08-07-2014 08:37 PM
46 12
tools
  1. SteveISU's Avatar
    Corporate Tax Rule Proposal: Businesses that register HQ and pay taxes accordingly as US companies with at least 20% of their workforce (both in population and income) in the US pay 2% of global gross and 1% on domestic revenue in US federal taxes and can write off their state sales taxes (investing locally is rewarded). The highest you can spend in federal tax is 2% of your gross revenue and the lowest is $0.00. All other businesses pay 85% of revenue on all goods sold within the US and a 30% surcharge on gross revenues earned in other markets. Those who decline will have all assets in US territories confiscated and either destroyed or auctioned to complying companies. The message: If you play here, stay here.

    It's not perfect, but there is definitely an incentive to participate in the US market. Imagine Samsung or Volkswagen housing 20% of their workforce or more in the US and barely paying any taxes for doing so. The boost to our economy in employment alone would negate any federal income loss and theoretically, a well paid fully employed populace as little use for a bloated fed anyways.
    This would likely force companies out of the US and the markets crashing down on us. Many had predicted the Stoxx 600 to outpace the S&P by the end of the year 16% to 7%. You mine as well send NAFTA and WTO in the trash. Protectionist policies like this will hurt us more than help us considering the global competitiveness of the European and Chinese markets.
    08-04-2014 10:47 PM
  2. SteveISU's Avatar
    My argument has always been let American corporations have a 15 percent tax rate, in return every product sold has to be manufactured in the United States.

    This would create a huge incentive to bring back manufacturing to the United States. It would also bring in a lot of tax revenue that is being paid in other countries because they have lower tax rates. The income tax brought in by an expanded workforce would be greatly increase.
    While I like the idea, labor costs and regulatory costs play a huge role in the decision to manufacturer in the US. Get a union involved and it becomes a headache no one wants to deal with. Almost everything is more expensive in the US when it comes to building a business.
    A895 likes this.
    08-04-2014 10:53 PM
  3. peacefulberry's Avatar
    Amen. ^
    08-04-2014 10:56 PM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    The U.S. could give competitive advantages to competitors of these companies that claim headquarters outside of the U.S. If Nike wants to claim off-shore tax havens then the U.S. should lessen burdens on its rivals that aren't claiming off-shore tax havens.

    Granted, the government is handcuffed by some of the red-koolaid drinkers that insist government should be small enough to be able to be "drowned in a bathtub". But what those simpletons don't realize is all they're doing is handing the keys over to big business. Next thing you know we'll have U.S. companies putting safety nets around their buildings because of Chinese-like oppressive working conditions.
    08-04-2014 11:08 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    It's not just my premise, but it's also Wiki's premise..... Gaming the system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    So I guess that means you think corporations that "game the system" aren't as immoral as poor people that "game the system", even though one entity has more than enough to survive, while the other is looking to just survive?

    Like I said before, I think both are wrong, but the fact that some people are ok with giving corporations a free pass on their greed and corruption, but look scornfully at the poor for their misdeeds, makes me think that the decay of our society runs deeper than anyone is willing to admit.
    It still doesn't change the fact that these businesses, welfare recipients, or whatever group you want, are just abiding by the laws and rules setup for them. There's no legitimate argument to be had to fault those people, but not also go after the people that made the rules in the first place. I haven't seen anyone here that supports this proposal explain the lack of outrage for the tax rule itself. Why?

    The U.S. could give competitive advantages to competitors of these companies that claim headquarters outside of the U.S. If Nike wants to claim off-shore tax havens then the U.S. should lessen burdens on its rivals that aren't claiming off-shore tax havens.

