How do you feel about the unilateral "forgiveness" of illegal immigrants for political gain?
I am totally opposed to it. It's insane. You and I are probably 100% in agreement on this.
As someone who has lived and worked overseas, I can assure you that if an American is caught working in Europe without proper documentation, they have you on the next plane out of the country and you are banned from ever returning.
I suspect that if you tried working illegally in China, India or Mexico, the penalty would be even more severe.
Not if they are one of the 800,000 STEM workers being allowed in due to lobbying by Microsoft, Facebook, Oracle, Apple, etc.
Those workers will do the jobs of US citizens for 2/3 the salary. This depresses salaries but increases shareholder value.
Where I live, CapitalOne brought in STEM workers from India, had the US citizens train them, then laid off all of the citizens. Most of CapitalOne's IT staff are visa holders.
So if this goes through Apple will pay about 10-12 billion to repatriate all earnings as opposed to about 50-60 billion otherwise. Conservatively saving 40 billion- a year of earnings out of thin air!
I'm with Tim Cook. Simplify the tax code and reduce the rates. When you reduce taxes on something, you get more of that something. When you raise rates, you get less.
Liberals keep groaning about trickle down as if they don't understand it. But then they use the tax code to hike taxes on cigarettes to reduce the number of smokers. See, they really do understand. If you want a thriving economy, you have to tax less. Tax it more and you get less of it.
Businesses are really good at making money, hiring, paying taxes, and moving our country forward. I like having continuously improving goods and services at ever decreasing prices. The govt., by contrast, does not function nearly as well as a business. They do not have to watch their pennies and bottom lines. Thus, we get what we can all readily observe - waste and inefficiency and huge debt.
The treasury pulls in about 3x more revenue from individual taxes than corporate taxes. Whatever they can do to keep the golden goose healthy, I'm all for. But I'd rather have something like a flat tax that is fair and simple. Let's unleash business so they go out and make great products and services. God only knows how much productivity and $$$ is lost in tax avoidance maneuvers and schemes.
<p id="user_story-continues-5" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:1em;margin-left:135px;width:540px;">Senator Carl Levin, who was chairman of the investigating Senate subcommittee, said the commission’s report validated his panel’s finding that Apple had negotiated a tax rate of less than 1 percent.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:1em;margin-left:135px;width:540px;">“Apple developed its crown jewels — lucrative intellectual property — in the United States, used a tax loophole to shift the profits generated by that valuable property offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes, then boosted its profits through a sweetheart deal with the Irish government,” Senator Levin said in a statement.</p>
<p id="user_story-continues-6" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin-bottom:1em;margin-left:135px;width:540px;">Wall Street analysts assured investors there was no need for alarm about Apple’s obligations no matter what the commission ultimately rules. In a research note on Monday, Ben Reitzes, an analyst at Barclays Investment Bank, said any potential fine would have only a minor impact on Apple’s financial health. Even $6 billion — the amount Apple would have paid over three years based on Ireland’s full statutory tax rate — amounts to a cost of only $1 a share, he wrote.</p>
In other words, it's just "the cost of doing business"
Overseas, I worked for my own company incorporated overseas.
Using Senator Carl Levin, D. MI, -- as a impartial judge of tax policy boggles the mind!
Levin and his like are responsible for the Shining City on the Hill -- that is Detroit -- politicians, with a vested interest (in power, re-election, personal reward ...) going wild with spending the tax-payers' money to the benefit of a few.
... Don't get me started ... It is amazing how someone, of ordinary means, can devote their life to Public Service -- and amass a personal fortune, thereby!
I did a quick search to see if I could determine Levin's Federal Retirement benefit for almost 40 years in Washington ... no luck.
However, a while back, Patsy Schroeder retired. at age 57, after a mere 24 years in Congress ... AIR, Patsy was due to receive $4-5 Million in Federal Retirement Benefits * by age 65.
* Elected officials receive Federal Retirement Benefits instead of [paying into and] receiving Social Security benefits -- unlike the rest of us, they are not governed by the retirement laws they pass.
Seems, we have an American Bourgeoisie in the Political Class.
AIR, Teddy Kennedy, that great champion of the working class -- had his inherited personal fortune ($Millions) parked offshore in the Caribbean to shelter it from taxes.
