That’s what worries me. They have already lowered the H1B cap and I am sure we will see more knee-jerk populist moves.
<shrug> Doesn’t mean they won’t be tried again.
I’ve tried to make the point before that corporations based in a country are part of the social fabric of the country. and that therefore, they have a social responsibility to the people and government of that country that support them with services and an environment conducive to their business. When corporations use every loophole and tax avoidance technique they can find to reduce what they pay to the lowest percentage (except for 1983) in the last 70 years (previously cited), when the average CEO makes 400 times or more the pay of the average worker, when their only focus is profits with little or no out regard for the people who work for them, then they are asking for trouble. When the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it often swings too far in the opposite direction before it finally works its way back to the middle of the scale.
And if by doing all these noble things you have in mind, you cause the corporations to lose money (by being uncompetetive with other countries, by increasing their tax burden at the same time you cut off their business, etc), and if they decide to pick up stakes and go elsewhere, what then? Will you enact laws that force these CEO’s and their companies to continue to reside in the US? And if not, what will you do when they leave for greener pastures, taking not only the jobs still here in the US, but all those nasty profits with them…to somewhere else that will be only too happy to have them? So, instead of a 6% unemployment (or whatever you figure it is now), we’ll have a 15-20% unemployment…or worse. And all those taxes we are currently getting (which amount to quite a bit, especially considering the large percentage of the total tax currently paid by the top 1% of earners in the US) will go to some other countries enrichment.
Because frankly if the government came to me and told me who I could hire and not hire, and how I would run my business as far as outsourcing goes (or really anything else) I’d move my operations to another country. It would be EASY to move it to another country, since I already do business in many other countries. And the 200 odd employees I currently have on staff here in the US would go bye bye…or they would move with me to whereever I relocate.
I love America…don’t get me wrong. But if the government did such things and caused me to lose money or not be competetive with other companies in other countries, I’d be forced to leave for greener pastures. And I wouldn’t be alone by any means. Then what would you do, iamme99? Not just when the mid sized businesses like mine left, but when the Microsoft’s and IBMs, and Intels, and GMs, etc etc all left too?
-XT
I’m sorry XT, but that argument is old and tired. ON NO, we better not do anything to the poor corporations and businesses or, or, or, they’ll leave, yeah, that’s what they will do! I don’t think so and I call their/your bluff to do so. Where will you/they go and have it better than here? And if a few more pennies will kill your competitiveness, then why not move now and reap all the benefits you are imagining?
But the grass might not be as green over there. Many other 1st world countries tax their corporations a LOT higher than we do here. And in case you are thinking of an off-shore corporation, there are a number of bills in Congress and many Congressmen looking to eliminate this tax dodge. IP protection in most other countries is a lot worse off than here. The USA is a large part of the world consumer market, perhaps 50% of it (Here’s a comparison of USA vs. the world in IMPORTS for 2001 (which doesn’t fully represent all we consume)). Are you willing to give up easy access to the U.S. consumer market? If you move out, maybe the politicians will be further pissed off and pass some nice tariff laws on relocated companies that chose to leave and try to ship product back in? It’s been done before.
This is why discussing issues like this is often a fruitless proposition. There will always be someone who will howl and complain when their particular ox is gored.
Instead, what I am proposing is that it is time we all start considering what is the best course for all of our society and not just our individual or company interests. I know this is a radical idea in this age of special interests controlling politicians and people who only look at a plan from the perspective of “what’s in it for me”? I and others contend that corporations need to pay their fair share and they aren’t now. As far as I’m concerned, if they don’t want to ante up, then they can TRY and move elsewhere and we’ll all take our chances.
From the info below, you can see the taxes corporations are paying now. Despite the low rates we have given corporations, they aren’t creating jobs to replace those lost through offshoring and productivity enhancements. And they are continually cutting back on health benefits for their workers and retiree’s. So surely they can scrape a few more coins from the bottom of their pockets without having to cut back on Executive compensation too much <sniff, as tears roll down my face :rolleyes:)
Fiscal 2003 Deficit Soared as
Income Taxes Fell to Lowest Level in Six Decades
Final fiscal 2003 figures… -billions....% of GDP............... Notes
Total revenues* ............... 1,750.2…16.3%… Lowest since 1959
Total taxes …$ 1,712.6…16.0%… Lowest since 1959
Income taxes …893.6…8.3% …Lowest since before World War II
Individuals** …755.3 …7.0%…Lowest since 1951
Corporations***…138.3…1.3%…Since 1940, only 1983 & 2002 were lower
You have totally failed to support them by:
a) Explaining how they would work and how they would do more good than harm
b) Citing countries which have tried them successfully
c) Citing economists of reputation who favor such measures.
