Chef Jim Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 That doesn't seem fair to me either. I agree. I do think we could get a lot of friggin' millions if not billions back from companies cheating and stashing cash in other countries just to avoid taxes they rightfully owe. And I applaud the efforts of this administration for going after them. This, however, seems wrong and wrongheaded. Well there is some tax avoidance going on too. There was an article in the SF Chronicle this week I think that mentioned some big Silicon Valley CEOs that were big fans of Obama where not big fans of this. That tells you something. It tells you they may like Obama but they looooooove money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Salaries in Bangalore http://www.payscale.com/research/IN/City=Bangalore/Salary Salaries in Buffalo http://www.payscale.com/research/US/City=Buffalo/Salary Of those who work for employer type "Company" the median salaries are Bangalore 509,185 Rupees = $10,304 Buffalo = $50,690 Gonna need a 40k tax break (plus the cost of whatever benefits the American gets that the Indian doesn't) to offset the savings of outsourcing to India Makes a nice sound byte tho. But Obama always does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 For those seeking a better understanding of the issue, here is an article (an opinion piece, to be sure, but good nonetheless) Journal Opinion Piece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWVABillsFan Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Last I knew, employees had to vote on whether to unionize. It has nothing to do with a president. Other than this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 You want to goose the economy, for real? Offer U.S. companies a one-time 6 month window where they can repatriate overseas dollars tax-free provided the money goes to create jobs or in capital investment. Watch how fast the economy rockets forward for 5 years off that little 6 month window. Of course, then the gov't would not have control over where the money was spent.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 You want to goose the economy, for real? Offer U.S. companies a one-time 6 month window where they can repatriate overseas dollars tax-free provided the money goes to create jobs or in capital investment. Watch how fast the economy rockets forward for 5 years off that little 6 month window. Of course, then the gov't would not have control over where the money was spent.... You mean like the one year foreign tax cut that the unmentionable administration put in place in '06 or '07 that more than doubled corporate tax receipts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 You mean like the one year foreign tax cut that the unmentionable administration put in place in '06 or '07 that more than doubled corporate tax receipts? That was just to "line the pockets" of Bush's "oil buddies". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Thanks. That doesn't seem right or very fair then, IF they are not banking it now. But if they are just using it to pass around money between their varied businesses as a loophole to avoid paying taxes then I don't see a problem with it. On the surface, if what you are saying is true, it seems like a mistake. I agree. But - to play devil's advocate - I'm sure that some tax lawyers have figured out how to game the system in particular situations, thereby undermining an otherwise reasonable policy. That is inevitable wherever there are laws and regulations. So the real issue IMO is to address any loopholes, not slam the approach and business in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 You mean like the one year foreign tax cut that the unmentionable administration put in place in '06 or '07 that more than doubled corporate tax receipts? Thats the one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I agree. But - to play devil's advocate - I'm sure that some tax lawyers have figured out how to game the system in particular situations, thereby undermining an otherwise reasonable policy. That is inevitable wherever there are laws and regulations. So the real issue IMO is to address any loopholes, not slam the approach and business in general. So what you're saying is the government (the regulators) should be doing their jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Here's an article from this morning with more on what the Silicon Valley execs think of the plan. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned lawmakers Tuesday that they should be consistent. "If you want to increase spending, then you have to be willing to accept the tax increases and the consequences that may have for growth and efficiency," Bernanke said. "If you want to have low taxes, then you have to be willing to accept and find program cuts that will match the two." Lawmakers have to be warned of this? How this country has lasted as long as it has is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 So what you're saying is the government (the regulators) should be doing their jobs? Not neccessarily. The regulators may be doing it fine and to the letter of the law, for all I know. When you make laws, you make them with some idea in mind. Then people in the real world figure out unintended ways to take advantage. That's not the regulators fault - they are there to apply the laws and regulations, not make ethical judgements. It's not the IRS auditors job to decide whether you ought to be claiming a deduction in your circumstances, only whether the claim is legitimate. Nor is it the KFC checkout person's job to decide whether I ought to receive my third free meal in as many days. His job is only to verify that my printed coupon applies. If KFC corporate doesn't like it, it is up to them to change the program. Don't blame people like me for taking advantage. So I am saying that if some companies have a money-shuffling way to take advantage of the laws, it is the lawmakers who should bare the blame and be responsible for fixing their legislation to better accomplish what they intended. If there is a loophole, close it. Blaming a company for taking advantage of it is nothing but demagogary, as is blaming the idea behind the original legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 But, but, but...you mean, if we have to pay higher taxes, we'll have to cut jobs to stay competitive? Ooops. http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/artic...set=&ccode= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 But, but, but...you mean, if we have to pay higher taxes, we'll have to cut jobs to stay competitive? Ooops. http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/artic...set=&ccode= Fightin for the common man by making those big bad corporations pay more taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 But, but, but...you mean, if we have to pay higher taxes, we'll have to cut jobs to stay competitive? Ooops. http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/artic...set=&ccode= Which is why I"m not worried about this proposal, but the one after this. There's no way this makes it out of Congress, considering the huge hit that Obama's CA patrons would take. But by sounding tough now, then backing away, he'll have positioned himself for another tax grab. Get ready for the Internet sales tax folks. (Although conceptually, I'm not against that one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 That was just to "line the pockets" of Bush's "oil buddies". Did you take a look at fuel prices, you can't say that somebody's pocket wasn't line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts