raise prices to pay these taxes .. witch means we the people are going to pay these taxes .. so in essence .. were raising taxes on ourselves .. man, were even dumber than I thought .. *L* ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
Your exactly right .. its not really that hard to figure out .. If i can get sumtin done for 5 cents on the dollar compared to 10 or 15 cents on the dollar .. I'm gonna with the nickle EVERY DAMM TIME ..
Excl touches on it with his in laws engineering firm ... why the hell should his in law pay an American 1,000 dollars for the same thing he can get an "Asian" person to do for 750 ... and I'm prolly paying the "asian" person in my example way to much ....
Someone I know used to be in the IT head hunting business ... and he used "Indians" all the time .. why?? .. cause he could charge his client 100/hour for a Java developer ... and he could pay the American developer $75/ hour and make $25 an hour .... or he could pay the Indian developer $50 and hour and put $50 an hour in his pocket .. not a real tough choice ..
and it happens in ALL INDUSTRIES across the board ... I saw sumptin a few weeks ago .. there building some kind of a pipeline from Canada into the mid west ... its GIGANTIC and there gonna need all kinds of steel .. the Canadians are running it ...
well some retired steel worker in Idaho (or one of them states) saw the steel laying around and went and saw it was from India .. he had a fit and said why is this not American steel .... well the Canadians said they gave 33% of the job to US steel manufacturers .. the rest they gave to the Indian manufacturers ... even though they had to cart the Steel via ship to SF ..and then truck it to the midwest and into Canada .. it was still over 50% LESS EXPENSIVE than the American steel ..
SOMETHING IS WRONG .. and its not the corporations 'avoiding" taxes .. that much i know ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
It ain't Rocket Science my friend .. Even if the Govt and College profs. want you to think so 1+ 1= 2 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
It ain't Rocket Science my friend .. Even if the Govt and College profs. want you to think so 1+ 1= 2
Figured this could go here.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090505/us_nm/us_energy_autos
House Dem's and Obama have agreed on legislation that, if passed, would provide $4,500 vouchers for people that trade in their cars for higher mpg new cars.
Wonderful. And people thought Bush raised spending.
They hope to encourage sales of 1 million vehicles with this, with a govt. cost of $4,500 per vehicle.
Let's do the math: great, another $4.5 billion in gov't. spending......coming from???????? Well, theoretically, the tax payers, but in reality, just more debt added on to the trillions our President has committed to already.
I thought he was going to cut spending? Didn't he say that?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 33
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 33 |
Quote:
That's just your opinion ... your alternative is to force US corps to keep jobs here, pay for all the overhead and higher salaries and somehow try to stay competitive.
Never said that. I think most American's would agree they don't want U.S. companies to get all these tax breaks for sending our jobs overseas. (Not directed at you Excel) But since some of you guys seem to be the genuises and belittle others on the issue I'll excuse myself from this thread now.
Dawg Gone
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
We must punish the big corporations no matter how much it costs us (by raising their taxes that will be passed onto us via higher prices). Where is your misplaced anger? Haven't you heard about big oil, big pharmaceuticals, big tobacco, etc. They must be punished at all costs! 
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
hehe ... I always felt like we could tack the name "big" on some liberal-based ideology, and suddenly they would find them inheritantly "evil" ... big-union, big-abortion and big-environment anyone? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
Your exactly right .. its not really that hard to figure out .. If i can get sumtin done for 5 cents on the dollar compared to 10 or 15 cents on the dollar .. I'm gonna with the nickle EVERY DAMM TIME ..
Now Diam, what if it costs you an additional 20 cents to save that 5 or 10 cents. Somebody in this country is going to be paying for the food stamps, welfare checks, and medical treatments for those people who lost their jobs in America so some company could rake in extra cash for their stock holders, and guess who is going to foot the bill? Yep American tax payers.... you, and me
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
I think most American's would agree they don't want U.S. companies to get all these tax breaks for sending our jobs overseas.
How about we give them bigger tax breaks to keep the jobs right here in the good old USA
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
Quote:
Now Diam, what if it costs you an additional 20 cents to save that 5 or 10 cents. Somebody in this country is going to be paying for the food stamps, welfare checks, and medical treatments for those people who lost their jobs in America so some company could rake in extra cash for their stock holders, and guess who is going to foot the bill? Yep American tax payers.... you, and me
Since u wanna really use outlandish scenarios and just make up figures .. i;ll take the same liberty .. IE: me saving 5 cents on a dollar and its going to cost me 20 cents on that dollar to take care of the people I'm forcing out of work .... when we know that it may cost me at most 1 billionth of a penny ...
and example of that ... when Obama made the mandate to save 100 million by streamlining and becoming more efficient in the fed gov't .. well when that was calculated to reduce the debt .. it was NOT MEASURABLE ... it did not decrease the budget even 1/10th of 1 percent .. yet your going to tell me that my taxes will go up 20 cents to feed and cloth and give medical to a MYTHICAL UNEMPLOYMENT scenario .... *L* ..
anyhow .... what i would do is just follow the UAW'S lead ... I'd just contribute MY COMPANIES AND EMPLOYEES money to the presidential campaign .. and then .. well then the REWARDS ARE OBVIOUS ... its amazing how the UAW came away in the Chyrseler fiasco over the last 2 weeks .. MIND BOGGLING ...