    Granted, the government is handcuffed by some of the red-koolaid drinkers that insist government should be small enough to be able to be "drowned in a bathtub". But what those simpletons don't realize is all they're doing is handing the keys over to big business. Next thing you know we'll have U.S. companies putting safety nets around their buildings because of Chinese-like oppressive working conditions.
    It's not the role of government to pick the winners and losers. Ideas like yours and others I've seen posted here are just more schemes where the government would do just that. As history has shown us, as long as this system of picking favorites exists, we'll never have true competition. I'm actually kinda surprised the idea of "leveling the playing field" hasn't been brought up because that's usually the reasoning for another government favoritism pick. My proposal would truly do that. Every other idea here so far would just change which businesses are in the government favor at the moment and perpetuate the exact problem the idea is meant to solve.

    As to your last paragraph, I'm done debating with you since you seem to need to resort to insults.
    08-04-2014 11:44 PM
  6. Farish's Avatar
    While I like the idea, labor costs and regulatory costs play a huge role in the decision to manufacturer in the US. Get a union involved and it becomes a headache no one wants to deal with. Almost everything is more expensive in the US when it comes to building a business.
    I don't think Unions will hamper things as they use to. The best example I give is the Japanese auto industry building automobiles in the United States. Majority of their plants aren't union and they give comparable pay and benefits.

    The lower tax rate will probably offset most of the costs. When Google own the Moto X, they proved that a U.S. based factory was feasible. Apple is doing the same with sapphire glass. State of Arizona gave them a 70 percent property tax break for getting that factory out there.

    Opportunities exist but long time Federal policy gets in the way and I say that with blaming both the Republicans and Democrats on this one. If Federal policy change to encourage to bring back 2-3 million jobs, you are going to see a lot of states fighting for those factories.
    08-04-2014 11:51 PM
  7. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Without getting into the details of the bill, it sounds like a generally Ok idea. It seems to merely be narrowing a loophole

    However, if it passes watch for the next large contract granted under the bill. Whoever gets that contract is guaranteed to be writing the proponents of the bill a fat check. O politics...
    08-04-2014 11:54 PM
  8. NoYankees44's Avatar
    The U.S. could give competitive advantages to competitors of these companies that claim headquarters outside of the U.S. If Nike wants to claim off-shore tax havens then the U.S. should lessen burdens on its rivals that aren't claiming off-shore tax havens.

    Granted, the government is handcuffed by some of the red-koolaid drinkers that insist government should be small enough to be able to be "drowned in a bathtub". But what those simpletons don't realize is all they're doing is handing the keys over to big business. Next thing you know we'll have U.S. companies putting safety nets around their buildings because of Chinese-like oppressive working conditions.
    If you honestly believe that the Democrats are not bought, paid for, and owned by the exact same people/corporations that the Republicans are, I can tell you that the blue kool-aid is much stronger than the red. Neither side cares about business or the people. They care about their reelection and their pocketbooks. Nothing more. Any claims to want to help someone is smoke up your dress.
    08-05-2014 12:03 AM
  9. rexxman's Avatar
    Businesses are not 'punished' if this change is enacted. Why? Because they will have a choice. Some will choose to lose their Federal contracts because they will make more $$ employing the business practice being discussed. Others will decide to conform because keeping Federal contracts will result in more $$.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-05-2014 03:46 AM
  10. SteveISU's Avatar
    I don't think Unions will hamper things as they use to. The best example I give is the Japanese auto industry building automobiles in the United States. Majority of their plants aren't union and they give comparable pay and benefits.

    The lower tax rate will probably offset most of the costs. When Google own the Moto X, they proved that a U.S. based factory was feasible. Apple is doing the same with sapphire glass. State of Arizona gave them a 70 percent property tax break for getting that factory out there.

    Opportunities exist but long time Federal policy gets in the way and I say that with blaming both the Republicans and Democrats on this one. If Federal policy change to encourage to bring back 2-3 million jobs, you are going to see a lot of states fighting for those factories.

    1. Go look at Boeing and ask them if Unions don't hamper things.
    2. The Texas plant shut down, how feasible was it?
    08-05-2014 08:56 AM
  11. Farish's Avatar
    1. Go look at Boeing and ask them if Unions don't hamper things.
    2. The Texas plant shut down, how feasible was it?
    Boeing has a generational union foundation that is hard for them to break. Many factories in the mid west have refused to unionize. I don't think the climate is like it was 20-30 years ago. It seems that it is much easier to build new factories without union involvement. Just have to wait and see.

