Cuban: tax inversions threat to US

[thereisnospoon]

They move this money offshore because the taxes are too high and the codes too onerous. If they would lower the tax rates and simplify the rules less companies would be doing this. Of course, the underlying question is why people think the government is entitled to any of this money in the first place.

In his weekly radio and internet broadcast Obama touched on this issue. He did in fact state that corporate taxes were too high and that was on reason for this process to take place.
Obama also stated that correcting this was not a priority right now.
Obama Takes Aim at 'Unpatriotic' Corporate Inversions | Fox Business...
Once again, POTUS is outside his purview.
Obama says 'unpatriotic"....He wants Congress to stop it....
Guess what...These companies will move the whole thing out of the country to avoid the confiscatory taxation on business

 

[Stephanie]

They move this money offshore because the taxes are too high and the codes too onerous. If they would lower the tax rates and simplify the rules less companies would be doing this. Of course, the underlying question is why people think the government is entitled to any of this money in the first place.

In his weekly radio and internet broadcast Obama touched on this issue. He did in fact state that corporate taxes were too high and that was on reason for this process to take place.
Obama also stated that correcting this was not a priority right now.
Obama Takes Aim at 'Unpatriotic' Corporate Inversions | Fox Business...
Once again, POTUS is outside his purview.
Obama says 'unpatriotic"....He wants Congress to stop it....
Guess what...These companies will move the whole thing out of the country to avoid the confiscatory taxation on business

that's probably what he wants...he never has our best interest at heart...
he is one ugly American who can't find one damn thing he finds good with us
Everything is wrong, we are all bad, they didn't build that, we are racist, blah blah blah

 

[Plasmaball]

Unless you're an investor putting up your own capital, someone else's salary is none of your business.

sure it is, when they are crying about minimum wages going up and how it will hurt them, yet the next week they give themselves a raise or a million dollar bonus.

And that makes their salary your business how? What's your salary?

That argument isnt going to fly here.

Of course it will. More will agree with me than you because normal people don't lie awake at night in seething jealousy over what other people have.

Of course you are trying to back me into a corner where you think that i think that CEO's shouldnt make a lot of money...ill let you continue off your assumptions for the fun of it

Whether you think they should or not is of no difference to me. I'm just pointing out that it's none of your business. When you become an investor in their company then it's your business. Until that point, it's not. Just like what I make is none of your business and what you make is none of mine. Stop being jealous over what other people have. It's not healthy.

my salary is based on what i work. i dont care if you know what i make. i make about 20 an hour.

i sleep just fine. So far you are playing all the right cards.

and more of the same....good job, you didnt disappoint.

 

[thereisnospoon]

They move this money offshore because the taxes are too high and the codes too onerous. If they would lower the tax rates and simplify the rules less companies would be doing this. Of course, the underlying question is why people think the government is entitled to any of this money in the first place.

Oh horse shit. If a company wants to do business in the largest consumer market in the world, protected by the largest military in the world, there is a price. The price is that the company pay the taxes that they are obligated to pay. To avoid those taxes while still playing in the American market is bullshit.

They don't want to pay taxes, let them get out of the American market.

If every true American (this doesn't include you) would take Cubans advice and boycott the product of any company avoiding their taxes, you know what. That lack of business would all the sudden overcome any tax avoidance scheme they could come up with.

It is only because there are no negative repercussions that companies keep doing this shit.
Well that and the support of people like you.

You don't get it. You don't want to get it...
The taxes on business are TOO HIGH.....
If Congress does this, expect lots of jobs to be lost as these companies will relocate. And guess what? They will continue to do business here.
BTW, who told you there is some kind of 'participation fee"?
That's like saying "oh, thanks for doing business here. Now we will punish you."
BTW, Cuban is correct. However, no amount of public shaming is going to change a thing,. Business will continue to find ways around unjustly high taxes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I hope it passes.....we also need to be boycotting these businesses that do the tax avoision scheme..

you do realize that the more corporations are taxed.....you the consumer pay for it....?

You do realize that you are stupid as a box of rocks if you think any company is going to lower its price to the consumer because they (the corporation) don't pay taxes.

you must be crazy if you think we the consumers, who are also tax payers, aren't carrying the tax load for the corporations that aren't paying their taxes.

Dude...Get the bat off your shoulder..Weak effort.
Circular logic or mind checkers gets you no mileage here.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You do realize that you are stupid as a box of rocks if you think any company is going to lower its price to the consumer because they (the corporation) don't pay taxes.

you must be crazy if you think we the consumers, who are also tax payers, aren't carrying the tax load for the corporations that aren't paying their taxes.

You're so out of touch with reality it's almost not worth the time to even tell you.

Dude, you want to argue my points, lets hear your thoughts. Right now it sounds like your head is in your ass. And I can't hear you.

And you accuse the OP of having no response.
Holy shit....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Dude I ain't reading your crack head treatise. You want to address my points?

Will any company lower it's price for its goods or services if their taxes are lowered?

And why should any company get to play in the largest consumer market in the WORLD and not pay their taxes?

You want to give this a try or go back to insults?

You miss the point because you're limited on economics.


100% yes, many companies, or 99% of business's would lower costs of products, just not how you understand it.

Lets say you avoid taxes and only pay 9% taxes, the rest is off shores... Then you get cracked down on by a bunch of economically ignorant lemmings.... Then you go to 29% taxes. What do you think will happen to the cost of products in that business being sold to the public? Do you think the costs will go up or down?

Will companies simply lower prices if they get tax cuts they didn't receive before? no... But that's because for most companies the price already matches the level in which they they are taxed at currently.


And no, I don't like the idea of taxing people to maintain a bankrupt country's military. Maybe the country should live within it's means like the business owner has to.


Taxes are like min wage... They both make everything cost more the higher they get, yet everyone stays just as poor and in the current economic case, poorer.

Just come out and say you ain't touching those questions.

The topic was large corporations using off shore methods to avoid paying their taxes.

Not tax rates. Or small mom and pop companies.

What you are saying is that you are fine with these huge corporations making billions off of doing business in the USA and using tax avoidance schemes that the small business man can only dream of.

Isn't that great. The individual and the small business person gets to carry their own tax loan and also a portion of the tax load the the big corporations avoided.

And you are good with that. Screw that I say.

If they want to do business in the USA, they pay their taxes. If they can lobby hard enough and long enough that the US Congress absolves them of any tax liability, then ....oh well.

Wow...
But for the 35% corp income tax, there would be no point to this discussion.

 

[Stephanie]

this coming from a man (the great Obama) who never owned a company or had a real job in his pampered life

but he is an expert in everything while an expert in nothing

he's a scary person in my book and we need to be scared about who is pulling his stings

 

[Star]

you do realize that the more corporations are taxed.....you the consumer pay for it....?

You do realize that you are stupid as a box of rocks if you think any company is going to lower its price to the consumer because they (the corporation) don't pay taxes.

you must be crazy if you think we the consumers, who are also tax payers, aren't carrying the tax load for the corporations that aren't paying their taxes.

Dude...Get the bat off your shoulder..Weak effort.
Circular logic or mind checkers gets you no mileage here.

California voters/taxpayers took the bat off their shoulder and knocked it outta the park, now what dude/dudette?

Republicans talk about it a lot so it should be easy for Republicans to point out where low wages and cutting taxes have caused an economic boom but-----but they seem to be unable to point to any empirical examples. It only took two years after California voters emasculated the Republican party for...
California ends fiscal year with cash for first time in seven years -- "...cash balance of $1.9 billion."

"...the state controller's office collected $101.6 billion in revenue, or 2.1 percent more than Governor Jerry Brown had projected in his January budget release. Personal income taxes totaled $66.2 billion, or 2.6 percent higher than expected. Corporate taxes hit $8.5 billion, 9.3 percent higher, and retail sales and use taxes reached $22.2 billion, 1.8 percent more than expected."


Left Coast Rising

JULY 24, 2014

Paul Krugman


The states, Justice Brandeis famously pointed out, are the laboratories of democracy. And it’s still true. For example, one reason we knew or should have known that Obamacare was workable was the post-2006 success of Romneycare in Massachusetts. More recently, Kansas went all-in on supply-side economics, slashing taxes on the affluent in the belief that this would spark a huge boom; the boom didn’t happen, but the budget deficit exploded, offering an object lesson to those willing to learn from experience.