If they can get away with what they did for the UAW in that case ... I'm sure i could then get all kinds of tax breaks ...  ....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think most American's would agree they don't want U.S. companies to get all these tax breaks for sending our jobs overseas.
How about we give them bigger tax breaks to keep the jobs right here in the good old USA
Now ain't that just to simple ??? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
Since u wanna really use outlandish scenarios and just make up figures .. i;ll take the same liberty .. IE: me saving 5 cents on a dollar and its going to cost me 20 cents on that dollar to take care of the people I'm forcing out of work .... when we know that it may cost me at most 1 billionth of a penny ...
Geez grumpy I said "WHAT IF"  Did I just throw figures out there..... yep sure did. Why did I.... to get some discussion going on just how much it has cost or is going to cost this country if jobs keep getting sent over seas, and IMO it's PLENTY. This country was not built on the few guys making big bucks. It was built on all the little guys making smaller amounts. For every guy out there making 100,000 a year, there are 7 or eight who get buy on 20 to 30,000 a year, and it's those types of jobs we are losing in this country, and at what cost? Those folks are defaulting on mortgages, not spending money, running up medical bills that are unpaid (driving up medical care for the rest of us) collecting unemployment, getting food stamps, etc, etc, etc I don't think anybody in this country can even calculate how much money we have lost since NAFTA went into effect, or since every telephone operator, or customer service person we talk to can't even speak english.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Oops GM,, I guess you said something nobody can figure out how to respond to.....
#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 |
Obama's cost for those 1 million cars equals about a half month's cost Bush's Iraq War. Not that I read up on Obama's plan and have any opinion of it, I just think you have a goofy concept of math.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
It's not a easy question to answer, heck I had to type more than one line just to ask it
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
#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: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
i don't have a clue what our customs duties are...
what i'm talking about is the "value added tax" it was created after wwii to help everyone rebuild...everyone except us...
the way it works is this (and i'll use the $100 dollar shoes)
if an American shoe maker (if there was one) makes a pair of shoes for $100 and ships them over-seas for sale they would get slapped with a 17% tax (it might vary slightly by country iirc) so those shoes now would cost $117 dollars to the foreigner to purchase...
now if a foreign company makes $100 shoes they can sell them in there country for $100 or they can export them to the US....at that point the foreign country refunds the 17% to the company meaning that they can sell them in the US for $83 dollars...
meanwhile back in the US we are trying to sell ours for $100 and it don't take long for people to start buying the cheaper foreign shoes....
this is still in affect today....europe has been rebuilt....and its helping to destroy our manufacturing base....
couple this with all these tax breaks that this thread talks about...and cheap wages, well it don't take long to figure that the American worker is screwed....
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Oddly, the cheaper the shoes, the higher the tariff. A pair of $3 canvas sneakers has the single highest tariff in the United States: 67 percent. But $12 sneakers are assessed 37 percent, and for $300 Italian leather imports, there's no tariff at all. web page
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
i understand what your saying....the difference is that the vat is added to the retail price....
ever seen shoes for 3 bucks? how about 12? maybe if your lucky on clearance you might pay 20 bucks...
the bottom line is we can't compete with foreign countries for what they produce for.....and the savings aren't getting passed onto us, the consumer....the profits are going to the corporations....
3 bucks for shoes.....2 dollar tariff....thats 5 bucks...they sell these shoes for 30-40 bucks....for a huge profit....
i would rather buy US made shoes, and see a US worker get 18 bucks an hour making shoes, and the corporation make 5-6 bucks a pair instead of 25-35 bucks a pair....
thats why this crap will never work....
throughout the years nobody could afford to buy American stuff, because it cost to much relative to what they were making...well i say who cares.....we buy the most...and we produced the most....whats wrong with that? absolutely nothing unless there is more profit to be made.....and thats exactly what we are seeing....corporations increasing profits to the detriment of the US worker....and all anyone can say is....its cheaper....friggin stupid...
before all this crap started in the 70's you would think that Americans couldn't afford anything....well people had cars, and appliances, and tv's....clothes...shoes....we were just fine...
now instead of the American family working hard to get ahead....its the banks and corporations that are....something stinks imo....
ask yourself this....how is it that a country that invented the assembly line...was by far the most technologically advanced...with a great workforce...suddenly can't compete with the rest of the world?
its because the deck has been stacked against us....
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
About 33% of the retail price of shoes is the Shoe Tax. A tax enacted in the 1930's. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
About 33% of the retail price of shoes is the Shoe Tax. A tax enacted on a temporary basis in the 1930's.
Fixed that for you.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Obama to crack down on business
taxes
|
|