As long as you cannot do that you should not expect to be taken seriously.
I have said it before and I will say it again: the fact that you can identify a problem does not mean you have a solution. OK? In fact, you are diagnosing cancer when it is a common cold. You are proposing solutions which will make the problem worse. OK?
Well, that does not surprise me. You expect us to try something just for the sheer excitement of seeing if it will make things worse? A lot of people here can promise that your solutions will not work. They have been tried and they failed. Not only are you dignosing a common cold as cancer but on top of that you want us to try curing the patient with injections of horse urine even though you have no proof they wold work.
No, you have NOT answered the questions put to you. You have NOT answered them. Let me repeat them:
You have totally failed to support them by:
a) Explaining how they would work and how they would do more good than harm
b) Citing countries which have tried them successfully
c) Citing economists of reputation who favor such measures.
Whatever you say, Sailor! So don’t take me seriously <shrug>. It’s no skin off my back.
Personally, I think you are so bound to old economic dogma thinking that you are unable to consider anything that deviates from what you profess to know. Sorry to stick a pin in your bubble of religious economic beliefs. 
But to repeat again and again and again. Congress is going to something to address the problems I have listed and it appears that you are not going to be a happy camper because of what is likely to be done. Oh well, such is life…
No, I cannot take you seriously. I wish I could say I found your arguments to be weak because it would mean you would have some kind of argument. So far you have none.
You overrate yourself if you think you have stuck a pin in anyone’s beliefs here. Let’s face it, you have no arguments to support your views. For all we know here you are a teenager who cannot keep his room tidy and you propose to fix the world economy when we do not even believe it is broken and you want us to follow you just on your word? No explanation, just an act of faith?
You are beginning to sound like those who say the end of the world is coming or the second coming of Christ is coming and they know it. I am happy for you that you can find comfort in knowing that the future will bring you what you want. I make no claims about seeing into the future but I am pretty confident the Congress would not take measures which would harm the economy.
Personally, I would think GDP versus GWP would be a pretty decent measure of a nation’s influence on the world economy. Adjusting for net exports or FDI or whatever might be helpful, but I prefer to keep the statistics as simple as possible so as to prevent any problems that might arise from measurement.
The CIA World Factbook estimates GWP at $49 trillion in 2002 at PPP. There are probably far better cites out there, but I don’t feel like digging them up and at a global scale this estimate is probably as good as any.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html
The BEA puts U.S. GDP at $10.48 trillion in 2002 at current dollars (I use current dollars because I assume the CIA’s GWP figures are as well, rather than chain-weighted dollars).
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls
That puts U.S. GDP at 21.4% of the world’s economic output. U.S. consumption is very likely higher than that (as a percentage of world consumption) but certainly not over 100% higher.
There isn’t much really to add here for me, this thread has devolved into the same BS every other thread just like it has in the past two years. One point I would like to make which I like to make in every thread like it is this:
People get screwed in the U.S. economy. They always have, and they always will. Whether or not outsourcing is good for the U.S. economy as a whole does not change the fact that there are a lot of laid-off workers who are obviously significantly worse off now than they were five years ago, and it is entirely possible (and certain in not too few cases) that some of these workers will be permanently worse off for the rest of their lives. It isn’t their “fault” that this is the case in any reasonable use of the word.
Well, that’s life. Sorry. It sucks hard, but unfortunately there simply is no way to ensure that every single person in the world is better off than the day previous all the time. There isn’t really even any way to ensure that every person is equally well of today as they were yesterday all the time. There simply is not a single thing we can do to turn the world into a utopia. The best we can do is the best we can, and so far, by staying the course of having a relatively free country that also provides a modest “safety net” we (the United States) have created an economy where people get screwed over the least as compared with nearly every other economy in the world. It sucks that Joe Computerprogrammer is making less money than in 1997. It’s sad that there are families out there with no source of earned income, subsisting off of various federal and state programs. Some folks have had to be turned out on the street after having their home foreclosed on and now live under overpasses and feed themselves with money from panhandling and selling blood. But in the grand scheme of things, most other countries have things significantly shittier. Rampant starvation and malnutrition (beriberi, rickets, cretinism etc), death due to exposure, the AIDS epidemic as well as other diseases such as malaria, the child sex slave industry, these are topics that I believe far better deserve a “won’t someone please think of the children?” from me than the plight of the largest economy and wealthiest people in the world.
