Actually, the last thing that I'd like to see happen is a repatriation of foreign profits. It's simple, the only way to stop the parabolic growth in the public sector is to starve the beast. Currently, it's not happening in any meaningful way as we have our beloved Fed doing their best to make the cost of borrowing cheap as dirt, thereby encouraging ridiculous amounts of spending. At some point in the not so distant future, it ends, whether the political shift is real (recent elections) or the political situation becomes so tenuous due to soaring commodity prices, gasoline prices and continued joblessness, the free for all orgy of borrow and spend will end. Ed Breen makes great points, as always, and I completely agree that business decisions are made in this day and age from a global perspective. It comes full circle to points that have been made about the workforce and employment as well. The cost of living in the US is still ridiculously high relative to other emerging, well-educated economies of the world. An employer can get the job done for many different types of work by paying someone a fraction of the cost for the same work. The corporation has similar options, especially with the Westernization of all of the emerging economies worldwide.
same viewpoint with these arguements: 1) tax cuts for the wealthy, was repackaged as beneficial to all through some idiot notion of trickle down 2) extending the Bush era tax cuts to all, even the wealthy because you don't raise taxes in a recession -- has merrit but added some reported $7 billion more to the deficit 3) tea baggers and other selectively righteously indignant zealots in wanting to shrink and reduce the debt and deficit but still wanted their tax cuts for the wealthy through extension of the Bush era tax cuts circular logic, no, we lived through that mess same too with your thesis, you starve the beast when its healthy not when its begging for its tax revenue / very life.... understand?
what about tax breaks for the wealthy (too) because it is fair? That's the main reason I support the idea.
Sure, I understand, but your line of reasoning falls into the divide and conquer mentality, which only preserves the status quo. It still comes down to the size and scope of the public sector and the influence it has upon the private sector. I don't really give two bits about whether they need the revenue, because we know exactly where that revenue gets siphoned off to. Many states just divert the money into legacy costs, funding of pension plans for their beholden public sector employees. Until the spending side of the equation is fixed, I see no rationale whatsoever to address the taxing side of the equation. I don't view this as a partisan issue, even though each and every time I make a comment that's all it turns into. Again, reduce the size and scope of the public sector, THEN address the issues with regards to where and how the increased tax revenue gets spent. Absolutely nothing, in a meaninful manner, has been adddressed on this front since the credit collapse 2+ years ago. The absolute bloodbath of state finances (not all states, but many of them) demands that this be addressed, I can only hope (it's a longshot) that we see some municipal defaults. It is THE ONLY THING that will change the mentality of borrow and spend and screw the next generation that we presently operate under.
Denny, nice post, good points. so many of us want, if not demand accountability, there are so many issues at stake, and defaults are one that so many states are already addressing. accountability, well, we are all well wishers there. partisian issues, well, that's why I crafted this thesis as an academic discussion from the Economic / Public Policy perspective instead of the political bantering that always occurs. the notion that is so often mentioned of morality of tax obligations being withheld because of where those funds will be used by the state lacks merrit because its the same argument used to justify: A) welfare and racism against the ..... (feel free to insert any group there). --- yeah, not going down that street other than to say the arguement goes like this: Food Stamps shouldn't be given out to the poor because they lack education and honesty and will only buy more vice (alcohol, drugs, etc.), whether or not their children suffer and their living standards leave much to be desired --- yeah, not going to give one's kids lunch money, because all they're going to do is buy candy and not lunch... B) similar arguments, but not inclined to waste time recalling them the notion that there isn't a moral obligation to pay taxes or in this case on the corporate discussion voluntarily decide to repatriate their profits because of ......whatever excuses are given in the media lacks merrit, especially when these same corporate C level executives are: a) citizens of the US b) have to step over the pheasants and common folks, even though the number keep growing c) that its in their own corporate and social best interest to start hiring after having been bailed out by TARP, which most persons never supported, as if they ever had a choice in the matter in the first place it always helps to stay on point, as always, feel free to choose the appropriate forum, and develop and research your on thesis and propose it on these threads. It will make interesting reading.
so far this thread has received sincere comments and inquiries and essentially been misdirected with thoughts of: 1) the immorality of paying taxes (based on what the states and federal governments would use those proceeds for) 2) the desire that others pay their taxes and somehow the tea-bagger's agenda would miraculously get accomplished 3) the notion that repatriation of profit from overseas operations was not required but voluntary inspite of how many benefits the US would receive by the full participation from those who reaped its benefits (provided by being a citizen or citizen corporation) 4) the notion that the US Dollar would improve substantially in world ranking by reducing the debt and deficit through such tax payments on repatriated funds, as not being a sufficient basis for the corporations electing to repatriate their profits 5) the notion that they as corporations could take advantage of their own buying power on US shores from those repatriated funds because they would incur taxation on that transaction, as not sufficient reason to repatriate those funds this thread was written to bring to light the ...itchy nature of these corproations (spelled with a capital B) in their childlike demands on expecting a special tax break just to repatriate such profits from overseas (irrespective of whether they were from combined, mixed or seperate oversea subsidiary actions at some point in time, all the benefits in our standards of living that these corporations have benfitted from, including having such a well trained employe base (based on the education, transportation and standard of living provisions available in the US). at some point, these corporations have to act like other good corporate citizens and other citizens have and support the US or expect that it won't be as strong as it needs to be in order to stay competitive in the global economy at some point.....
Limitdown, You have your cart in front of your horse. Why do you want to command, on any basis of justification, when you could simply arrange structures so that what you want would happen naturally? People of whatever ideaolgical bent would be advised to look at taxes on the basis of how to collect the maximum necessary revenue at the least distortion of economic activity, instead of looking at it though confused and dysfunctional lenses of social justice, morality, or rent seeking. If you would pretend to know better, it would be better, if you knew better.
all B Schools teach tax avoidance as the preferred method to show competency of office, presuming one achieves C level status. I am not sure what you were saying or trying to say, other than the above statement. What issues are being faced by all citizens of the US, whether entities as corporations, persons, municipalities or otherwise remains whether or not to fold up shop and seek better shares in another market or continue to participate in this market. what was forced upon the American taxpayers were the costs of TARP and other associated bailout and corporate welfare supports. what continues to be demanded by same, are both restitution and participation from such non-human entities (corporations, etc.) whether or not these expectations seem idealistic, idiological or otherwise, many different groups have expressed their frustration with having had these unscripted indentures forced upon them during the Bush II / Federal Reserve administrations and fully expect significant and substantial restitution. call them tea-baggers, idealists or other as-yet-to-be-formed groups, those expectations are growing in loud audible terms can't fight the tides turning against the corporate abuses to the system, when the system needs all the supports and participation it is due..... I not the issue, nor problem.....
benefits including unemployment , food stamps, school lunches and welfare should have a work requirement. before getting into a frenzy about requiring children to work let me suggest they have to report for study hall in order to receive benefits. watch the demand for these benefits plummet once there is a work requirement. as to taxing overseas profits of american companies we will soon not have american companies as corporations incorporate under flags of convenience. shipping companies are particularly adept at using this tactic.