That was perfectly legal, tax avoidance ... and I support legitimate tax avoidance!
Unfortunately, the common working class cannot afford expensive tax accountants and tax avoidance structures.
The examples I've given are Democrats -- but the Republicans play the same duplicitous games.
Edit:
Congressional employees, now, do pay into and receive Social Security benefits. In addition they have several very attractive additional benefits available -- which are not available to the rest of us ...
Golden retirement benefits for Congress
By Barbara Whelehan • Bankrate.com
With the exception of senior executives and other wealthy tycoons, most Americans don't enjoy the retirement benefits accorded to members of Congress.
The details of their pension plans are worth checking out, but be forewarned: Their pension system is complicated by virtue of the fact that several changes have taken place over the years, and because, well, Congress was involved in making the rules. Of course they're complicated!
A member of Congress retiring with 20 years of service under FERS and a high three-year average salary of $174,000 would get an initial annual FERS pension of $59,160.
A member of Congress retiring with five years' service under CSRS and 25 years under FERS at the same salary level would get an initial annual pension of $89,610.
A member of Congress retiring with [COLOR] 30 years of service under the CSRS offset plan [/COLOR] would get an initial annual benefit of $130,500. However, at age 62 or older, this amount would be reduced by the amount received from Social Security attributable to federal service.
All these benefit amounts are enhanced by cost-of-living adjustments -- something that most pensions in the private sector do not get.
Just for comparison, I paid the max into Social Security for 40 + years and receive an annual benefit <$23,000.
And, unfortunately, for those working now -- likely, there will be higher deduction rates, higher deduction caps -- and less benefits, if any, at retirement!
If they are paying corporate taxes on the same revenue in another country, then they should get a break on it here. I don't know the law, but it feels like corporate tax law wasn't written with multi-national companies in mind. They are not moving the money to other countries to shield it from taxation, it was just never in the US to begin with. From other posts, it sounds like there are proposals to fix this. With how hard it is to get anything done in government, temporary one time solutions such as a tax holiday may make sense in the short term.
Here's a idea, lower the celeb tax rate, period!!!. I think it's crazy how high the taxes are. Think about out. Apple gets t all that money taxed in these other countries and just to bring that money into the U.S. It gets taxed a bunch more of it already having been taxed and for what? Your profits are getting taxed away. I don't blame Apple and everyone else from keeping their money out of this country. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world these days, it's so dumb.
Here's a idea, lower the celeb tax rate, period!!!. I think it's crazy how high the taxes are. Think about out. Apple gets t all that money taxed in these other countries and just to bring that money into the U.S. It gets taxed a bunch more of it already having been taxed and for what? Your profits are getting taxed away. I don't blame Apple and everyone else from keeping their money out of this country. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world these days, it's so dumb.
Amen brother. Let's get this low enough for companies to bring it back to the US. They can then hopefully (no guarantee) invest it back into our economy...I am just not seeing what any potential negatives can come from this...anyone???
This is why I strongly advocate for term limits for the "selfless public servants" in both Congress and the Senate.
www.TermLimits.org
Since we have a term limit for the Executive -- term limits for the Senate and House would appear to make sense.
The Executive was originally perceived as providing timely decision-making ability with powers limited by Congress -- no kings here!
The Senate was originally perceived as a Patrician (land holders) body that would supply selfless wisdom and continuity -- longer 6-year terms
The House Representative was perceived as one of the common people -- where a member of the working class would perform their civic duties, representing the current voice of the goverened, for a short period of time -- then return to their prior endeavors.
George Washington set the standard for the Executive -- refusing to serve a 3rd term.
In response, to FDR's 4 terms, Congress set a 2-term limit on the Executive.
Unfortunately, while Congress seems quite willing to set term limits on the Executive -- they are unwilling or unable to do so on themselves.
... It is far easier to vote themselves pay raises and special benefits ... /s
Over the years it has been proposed, for example, that Senators serve 2 6-year terms, maximum -- and House Representatives 6 2-year terms.
Somehow, these proposals never get passed or even voted upon ... Hence, a Congress that is totally isolated from, and out of touch with the governed.
However, there have been several politicians who were elected supporting term limits -- lacking passage of any reform, they left office with self-imposed term limits.
Sadly, some others changed their minds (principles) -- and still remain in Washington.
