[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Christ, after the meltdown and losses companies had, the lack of taxes paid might just be carried over losses from previous years. [/quote]
One of the links previously posted (to point out Corps pay no tax) mentions one of the examples is exactly this. I can’t remember which company it was though.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Christ, after the meltdown and losses companies had, the lack of taxes paid might just be carried over losses from previous years. [/quote]
One of the links previously posted (to point out Corps pay no tax) mentions one of the examples is exactly this. I can’t remember which company it was though. [/quote]
For those who always want evil corporations to pay more taxes, I’ve got a question for you:
Would you rather have a corporation pay half their profits in taxes, or use that money to double their workforce through job creation?
And is it safe to assume anti-Capitalists don’t own equities?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The irony is that you’re the professor and people like CB and usmccds are Rodney Dangerfield.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The irony is that you’re the professor and people like CB and usmccds are Rodney Dangerfield.
[/quote]
I think you don’t know me very well 
I would have no Corporations pay taxes in Pittsville , That way all corporations would be on equal footing . I would how ever limit the amount that a Corporation could shelter . I might consider taxing at the whole sale level , that way I could tax foreign Corporations the same level I tax American corps but all exports would be tax free
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would how ever limit the amount that a Corporation could shelter . [/quote]
What do you mean?
How do you think foreign governments will react to your plan?
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Christ, after the meltdown and losses companies had, the lack of taxes paid might just be carried over losses from previous years. [/quote]
One of the links previously posted (to point out Corps pay no tax) mentions one of the examples is exactly this. I can’t remember which company it was though. [/quote]
GM: GM Could Be Free of Taxes for Years - WSJ
GE: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
[/quote]
Perfect examples.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would how ever limit the amount that a Corporation could shelter . [/quote]
What do you mean?
How do you think foreign governments will react to your plan? [/quote]
What Pitt doesn’t know is that domestic income is withheld (unless there is a treaty in place) at a flat 35% for foreign entities.
SO unless these entities register and file with the US, putting them on equal taxation footing with domestic entities, they are actually taxed at a significantly higher effective rate than their domestic counterparts.
But… Lets just pretend we’re all Pitt and don’t know taxation so we can make up “feel good” rules, even though they are already in place.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would how ever limit the amount that a Corporation could shelter . [/quote]
What do you mean?
How do you think foreign governments will react to your plan? [/quote]
What Pitt doesn’t know is that domestic income is withheld (unless there is a treaty in place) at a flat 35% for foreign entities.
SO unless these entities register and file with the US, putting them on equal taxation footing with domestic entities, they are actually taxed at a significantly higher effective rate than their domestic counterparts.
But… Lets just pretend we’re all Pitt and don’t know taxation so we can make up “feel good” rules, even though they are already in place. [/quote]
The trick is the multinationals take their profits offshore. If the US would lower its corporate tax rate the multinations would keep more of this money in the US.
GE is looking to aquire in Europe because they cannot bring their money to the US. How does that help the US?
It is a messed up system and the “fix” many push for would make it worse.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
The trick is the multinationals take their profits offshore.[/quote]
In that instance they have already paid the tax on that domestic income then.
If you’re referring to transfer pricing to keep profits in tax friendly jurisdictions, then that money needs to stay over-seas or else it will be taxed.
ehh, there are ways around it without lowering the rate. But in general, yes, a change in the tax code would likely result in growth at home.
Helps the lawyers and accountants that work tirelessly to ensure the US income doesn’t become subject to European tax.
And they COULD bring it home, but why lose 35-40% of it, when you can just keep it foreign and keep much more?
Agree it is complex. Which fix are you referring to?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
The trick is the multinationals take their profits offshore.[/quote]
In that instance they have already paid the tax on that domestic income then.
If you’re referring to transfer pricing to keep profits in tax friendly jurisdictions, then that money needs to stay over-seas or else it will be taxed.
Agree it is complex. Which fix are you referring to?[/quote]
I am talking about companies keeping their money off shore permanantly as they cannot bring it back as it is subject to US tax.
Say my company gets an order for goods, we may handle the order from the US but keep the profit in the other country and use that profit to grow our capabilities in the other country. Next time we sell something we may run the whole thing from the other country with little or no money returning to the US. It is exporting jobs to protect margin.
I refer to the raise taxes, no loophole philosphy.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
I am talking about companies keeping their money off shore permanantly as they cannot bring it back as it is subject to US tax.
Say my company gets an order for goods, we may handle the order from the US but keep the profit in the other country and use that profit to grow our capabilities in the other country. Next time we sell something we may run the whole thing from the other country with little or no money returning to the US. [/quote]
Your conflating a couple different things, but yes in the macro sense you are 100% correct.
Repatriation costs 35% of your money.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But again in a general sense you are correct.
I agree that approach is stupid.
The “loopholes” (god I hate that term) are few and far between when it comes to foreign income earned by a domestic entity, and even fewer when it comes to a foreign entity earning domestic income. So most talk you hear as it relates to offshore funds and “loopholes” is relative hotair.
Note on repatriation:
You DO get a credit in the US for taxes paid to another jurisdiction up to the percentage you would have paid had you earned the income in the US. Foreign tax rules are complex, please consult your tax adviser.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
I am talking about companies keeping their money off shore permanantly as they cannot bring it back as it is subject to US tax.
Say my company gets an order for goods, we may handle the order from the US but keep the profit in the other country and use that profit to grow our capabilities in the other country. Next time we sell something we may run the whole thing from the other country with little or no money returning to the US. [/quote]
Your conflating a couple different things, but yes in the macro sense you are 100% correct.
Repatriation costs 35% of your money.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But again in a general sense you are correct.
I agree that approach is stupid.
The “loopholes” (god I hate that term) are few and far between when it comes to foreign income earned by a domestic entity, and even fewer when it comes to a foreign entity earning domestic income. So most talk you hear as it relates to offshore funds and “loopholes” is relative hotair. [/quote]
I may be conflating things wrt tax laws (I am not an accountant and by your name assume you are) but I have first hand experience and awareness of this happening. Tax laws are a primary driver of the decisions that are sending work that has tradionally been done in the US overseas.
The higher productivity of the US worker typically overcomes the higher costs but taxes (whether corporate income or others) are often the differentiator when decisions are made.
Working in a multinational environment I know how easy it is to not have the money made overseas be shown as an earning. The US based costs are covered and the rest of the money just stays overseas.