    Moto X factory shut down for two reasons.

    New ownership and a lack of sales. They started out with making 100K phones a week and then sales took a big drop off.
    08-05-2014 09:19 AM
  12. SteveISU's Avatar
    Boeing has a generational union foundation that is hard for them to break. Many factories in the mid west have refused to unionize. I don't think the climate is like it was 20-30 years ago. It seems that it is much easier to build new factories without union involvement. Just have to wait and see.

    Moto X factory shut down for two reasons.

    New ownership and a lack of sales. They started out with making 100K phones a week and then sales took a big drop off.
    That all depends on what state in the Mid-West you're talking about. Your right the climate isn't the same as it was 30yrs ago, companies have to be smart to avoid those states.

    According to Motorola the deal with Lenovo had little to do with the plant closing, low sales and obvious manufacturing costs drove them to shut it down and move operations overseas. "The North American market was exceptionally tough" quote pretty much eluded to that.
    08-05-2014 09:37 AM
  13. A895's Avatar
    The only thing I got out of this thread so far is:

    1.) The bill itself has good intentions

    2.) Loopholes are A Ok

    3.) Don't start a business in America because money

    Posted via the Android Central App
    08-05-2014 03:14 PM
  14. anon8126715's Avatar
    It's not the role of government to pick the winners and losers. Ideas like yours and others I've seen posted here are just more schemes where the government would do just that. As history has shown us, as long as this system of picking favorites exists, we'll never have true competition. I'm actually kinda surprised the idea of "leveling the playing field" hasn't been brought up because that's usually the reasoning for another government favoritism pick. My proposal would truly do that. Every other idea here so far would just change which businesses are in the government favor at the moment and perpetuate the exact problem the idea is meant to solve.

    As to your last paragraph, I'm done debating with you since you seem to need to resort to insults.
    True competition doesn't exist when big business can buy all the politicians and help enact laws that favor them. Arguing the merits of pure capitalism (which doesn't exist btw) would be like trying to argue the merits of pure socialism or pure communism. I hate to break it to you but none of these systems work in the real world.
    08-05-2014 06:52 PM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    If you honestly believe that the Democrats are not bought, paid for, and owned by the exact same people/corporations that the Republicans are, I can tell you that the blue kool-aid is much stronger than the red. Neither side cares about business or the people. They care about their reelection and their pocketbooks. Nothing more. Any claims to want to help someone is smoke up your dress.
    I have no love for the Democrats with exception of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who's an independent, but because most of my opposition is towards the GOP (mostly for the hypocrisy of their base), most people will try to label me as a Democrat. What we need is a party that won't accept being bought, that is for campaign finance reform, and that doesn't have large single donor sources looking for representation of their special interests. Neither party (not even the libertarian party) have proven to be a good representative of mainstream America.
    08-05-2014 06:59 PM
  16. peacefulberry's Avatar
    I have no love for the Democrats with exception of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who's an independent, but because most of my opposition is towards the GOP (mostly for the hypocrisy of their base), most people will try to label me as a Democrat. What we need is a party that won't accept being bought, that is for campaign finance reform, and that doesn't have large single donor sources looking for representation of their special interests. Neither party (not even the libertarian party) have proven to be a good representative of mainstream America.
    You're right...and alot of these companies play both sides of the fence. They contribute to both parties to make sure that whoever wins will keep a lane open for their interests. You can see the millions that companies give here https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictu...php?cycle=2012
    A895, Aquila and nolittdroid like this.
    08-05-2014 07:15 PM
  17. anon8126715's Avatar
    You're right...and alot of these companies play both sides of the fence. They contribute to both parties to make sure that whoever wins will keep a lane open for their interests. You can see the millions that companies give here https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictu...php?cycle=2012
    I remember when the BP gulf coast explosion was happening, the GOP insisted that Obama was going soft on them because BP contributed a large amount of money to his campaign. What's funny (mostly sad though) is that BP contributed a large sum of money to McCain's campaign as well. Kind of sad that they can hedge their bets like that and still have more leverage than the average citizen regardless of which candidate wins.