Very well said. I have a hard time sympathinsing with someone who complains because he was making six figures and cannot do it any more and wants to continue even if it would be at the expense of the poverty in third world countries which causes “Rampant starvation and malnutrition (beriberi, rickets, cretinism etc), death due to exposure, the AIDS epidemic as well as other diseases such as malaria, the child sex slave industry”. . . . Shit, count yourself lucky that for a while you were doing better than 99.99% of the world.
Cretinism is a world-wide problem. ::snort::
Well, maybe we don’t need to panic. But, surely, we need to be concerned, especially given the behind-closed-doors way these trade agreements are negotitated and these suits are handled.
Well, we have discussed before the paradox that occurs if everyone is entitled to keep all their wealth since the government that gives them the basic services that enable them to accumulate it wouldn’t be paid for. However, I disagree that we are making the assumption that all wealth is some sort of public trust. [If we were really going to do that, it would seem awful silly to let one person (Bill Gates) have >$50 billion of it!]
All that we are saying is that we should be allowed to discuss the distributional aspects of the tax cuts without this being labeled “class warfare” (and more relevant to this thread, to discuss the nature of the trade deals and who they might benefit and hurt). My guess is that the reason that Bush tries to stop such a discussion from occurring (or resorts to rather deceptive numbers by looking only at federal income tax alone) is because he knows he can’t win the argument for his tax cuts on the basis of an honest discussion of who gets what so he has to try to prevent such an honest discussion from occurring.
I think you are mischaracterizing my position. I have never claimed that the tax system as a whole is (or, at least was before all the Bush tax cuts regressive overall). In fact, in this very thread I said:
In another thread, I also gave you an extensive quote on the subject of progressivity of the tax burden from a book that I have [“What Government Can Do” by Benjamin Page and James Simmons]. It turns out to be a complicated subject. However, what we certainly do know is that the federal income tax is considerably more progressive than federal taxes as a whole. (And, we have CBO data estimating the federal taxes as a whole and they are still somewhat progressive.) We also know that most state taxes are regressive so adding them in further reduces progressivity. My guess is that the tax system might still be a bit progressive in the end but considerably less so. And, there are a few wild cards in this, as I noted above…the assignment of corporate taxes, how much income the rich are able to avoid reporting altogether (although I am sure there is also a certain lack of reporting at lower income levels too…but they don’t have the help of crafty tax accountants). The final wild card is the Bush tax cuts which, especially with this dividends and capital gains tax cuts may really kill progressivity completely near the top end of the scale.
Well, you may regret choosing Nevada which is in fact majorly regressive (due to their lack of income tax which means the bulk of the money comes through regressive sales and excise taxes). Here is the CTJ evaluation of their tax rates. Note that the bottom quintile pays 8.3% effective tax rate on their income whereas the top 1% pays 2.0%! I’ll let you go back to the CBO data and see if this 6.3% differential compares to the differential in the federal effective tax rate for these two groups.
Boy, pervert, you are really going off the deep end here. Even the trustees of the fund (most of who were appointed by the current Pres…in fact, 3 are cabinet secretaries) will tell you that it is a trust fund. (Go here for all the official stuff; see, in particular, here) Now, the fact that we have to start paying money out of the general fund merely means that we have to pay back the money that has been borrowed from the social security trust fund. I.e., money collected with regressive payroll taxes has been borrowed by the government to pay for other stuff. And, yes, the government will have to pay that back…Unless they decide to renege and blame social security for the problem when it fact it is the revenues collected from the payroll taxes that have allowed the government to keep the income taxes down and still fund all the other stuff.
Well, I don’t know I would agree that there is any strict cutoff just because I see such rules as too arbitrary to make into any sort of hard and firm principle. But, hey, your proposal would allow massive increases of taxes on the wealthy! I don’t think they pay nearly 50%. After all, Bush went for the principle that noone should pay more than 1/3 as a marginal federal income tax rate. And, while you may say that total taxes will be higher, you must also understand that this is a marginal rate…and then one that is paid on only certain types of income (i.e., their marginal rate will be much lower on dividends and capital gains). Plus, the richest people are generally paying S.S. on only a small portion of their income. I guess we can look at the CBO data; it looks like the rates were about 33% in 2000 (i.e., before the Bush tax cuts…and with their principle of assigning the corporate taxes entirely to the shareholders!!), and state and local taxes don’t generally tend to amount to too much on the very wealthy (although Nevada’s tiny 2% rate is almost certainly lower than most).