Someone, long ago, described the marshland where Washington, DC was to be built, as a smelly swamp ...
Lastly, some consider the Federal Government to be an entropy -- Any attempt to change things to make it better will only make it worse ...
Percentage dude. He was talking about the percentage in taxes paid out of the income received in a years time. All you had to do was take a short moment to think about it before saying he should be ashamed. When corporates are raking in billions and only paying 0 to 5% in taxes on the earned income vs the 10 to 20% that the majority of working Americans pay, that is a joke.
Not really because if you raise taxes on companies then that leaves them with less money to pay workers!
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Americans working overseas double-taxed as of now?
Not exactly. Taxed twice, but not "double". In fact there was some break for Americans working overseas last time I checked.
I'm Canadian born citizen and lived in the Cayman Islands from 1997-2008. I was not required to file a Canadian tax return during those years, but all of my American friends were required to file a US tax return from overseas. However the IRS (at that time at least) granted them $75,000 exemption per person ($150k per couple). In other words, if a couple made $200,000 working there, their US taxable income would be $50,000.
The theory was you would normally pay income tax at some rate in whatever country you're living in. The personal (and corporate) tax rate in the Cayman Islands is exactly zero. However, the cost of living there is very high because of import taxes and other taxes. So a person making $75,000 tax free there is roughly the same as someone making $75,000 in the USA and paying tax off the top of that, when it comes to standard of living after taxes.
It's a very attractive place for anyone making more than $75,000 per year and NOT an American citizen. Because past the $75k thresshold there you're not too worried about $6 per gallon gasoline (the island is very small anyway), or US$7 beers at your local pub. The marginal difference becomes really favorable once you get past $100,000. The only way around US taxes for an American is to renounce your citizenship. As far as I know the USA is the only country who does this to its people. When I moved back to Canada in 2009 the government welcomed me back with open arms and never asked me about my finances during the time I was away.
Ireland allows companies to pay a low rate of corporate tax, but that doesn't mean Germany does. Profits Apple makes in Germany have taxes paid on them. As to the person who says they can "artificially" inflate the cost of transfers, that's not really accurate. Apple is subject to taxation audits in Germany and every country has a "reasonable" bandwidth of what's allowable as far as deductions and costing. However, manufacturing and jobs WILL shift to the countries that encourage that through tax policy. Ultimately that is a good thing, because it forces governments to do a calculation and mitigates wasteful government spending, at least to a degree.
It's companies who hire the humans and therefore socialists who bleat about "punishing" corporations are shooting themselves in the foot. Yes Apple and a few others are exceptions because they make profit far faster than it can ever be spent, however any middle class person with good planning can buy 100 shares of Apple and receive dividends from that. People forget that dividends are a directl benefit to investors of all sizes, income that is taxed and often spent back into the economy. I like the Boxer-Rand plan because it actually makes a lot of sense.
Note that the proposed law doesn't FORCE companies to repatriate overseas profits, it merely gives them an incentive to do so. If, as some say they should, the US government FORCED companies to repatriate, pretty much every single company would simply switch global headquarters to a country that wasn't so draconian, as fast as they could.
So, forget the rule of law, forget democracy, if you make enough money and have your pet legislator pass a law, you can completely forego your fair share of taxes.
Does anyone here have any doubt what would happen if you were to visit your pet legislator and say "I made a lot of money working overseas (for example) in Afghanistan as a military contractor last year, but I only want to pay 6.5% tax on it when I bring it back to the USA"?
This country's infrastructure is falling apart because the right and left are squabbling while rome burns and corporations laugh all the way to the bank.
I'm not laughing.
The thing is that if you paid an income tax to the foreign country in which you earned that money, you get a tax credit for the taxes paid to the foreign country and mostly likely will not have to pay any (or very little) US income tax on it when you declare that income here because in most countries, personal income tax rate is much higher than that paid in the US. There's also some regulation that if you were considered a resident in a foreign country for a full tax year and paid income tax in that foreign country for any income, you don't owe any US income tax on it when you bring it back to the US. But I think you are still liable for taxes on any money you made in the US during that time. Like income from renting your US home out while you were gone, sales of US stocks, dividend and interest income from money in US banks and such, if no taxes were paid on those US income to the foreign country in which you were residing (and being taxed). Plus most people have an effective tax rate of less than 12% anyways. It's not a big saving for them to want to only pay a 6.5% tax rate on any foreign income. Any savings comes to less than sales tax in most States. But there's no double tax on foreign income, regardless.