    One form of finance reform I'd like to see is a law that forbids large entities and wealthy donors from contributing to both candidates in the same race.
    A895 likes this.
    08-05-2014 07:35 PM
  18. peacefulberry's Avatar
    I remember when the BP gulf coast explosion was happening, the GOP insisted that Obama was going soft on them because BP contributed a large amount of money to his campaign. What's funny (mostly sad though) is that BP contributed a large sum of money to McCain's campaign as well. Kind of sad that they can hedge their bets like that and still have more leverage than the average citizen regardless of which candidate wins.

    One form of finance reform I'd like to see is a law that forbids large entities and wealthy donors from contributing to both candidates in the same race.
    Yep. Our interests (the poor and middle class) are not a priority because we didn't give the big bucks. Politics is a career, and no one wants to be laid off. So most politicians will say/do anything to keep their "job". Once they get to the Senate/Congress they're good to go as the salaries are for life. It was reported that over half of congressmen/women are millionaires...what a surprise.
    A895 likes this.
    08-05-2014 07:45 PM
  19. anon8126715's Avatar
    Yep. Our interests (the poor and middle class) are not a priority because we didn't give the big bucks. Politics is a career, and no one wants to be laid off. So most politicians will say/do anything to keep their "job". Once they get to the Senate/Congress they're good to go as the salaries are for life. It was reported that over half of congressmen/women are millionaires...what a surprise.
    That's why it's so irritating to hear people trying to argue for big companies or the wealthy. I personally think they do it because they think that one day they'll be rich (which is one of the reasons you tend to see young hard headed males argue for all these policies while they're making $13.00 an hour working as a Geek Squad employee). I have faith in the GOP eventually alienating them though. Although typically when that happens, you'll hear about how that person has since become disillusioned and took out their frustrations via some mass gun shooting.
    A895 likes this.
    08-05-2014 07:56 PM
  20. Timelessblur's Avatar
    That's why it's so irritating to hear people trying to argue for big companies or the wealthy. I personally think they do it because they think that one day they'll be rich (which is one of the reasons you tend to see young hard headed males argue for all these policies while they're making $13.00 an hour working as a Geek Squad employee). I have faith in the GOP eventually alienating them though. Although typically when that happens, you'll hear about how that person has since become disillusioned and took out their frustrations via some mass gun shooting.

    I also find that many of the most hard headed GOP backers tend to fall into 2 groups.
    They are either old or they lack a college education.
    08-07-2014 10:31 AM
  21. anon8126715's Avatar
    I also find that many of the most hard headed GOP backers tend to fall into 2 groups.
    They are either old or they lack a college education.
    lol, well someone sent me an interesting article about IQs of both sides, and I'll have to admit that it helped stroke my ego a bit, but I'm betting the other side has their little surveys that paint the picture they'd much prefer.

    One thing that I really find irritating about the GOP and their general ilk is that they really back big business the way some people back big government. Big Business and their mantra of greed isn't the answer. Sure it was popular back in the 80s with the whole, "Greed is good" rally cry, but in the real world, unless you're an egocentric billionaire you have to realize the phrase "no man is an island unto himself" is about as true as it gets. Even the extremely wealthy, they didn't get there alone.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    08-07-2014 08:37 PM
46 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-16-2015, 12:21 PM
  2. Questions for someone who wants to root.
    By JellyJamStudios in forum Samsung Galaxy S5
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-04-2014, 01:04 AM
  3. How to change SD Card after moving apps using link2sd
    By Zenu Khas in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-04-2014, 12:24 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD