  (Click photo to enlarge.) |
You’ve got to give them credit. They’re consistent in their protection of greed.
President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced on Monday a crackdown on offshore tax havens that could produce $210 billion in new tax revenue over the next decade.
The White House will face opposition to the proposal from the business community and Congress. Before the announcement, a Republican leadership staffer circulated an email citing a Bloomberg report saying the proposal “would be the biggest tax increase on U.S. corporations since 1986.” And Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ken.) said later on Monday that he could not endorse Obama’s plan since it “gives preferential treatment to foreign companies at the expense of U.S.-based companies.”
Democrats, Republicans, you can only trust them to lick the boots of the corps/people that got them there. The last 20 years have proven they don’t give a shit about the unwashed masses. Really, who can you trust, a tree-hugging hippy, or a gun-touting fanatical zealot, right, neither.
The top corporate tax rate is 35 percent, but the Treasury Department estimated that in 2004, the most recent year for which data is available, American multinationals paid $16 billion in taxes on $700 billion in foreign income — an effective rate of 2.3 percent.
I see this has brought out the “All taxes are EVIL!” crowd. If you really want to live and/or operate a business where there are no central government taxes, I understand there are some great real estate deals available in Somalia outside the center of the capital and in parts of Pakistan. But if you don’t want to have to raise your own private army/police force to protect yourself and your workers and premises from robbery, murder and pillage; if you don’t want to have to raise your own private Navy so you can ship your goods; if you want employees who can read instructions, or count to 11 without taking their shoes off; if you want roads that are actually passable and food and drink and medicine that probably won’t kill you, you’re going to have to pay some taxes. Get over it.
#16 That was my point though. Yes, US companies have the highest tax rate and yes most/if not all tax burden is passed along to consumers. Ergo, the corporations do not pay the corporate income tax…WE DO!
Who bears the burden of that “passed along” tax? The consumer…who will likely go for the lower price (hey I do it too).
My point is that if you want to get more money from those evil big businesses, it doesn’t come from screwing over the consumer. Unless the intent is a feel-good get-even with big business and taking money out of the pockets of everyday people.
The ultimate point is that the tax system should be there to raise money for paying for what we need NOT some bovine excrement-based social justice scheme.
Raise money? Good. Get-even? Bad.
I don’t understand why these right wing nuts want me to pay the taxes for these corporations that produce products I don’t use or want.
I’m trying to picture Cow-Patty outsourcing his popcycles from Thailand because he can get them cheaper.
I think it’s great to know that Obama reads Mother Jones. Check the section entitled Invade the Caymans.
http://tinyurl.com/clveh3
What exactly does anyone who is not a billionaire have against making people pay their taxes? I have to pay mine!
#1 & 2 – Warden,
It’s not about parties. Everyone knows that both repugnicans and democraps have been doing everything possible to make the rich richer and destroy the middle class since jumping on board Ronald Reagan’s voodoo economics 28 years ago.
If Obama is finally trying to take back the country from the corporations and uber-wealthy, that’s a good thing and should be non-partisan.
#7 – mr show,
I think you’ll find that U.S. corporations do very well at not paying their fair share of taxes in this country, whatever the rate may be. And the total they pay would not even be that high if they paid what they were supposed to.
http://tinyurl.com/d2wgdg
What is shocking, however, comes from a book I’m reading now entitled The Tyranny of Dead Ideas.
Starbucks spends more on health care than on coffee.
GM spends more on health care than on steel.
Want to really allow U.S. corporations to compete? Get them out of the human welfare business. Create a national health care plan for all.
Corporations could then choose to offer policies that offer higher level of service on top of the national plan, but would cut their expenses dramatically.
No other developed democratic country in the world makes corporations pay for health care. This puts our corps at a huge disadvantage.
The stupid thing is that their CEOs want to keep it this way. It makes no sense. It is a dead idea with a death hold on us all.
#12 – GigG,
Perhaps. However, companies do still want access to the U.S. market. We’re the largest consumers in the world, disgusting and despicably large in fact. We consume so much that we’ve even created an ideology around it, consumerism.
Consumerism must stop if we are to survive as a species.
However, until it does, companies that want access to this greatest of all markets will play by whatever rules we choose to set. Let’s set some good ones so that we benefit by more than just getting $3 beer hats at MallFart.
#21 – Paddy-O,
Tax businesses as much as you want, and they will move offshore as much as possible…
Sorry. You seem to have missed the entire point of this post. This is what we’re trying to stop. The execs aren’t moving to developing nations. And, they won’t.
What we want to stop is having them open a P.O. Box there and call that corporate headquarters.
Again, if they want to do business in the U.S., they will follow the rules. They’re following them now; we just have the wrong rules in place.
#22 – brm,
Want them to keep their money in country? Drop the taxes to the point where it costs less to keep the money here than to offshore it.
They’re paying zero now.
Would you like to make that the official policy? Perhaps, in order to get uber-rich people to keep money in the country, you’d like to tax the middle class further to set up a matching contributions account.
Yes, for every dollar you keep in the country, the federal government will give you a dollar, but only if you’re a corporate entity or an individual with over one billion dollars in assets.
Great deal.
Cut all taxes in half: corporate, income, property, etc. Eliminate all loopholes. Then you would have a more robust economy and just enough money for the gov’t to do what it’s supposed do and no more.
There is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.
“The Monument Builders”
Instead of whining about how unfair these havens are, why not just state what you really mean: you want the money because you aren’t smart enough to make it yourself.
This is a straw-man debate by the greedy ones.
Any company can be successful in any market climate if they ahave a good product. I was just at a wafer-etch fab (Anadigics) in New-f*cking-Jersey, and the clean rooms were bustling and the company is selling everything it makes. What about a company like Vicor, who makes 100% of their product in “Taxachussets”?