If you're are a US citizen working for a US company overseas, it doesn't matter as it's still considered US income and not foreign income and you most likely didn't pay any foreign income tax on it. You were still considered a resident of the US, even if you worked overseas for that US company for over a year.
But giving the choice of paying US income tax on foreign income or paying the income tax to the foreign country it was made, I think in most cases, the US income tax would be much lower. If you're a corporation, it's the other way around.
How could something so intellectually dishonest and selfish possibly be called "one's duty" ? ......
Intellectually dishonest? Really? Seems to me that something is either dishonest or it isn't ... must be a lawyer. I do, however, admit that "responsibility" might be a better fit than "duty". My bad. .... and why is it selfish to obey the tax laws to save the maximum amount "legally? allowed? I imagine that you, as well as others who are complaining here, don't refuse tax credits so you could pay more taxes ..... or would you consider that to beintellectually dishonestas well?
Tax avoidance is completely legal and is, in fact, one's duty. Tax evasion, on the other hand, is, most likely the term you were searching for, no?
Tax avoidance is not your duty at all. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you're expected to do it. Here's the UK government's stance on it, which is one country where Apple avoided tax:
Both avoidance and evasion are criticized. Evasion is illegal, avoidance can be punished but it depends on how it's done. If the measures followed the intent of the law then that's fine, some tax deductions are purposefully in place to promote business growth. If they are wilfully trying to circumvent the law then that's not ok and people doing that have been made to pay the expected amounts had those loopholes not existed.
Liberals keep groaning about trickle down as if they don't understand it. But then they use the tax code to hike taxes on cigarettes to reduce the number of smokers. See, they really do understand. If you want a thriving economy, you have to tax less. Tax it more and you get less of it.
Businesses are really good at making money, hiring, paying taxes, and moving our country forward.
Sales tax has a direct effect on purchasing. Income tax is taken off after profit is made so the only effect is if companies are already spending all their income. As you can see from Apple's bank balance, they haven't been spending it. This article points out they have close to $200b, they're clearly not spending it, even their US cash. What difference would $30b or so make to their investment plans? They don't have any plans as they've admitted - Tim said it's not burning a hole in their pockets.
Businesses are good at making money, not at hiring and not at paying taxes. A big supermarket chain in the UK was called out for tax avoidance:
The people at the top will take early retirement with no accountability, thousands at the bottom will have to look for other low paid jobs. All that companies do with lower taxes is line the pockets of the people at the top, it's their company and they're not going to give money to people they don't need to hire.
Tax avoidance is not your duty at all. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you're expected to do it.
Marvin, as I mentioned in post #118, (directly above yours), “Responsibility” would have been a better choice than “duty”.
It’s interesting that you use the UK government, or any government’s thoughts on this matter because, as you may know, it sometimes seems most governments falsely believe that they’re “entitled” to everything we own. Like I’m fond of saying: The deeper my pockets get, the longer the arms of government get.
In my opinion, until the taxman shows me he’s handling the revenues collected in a fair and responsible fashion, it is my responsibility to pay the smallest amount possible by using every legal tax break the government gives to me. To not do so robs my family and gives my hard earned dollars to a body of individuals who, by and large, spend my money a lot more foolishly than they do their own.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Marvin.
Comments
How do you feel about the unilateral "forgiveness" of illegal immigrants for political gain?
I am totally opposed to it. It's insane. You and I are probably 100% in agreement on this.
As someone who has lived and worked overseas, I can assure you that if an American is caught working in Europe without proper documentation, they have you on the next plane out of the country and you are banned from ever returning.
I suspect that if you tried working illegally in China, India or Mexico, the penalty would be even more severe.
I would add to that non-citizen legal immigrants!
I would add to that non-citizen legal immigrants!
Not if they are one of the 800,000 STEM workers being allowed in due to lobbying by Microsoft, Facebook, Oracle, Apple, etc.
Those workers will do the jobs of US citizens for 2/3 the salary. This depresses salaries but increases shareholder value.
Where I live, CapitalOne brought in STEM workers from India, had the US citizens train them, then laid off all of the citizens. Most of CapitalOne's IT staff are visa holders.