Actually, after I looked at that link more carefully, I realized a few things:
(1) Of that 33% effective federal tax rate for the top 1%, 6.8% is accounted for by the assignment of the corporate taxes.
(2) The effective federal tax rate is clearly still quite progressive at the bottom though middle of the scale. Where it is really leveling out is at the top. E.g., the top 20% pay at a 28% rate while the top 1% pay at a 33% rate and more than half of this difference is attributable to the assignment of corporate taxes. It is in fact not at all hard to imagine that after the Bush tax cuts, particularly the cuts in the captial gains and dividends tax rates, the top 1% might be paying federal taxes at a lower effective rate than the top quintile. This is also in line with the basic claims of David Kay Johnston.
This jshore is the sort of thing I have been talking about. You say that you do not consider wealth as a public trust, but you are doggedly resistant to any limits on the power of the government to seize such wealth.
Truly, I understand your position. I do. All I am asking is that you try and meet me somewhere in the middle. I offered to put the number at 50%, and you still refuse to consider it. Obviously, its your opinion, and so it ok. All I am saying in this thread is that you should stop complaining about being called a class warfare monger when you cannot even agree that people should be allowed to keep some of their wealth.
Yes, and I obviously disagree that 50% is the right cuttoff. Dispite such a good faith offer, however, you still refuse to meet me half way.
I tell you what. Let’s just agree to disagree for all time and I’ll stop hijacking threads like this.
pervert: We may not be as far apart as it appears. I am not saying that I actually support tax rates up above 50% on anyone. I am just saying that I don’t think I would like it to be any written-in-stone principle that thou shalt not tax at higher than this rate.
As I noted, getting the effective tax rate up to 50% on anyone would entail steep rises…far beyond anything that I see as being in the cards politically anyway. So, I don’t really see the need to formulate a position on it. I like to keep my thoughts focussed on realistic political issues.
Hell, talking about middle positions, I’ll give you a middle position: I’d be moderately happy if we just rescind the Bush tax cuts for the top income earners. Nothing about taxing them more than they were taxed before Bush got into office. Let’s just not cut their taxes from where they were then.
I also posted this link over in the “US Economy and Permanent Job Losses” thread. For those who aren’t in both threads:
How about a little comic relief on the subject (you’ll need Flash player to view this)? Whether you agree or not with this, this is the perception that a good many people currently hold which is why the government is going to take action on the issue. With all due respect for Desdinova, many politicians will find their careers ended if they don’t so “something” to appease the masses. Why special interests and corporations may control our politics, they don’t control enough “little people” votes to ensure that there favorite politician gets reelected. Telling people that “Sorry, but life’s a bitch…”, isn’t going to cut it when election time comes around.
Okay Evil Captor, here’s another cite, since you didn’t like my first one:
http://denbeste.nu/external/Harris02.html
“With this demystification of the capitalist working class came an end to even a feigned enthusiasm among Marxists for solidarity with the hopelessly middle-class aspirations of the American blue-collar work force.”
The only reason any company would outsource work out of country would be to save money.
If I needed a blue pencil, I wouldn’t hire someone in company to make a blue pencil for me; I would buy it from someone who already makes blue pencils or I would buy it from someone who is willing to make blue pencils for me although they normally only make red pencils.
:smack:
A new and interesting story saying that company executives might be willing to pay a tax for offshoring people:
And came across this fiarly in-depth coverage of the issue:
That is not outsourcing. Outsourcing is when Blue Pencil Inc. in Madison, Wisconsin takes advantage of US tax breaks to set up a manufacturing plant in India, and then shutters the American plant, putting hundreds of pencil technicians out of work.
FI: *That is not outsourcing. *
Well, technically, I think it is; it’s not exactly the same offshore Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) that we’ve been hearing so much about just lately, but it’s the same sort of principle: you cut out all company activities except what’s designated your “core competence” and get the rest of your products or services from outside subcontractors (presumably, at a lower cost). I think this is generically called “outsourcing” whether or not the subcontractors are overseas firms.
It’s also called outsourcing regardless of whether tax advantages accrue from the transaction. Linking all outsourcing to tax dodging is extremely disingenuous. Business will certainly take advantage of favorable tax treatment whenever they can, but outsourcing would continue even in a tax neutral situation. I would agree that the tax code should not encourage the practice, as I would agree that the tax code should not be used to encourage ANY practice.
I think the term in vogue now for outsourcing overseas (to cheaper labor markets) is 'offshoring".