And there’s an even bigger if less drastic experiment under way in the opposite direction. California has long suffered from political paralysis, with budget rules that allowed an increasingly extreme Republican minority to hamstring a Democratic majority; when the state’s housing bubble burst, it plunged into fiscal crisis. In 2012, however, Democratic dominance finally became strong enough to overcome the paralysis, and Gov. Jerry Brown was able to push through a modestly liberal agenda of higher taxes, spending increases and a rise in the minimum wage. California also moved enthusiastically to implement Obamacare.

I guess we’re not in Kansas anymore. (Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.)

Needless to say, conservatives predicted doom.

<snip>

If tax increases are causing a major flight of jobs from California, you can’t see it in the job numbers. Employment is up 3.6 percent in the past 18 months, compared with a national average of 2.8 percent; at this point, California’s share of national employment, which was hit hard by the bursting of the state’s enormous housing bubble, is back to pre-recession levels.

On health care, some people — basically healthy young men who were getting inexpensive insurance on the individual market and were too affluent to receive subsidies — did face premium increases, which we always knew would happen. Over all, however, the costs of health reform came in below expectations, while enrollment came in well above — more than triple initial predictions in the San Francisco area. A recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund suggests that California has already cut the percentage of its residents without health insurance in half. What’s more, all indications are that further progress is in the pipeline, with more insurance companies entering the marketplace for next year.
And, yes, the budget is back in surplus.

Has there been any soul-searching among the prophets of California doom, asking why they were so wrong? Not that I’m aware of.

<snip>

So what do we learn from the California comeback? Mainly, that you should take anti-government propaganda with large helpings of salt. Tax increases aren’t economic suicide; sometimes they’re a useful way to pay for things we need. Government programs, like Obamacare, can work if the people running them want them to work, and if they aren’t sabotaged from the right. In other words, California’s success is a demonstration that the extremist ideology still dominating much of American politics is nonsense.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Some info about inversions in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/363732-tax-shopping-for-or-against.html

It helps to understand the issue, nutters.

 

[Stephanie]

that is like a press release from Rooters/Reuters..oh wait, it's Paul Krugman no wonder..so because he wrote it does it mean we are suppose to believe it?

go move there you think it's such a paradise...don't water your lawns though, the gumberment want's you to snitch on your neighbors

 

[Toro]

I am counsel to a number of corporations that operate domestically and abroad. Without question, their foremost bane is a federal tax and regulatory scheme which all but invites U.S.-based corporations to move headquarters and production operations overseas, or to engage in an "inversion."

As for "collateral damage," in addition to tax revenues and jobs being lost in this country, R&D often goes overseas, thus further damaging U.S. technological competitiveness.

While there are many good ideas that could remedy this situation, reducing the corporate tax rate to no more than 15% to 18% not only would keep U.S. corporations in this country, but might even lower foreign corporations—a "reverse inversion flow," if you will. Some may claim that if countries keep lowering their tax rates to attract businesses, it will be a "race to the bottom." Well, welcome to the global economy.

Stop Inversions, Help the Economy With Better Tax Law ? Letters to the Editor - WSJ

 

[LeftofLeft]

I hope it passes.....we also need to be boycotting these businesses that do the tax avoision scheme..

you do realize that the more corporations are taxed.....you the consumer pay for it....?

You do realize that you are stupid as a box of rocks if you think any company is going to lower its price to the consumer because they (the corporation) don't pay taxes.

you must be crazy if you think we the consumers, who are also tax payers, aren't carrying the tax load for the corporations that aren't paying their taxes.

Equally stupid is the position Liberals take that if a corporation pays highest taxes in the world, is accountable to unlimited liability, pays the highest wages in the world, and is subject to the most stringent government regulations in the world, that 1) Companies won't pass on those costs to consumers 2) when companies in India, China, and Russia lower their prices because they don't have the same taxes and regulations, US companies will outright cut jobs or at least offshore them to lower costs and be competitive.

The answer is to level the playing field globally and let the Market decide.

 

[whitehall]

Count on the Obama administration and it's affiliates in the media to go after the easy target when domestic and foreign policy is falling apart. It's so transparent that it is laughable. We have a diseased hoard of illegal aliens flooding the borders, a dozen scandals and the mid east is in flames as we abandon our embassy in Libya after we set the muslem brotherhood in power....and the administration thinks corporate tax dodges are the problem.

 

[blackhawk]

I would not be surprised in the least if Cuban has some money somewhere off shore he would not be the first person to say one thing and do another.