..... What needs to change is the idea that tax avoidance is something to promote when it is unpatriotic. .....
Tax avoidance is completely legal and is, in fact, one's duty. Tax evasion, on the other hand, is, most likely the term you were searching for, no?
How could something so intellectually dishonest and selfish possibly be called "one's duty" ?
I'm with Tim Cook. Simplify the tax code and reduce the rates. When you reduce taxes on something, you get more of that something. When you raise rates, you get less.
Liberals keep groaning about trickle down as if they don't understand it. But then they use the tax code to hike taxes on cigarettes to reduce the number of smokers. See, they really do understand. If you want a thriving economy, you have to tax less. Tax it more and you get less of it.
Businesses are really good at making money, hiring, paying taxes, and moving our country forward. I like having continuously improving goods and services at ever decreasing prices. The govt., by contrast, does not function nearly as well as a business. They do not have to watch their pennies and bottom lines. Thus, we get what we can all readily observe - waste and inefficiency and huge debt.
The treasury pulls in about 3x more revenue from individual taxes than corporate taxes. Whatever they can do to keep the golden goose healthy, I'm all for. But I'd rather have something like a flat tax that is fair and simple. Let's unleash business so they go out and make great products and services. God only knows how much productivity and $$$ is lost in tax avoidance maneuvers and schemes.
Here's the breakdown of where T revenue comes from: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/revenues/
Using Senator Carl Levin, D. MI, -- as a impartial judge of tax policy boggles the mind!
Levin and his like are responsible for the Shining City on the Hill -- that is Detroit -- politicians, with a vested interest (in power, re-election, personal reward ...) going wild with spending the tax-payers' money to the benefit of a few.
... Don't get me started ... It is amazing how someone, of ordinary means, can devote their life to Public Service -- and amass a personal fortune, thereby!
I did a quick search to see if I could determine Levin's Federal Retirement benefit for almost 40 years in Washington ... no luck.
However, a while back, Patsy Schroeder retired. at age 57, after a mere 24 years in Congress ... AIR, Patsy was due to receive $4-5 Million in Federal Retirement Benefits * by age 65.
* Elected officials receive Federal Retirement Benefits instead of [paying into and] receiving Social Security benefits -- unlike the rest of us, they are not governed by the retirement laws they pass.
Seems, we have an American Bourgeoisie in the Political Class.
AIR, Teddy Kennedy, that great champion of the working class -- had his inherited personal fortune ($Millions) parked offshore in the Caribbean to shelter it from taxes.
That was perfectly legal, tax avoidance ... and I support legitimate tax avoidance!
Unfortunately, the common working class cannot afford expensive tax accountants and tax avoidance structures.
The examples I've given are Democrats -- but the Republicans play the same duplicitous games.
Edit:
Congressional employees, now, do pay into and receive Social Security benefits. In addition they have several very attractive additional benefits available -- which are not available to the rest of us ...
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/retirement-benefits-for-congress.aspx
Just for comparison, I paid the max into Social Security for 40 + years and receive an annual benefit <$23,000.
And, unfortunately, for those working now -- likely, there will be higher deduction rates, higher deduction caps -- and less benefits, if any, at retirement!
If they are paying corporate taxes on the same revenue in another country, then they should get a break on it here. I don't know the law, but it feels like corporate tax law wasn't written with multi-national companies in mind. They are not moving the money to other countries to shield it from taxation, it was just never in the US to begin with. From other posts, it sounds like there are proposals to fix this. With how hard it is to get anything done in government, temporary one time solutions such as a tax holiday may make sense in the short term.
This is why I strongly advocate for term limits for the "selfless public servants" in both Congress and the Senate.
www.TermLimits.org
Here's a idea, lower the celeb tax rate, period!!!. I think it's crazy how high the taxes are. Think about out. Apple gets t all that money taxed in these other countries and just to bring that money into the U.S. It gets taxed a bunch more of it already having been taxed and for what? Your profits are getting taxed away. I don't blame Apple and everyone else from keeping their money out of this country. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world these days, it's so dumb.
Amen brother. Let's get this low enough for companies to bring it back to the US. They can then hopefully (no guarantee) invest it back into our economy...I am just not seeing what any potential negatives can come from this...anyone???