Whining about taxes is greed bitching.
# 42 Misanthropic Scott said, “Sorry. You seem to have missed the entire point of this post. This is what we’re trying to stop. The execs aren’t moving to developing nations. And, they won’t.”
Ah, yes. The arrogance of the libs. Any country but the US is a “developing” nation. It has already started and will accelerate.
http://reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL312427120090312
#46, Is it greedy to want what you produce or greedy to want what others produce?
#48 By looking at those maps it is already clear that progressive libs are greedy and conservatives are generous. No surprise of course. Libs want to steal from others wallets while conservatives give to charities…
Offshore tax haven in this case means companies not paying tax on money they make overseas by keeping it there.
Taxing that money encourages them to leave the country. At some point Obama is going to have to think about where the money will come from if he sends productive people away.
After pondering this a while, I’m starting to wonder if companies really affected by this legislation won’t just do what Haliburton did a few years back and become a non-US company (headquartered in Dubai) with a US subsidiary.
If the Dems go with this it will cost them a huge amount in pay offs besides how many of them are making use of the shelters?
#52, Ayatollah,
The country is founded on freedom…true freedom means your work and its fruits are yours–property rights ; right to sell products at prices you choose…
You are such an idiot. When this country was formed most people were denied the vote. Slavery was the norm in all 13 States. Women were considered property and could not handle their own affairs if married.
Freedom only applied to those with property.
# 51 johnrudy,
Your one of the most rational voices I have heard here.
No rant, just a rational weighing of the matter.
I agree with it all.
# 53 Hmeyers said, “After pondering this a while, I’m starting to wonder if companies really affected by this legislation won’t just do what Haliburton did…”
See the link I posted above.
#56, It’s only rational if it’s based on sound reasoning.
He is crying because he is paying taxes and somebody else isn’t. That’s jealousy.
#58, Liberty Liar,
He is contributing to the betterment of society. Paying for the police that protect your fat ass from the bullies. The courts that send those bullies to jail for dunking your head in the toilet. The Prisons that hold the bullies after the court sent them.
And they are contributing towards paying your mommies government paid health benefits.
#59, He is contributing to the betterment of society.
Is he really?
Did his tax money keep the tax increase on cigarettes down (a tax increase on the poor)?
Did it keep the cost of gasoline down (a tax increase on the poor)?
Did it keep the cost of food down (a tax increase on the poor)?
Or did that money go to the banks?
When you realize the federal government is more of a hindrance to freedom and prosperity, you’ll know the answers to those questions.
Agitation at the fact others aren’t paying taxes when you do is nothing more than jealously, pure and simple. Any other excuse is self-delusion.
What could he have done with that $21,000? I would have spent it on goods I wanted, a couple of local charities that have been hounding me for more money, a nice dress for my wife.
#60, Liberty Liar,
You claimed johnrudy was whining. Now look who’s whining. Your beef is that taxes are not being spent as you like them to. Too bad, that is our democratic process, for better or worse, and taxes go to pay for the society we live in.
If you don’t like our society, why not move you and your company to the Cayman’s or some other offshore tax shelter and live there?
#61, Nope. My beef is with having to pay federal taxes at all. How many times do you have to read that to get it?
And you didn’t answer the questions (as usual). You are trying to apply the Argumentum ad populum — since “everybody” does it, it must be ok.
And since you support Mob Rule, you have no reason to bash past presidents as they were elected by the majority (I’ll be sure to point that out the next time you bash one, just to keep you honest).
And note — a society is composed of individuals. Each individual has rights. By denying the rights of many to appease a few (those making the decisions for us), you are treading down the path of the USSR and Nazi Germany. Just keep that in mind when you are “asked” to prove your loyalty to some cause.
Re: Cayman Islands — What makes you think I’m not already using their services?
#62, Liberty Liar,
And note — a society is composed of individuals. Each individual has rights.
And a forest is composed of individual trees, a school is composed of individual fish, a troop is composed of individual baboons, …
By denying the rights of many to appease a few (those making the decisions for us), you are treading down the path of the USSR and Nazi Germany.
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you support democratically elected Presidents then you also support democratically legislatures. If you didn’t vote, that is your problem. If you did and lost, quit crying. If you are that upset by the democratically elected decisions then move to the Cayman Islands. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Re: Cayman Islands — What makes you think I’m not already using their services?
Because you are some disillusioned kid sitting in your mother’s basement jerking off to porn. You have no idea what the business world is about and don’t have two cents to invest in anything.
#63,
Mr. Fusion,
I want you to read this with an open mind and think about what it is saying. I am not trying to talk down to you. I want you to seriously consider what it is saying.
The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.
The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system — as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The US was the first moral society in history.
All previous systems* had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The US regarded man as end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The US held that man’s life is his by right[…], that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.
*the divine right of kings
the theorcracy of Egypt
the unlimited majority rule of Athens
the welfare state run the Emperors of Rome
the Inquisition
the absolute monarchy of France
the welfare state of Bismarch’s Prussia
the gas chambers of Nazi Germany
the slaughterhouse of the Soviet Union.
“Man’s Rights”, April 1963
When you think about this, think about all the societies before ours and how we are heading in the same direction as those.
All these societies started out as good ideas but degenerated over time as those in power began to consider themselves society’s protectors. And the people, the individuals, gave them the power to do it. Washington has convinced the majority of Americans of the same thing — “it’s for their own good.”
Now, do I support a democratically elected Congress? Of course. Do I expect them to follow the Constitution? Of course. Do I expect them to twist the words of that document to further their careers and prestige? No.