Since we have a term limit for the Executive -- term limits for the Senate and House would appear to make sense.
The Executive was originally perceived as providing timely decision-making ability with powers limited by Congress -- no kings here!
The Senate was originally perceived as a Patrician (land holders) body that would supply selfless wisdom and continuity -- longer 6-year terms
The House Representative was perceived as one of the common people -- where a member of the working class would perform their civic duties, representing the current voice of the goverened, for a short period of time -- then return to their prior endeavors.
George Washington set the standard for the Executive -- refusing to serve a 3rd term.
In response, to FDR's 4 terms, Congress set a 2-term limit on the Executive.
Unfortunately, while Congress seems quite willing to set term limits on the Executive -- they are unwilling or unable to do so on themselves.
... It is far easier to vote themselves pay raises and special benefits ... /s
Over the years it has been proposed, for example, that Senators serve 2 6-year terms, maximum -- and House Representatives 6 2-year terms.
Somehow, these proposals never get passed or even voted upon ... Hence, a Congress that is totally isolated from, and out of touch with the governed.
However, there have been several politicians who were elected supporting term limits -- lacking passage of any reform, they left office with self-imposed term limits.
Sadly, some others changed their minds (principles) -- and still remain in Washington.
Someone, long ago, described the marshland where Washington, DC was to be built, as a smelly swamp ...
Lastly, some consider the Federal Government to be an entropy -- Any attempt to change things to make it better will only make it worse ...
Not really because if you raise taxes on companies then that leaves them with less money to pay workers!
Not exactly. Taxed twice, but not "double". In fact there was some break for Americans working overseas last time I checked.
I'm Canadian born citizen and lived in the Cayman Islands from 1997-2008. I was not required to file a Canadian tax return during those years, but all of my American friends were required to file a US tax return from overseas. However the IRS (at that time at least) granted them $75,000 exemption per person ($150k per couple). In other words, if a couple made $200,000 working there, their US taxable income would be $50,000.
The theory was you would normally pay income tax at some rate in whatever country you're living in. The personal (and corporate) tax rate in the Cayman Islands is exactly zero. However, the cost of living there is very high because of import taxes and other taxes. So a person making $75,000 tax free there is roughly the same as someone making $75,000 in the USA and paying tax off the top of that, when it comes to standard of living after taxes.
It's a very attractive place for anyone making more than $75,000 per year and NOT an American citizen. Because past the $75k thresshold there you're not too worried about $6 per gallon gasoline (the island is very small anyway), or US$7 beers at your local pub. The marginal difference becomes really favorable once you get past $100,000. The only way around US taxes for an American is to renounce your citizenship. As far as I know the USA is the only country who does this to its people. When I moved back to Canada in 2009 the government welcomed me back with open arms and never asked me about my finances during the time I was away.
Ireland allows companies to pay a low rate of corporate tax, but that doesn't mean Germany does. Profits Apple makes in Germany have taxes paid on them. As to the person who says they can "artificially" inflate the cost of transfers, that's not really accurate. Apple is subject to taxation audits in Germany and every country has a "reasonable" bandwidth of what's allowable as far as deductions and costing. However, manufacturing and jobs WILL shift to the countries that encourage that through tax policy. Ultimately that is a good thing, because it forces governments to do a calculation and mitigates wasteful government spending, at least to a degree.
It's companies who hire the humans and therefore socialists who bleat about "punishing" corporations are shooting themselves in the foot. Yes Apple and a few others are exceptions because they make profit far faster than it can ever be spent, however any middle class person with good planning can buy 100 shares of Apple and receive dividends from that. People forget that dividends are a directl benefit to investors of all sizes, income that is taxed and often spent back into the economy. I like the Boxer-Rand plan because it actually makes a lot of sense.
Note that the proposed law doesn't FORCE companies to repatriate overseas profits, it merely gives them an incentive to do so. If, as some say they should, the US government FORCED companies to repatriate, pretty much every single company would simply switch global headquarters to a country that wasn't so draconian, as fast as they could.
I am totally opposed to this.
So, forget the rule of law, forget democracy, if you make enough money and have your pet legislator pass a law, you can completely forego your fair share of taxes.
Does anyone here have any doubt what would happen if you were to visit your pet legislator and say "I made a lot of money working overseas (for example) in Afghanistan as a military contractor last year, but I only want to pay 6.5% tax on it when I bring it back to the USA"?
This country's infrastructure is falling apart because the right and left are squabbling while rome burns and corporations laugh all the way to the bank.
I'm not laughing.
The thing is that if you paid an income tax to the foreign country in which you earned that money, you get a tax credit for the taxes paid to the foreign country and mostly likely will not have to pay any (or very little) US income tax on it when you declare that income here because in most countries, personal income tax rate is much higher than that paid in the US. There's also some regulation that if you were considered a resident in a foreign country for a full tax year and paid income tax in that foreign country for any income, you don't owe any US income tax on it when you bring it back to the US. But I think you are still liable for taxes on any money you made in the US during that time. Like income from renting your US home out while you were gone, sales of US stocks, dividend and interest income from money in US banks and such, if no taxes were paid on those US income to the foreign country in which you were residing (and being taxed). Plus most people have an effective tax rate of less than 12% anyways. It's not a big saving for them to want to only pay a 6.5% tax rate on any foreign income. Any savings comes to less than sales tax in most States. But there's no double tax on foreign income, regardless.
If you're are a US citizen working for a US company overseas, it doesn't matter as it's still considered US income and not foreign income and you most likely didn't pay any foreign income tax on it. You were still considered a resident of the US, even if you worked overseas for that US company for over a year.
But giving the choice of paying US income tax on foreign income or paying the income tax to the foreign country it was made, I think in most cases, the US income tax would be much lower. If you're a corporation, it's the other way around.
How could something so intellectually dishonest and selfish possibly be called "one's duty" ? ......
Intellectually dishonest? Really? Seems to me that something is either dishonest or it isn't ... must be a lawyer. I do, however, admit that "responsibility" might be a better fit than "duty". My bad. .... and why is it selfish to obey the tax laws to save the maximum amount "legally? allowed? I imagine that you, as well as others who are complaining here, don't refuse tax credits so you could pay more taxes ..... or would you consider that to be intellectually dishonest as well?
Tax avoidance is not your duty at all. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you're expected to do it. Here's the UK government's stance on it, which is one country where Apple avoided tax:
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-tax-evasion-and-avoidance
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-avoidance-general-anti-abuse-rules
Both avoidance and evasion are criticized. Evasion is illegal, avoidance can be punished but it depends on how it's done. If the measures followed the intent of the law then that's fine, some tax deductions are purposefully in place to promote business growth. If they are wilfully trying to circumvent the law then that's not ok and people doing that have been made to pay the expected amounts had those loopholes not existed.
Sales tax has a direct effect on purchasing. Income tax is taken off after profit is made so the only effect is if companies are already spending all their income. As you can see from Apple's bank balance, they haven't been spending it. This article points out they have close to $200b, they're clearly not spending it, even their US cash. What difference would $30b or so make to their investment plans? They don't have any plans as they've admitted - Tim said it's not burning a hole in their pockets.
Businesses are good at making money, not at hiring and not at paying taxes. A big supermarket chain in the UK was called out for tax avoidance:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/may/31/tesco.supermarkets
and is now closing dozens of stores affecting 2,000 jobs:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31023136
This was a result of them doing some false accounting, 8 company executives have been suspended:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30575040
The people at the top will take early retirement with no accountability, thousands at the bottom will have to look for other low paid jobs. All that companies do with lower taxes is line the pockets of the people at the top, it's their company and they're not going to give money to people they don't need to hire.
What's the "bleeding out" part? This is money that has never been here.
Originally Posted by Marvin
Tax avoidance is not your duty at all. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you're expected to do it.
Marvin, as I mentioned in post #118, (directly above yours), “Responsibility” would have been a better choice than “duty”.
It’s interesting that you use the UK government, or any government’s thoughts on this matter because, as you may know, it sometimes seems most governments falsely believe that they’re “entitled” to everything we own. Like I’m fond of saying: The deeper my pockets get, the longer the arms of government get.
In my opinion, until the taxman shows me he’s handling the revenues collected in a fair and responsible fashion, it is my responsibility to pay the smallest amount possible by using every legal tax break the government gives to me. To not do so robs my family and gives my hard earned dollars to a body of individuals who, by and large, spend my money a lot more foolishly than they do their own.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Marvin.