Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

Re: Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

Postby Tero » Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:10 pm

Oops, jobs going abroad. Trump did not read that part. He did not read any of it.
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/1 ... y-closures?
User avatar
Tero
Just saying
 
Posts: 21916
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
Location: USA
About me: Something something birds

Re: Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

Postby Forty Two » Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:17 pm

Tero wrote:Oops, jobs going abroad. Trump did not read that part. He did not read any of it.
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/1 ... y-closures?


The Daily Kos, that's an unbiased source if I ever saw one. I'm sure you'll be taken to task soon by certain members of the forum who demand only neutral, unbiased sources be linked and referenced. It's dishonest to refer to biased sources, I'm told.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9699
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

Postby Tero » Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:41 pm

Prove that the taxis NOT cut to half abroad.
User avatar
Tero
Just saying
 
Posts: 21916
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
Location: USA
About me: Something something birds

Re: Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

Postby L'Emmerdeur » Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:03 pm

From Forbes:

Critics say the tax law will send factories and jobs abroad: "Under the new law, income made by American companies’ overseas subsidiaries will face United States taxes that are half the rate applied to their domestic income, 10.5 percent compared with the new top corporate rate of 21 percent. 'It’s sort of an America-last tax policy,' said Kimberly Clausing, an economist at Reed College in Portland, Ore., who studies tax policy. 'We are basically saying that if you earn in the U.S., you pay X, and if you earn abroad, you pay X divided by two.' What could be more dangerous for American workers, economists said, is that the bill ends up creating a tax break for manufacturers with foreign operations. Under the new rules, beyond the lower rate, companies will not have to pay United States taxes on the money they earn from plants or equipment located abroad, if those earnings amount to 10 percent or less of the total investment."
User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!

Re: Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

Postby Forty Two » Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:31 pm

Tero wrote:Prove that the taxis NOT cut to half abroad.


Image
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9699
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

Postby Forty Two » Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:47 pm

That's a massive misunderstanding of that particular tax. We're talking about overseas subsidiaries of American companies earning money overseas -- in other jurisdictions. Those other jurisdictions tax that income. So, the US IRS would not double tax the income if it was taxed in another jurisdiction. So, the companies were going overseas to take advantage of lower rates in other countries. The US was at 35% and they could go to an Asian country and pay a fraction of that, AND not pay anything to the IRS.

So, the law establishes a 10.5% minimum tax rate. Companies still get to take a tax credit of 80% of the taxes they pay to foreign governments. But if the total comes to less than 10.5% of income earned abroad, they have to write a check to the IRS for the difference.

Thus, the tax now requires a payment on overseas income to the US government where it did not require that payment before. And, it's structured in a way that companies are paying it to the American government, instead of a foreign government.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9699
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

Postby L'Emmerdeur » Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:55 pm

Forty Two wrote:That's a massive misunderstanding of that particular tax. We're talking about overseas subsidiaries of American companies earning money overseas -- in other jurisdictions. Those other jurisdictions tax that income. So, the US IRS would not double tax the income if it was taxed in another jurisdiction. So, the companies were going overseas to take advantage of lower rates in other countries. The US was at 35% and they could go to an Asian country and pay a fraction of that, AND not pay anything to the IRS.


That isn't how it worked, according to the Tax Policy Center. A multinational in the US paid no tax on income earned in other countries only as long as that income was not repatriated.

The federal government taxes US resident multinational firms on their worldwide income at the same rates applied to domestic firms; the current maximum tax rate—the rate that applies to most corporate income—is 35 percent. US multinationals may claim a credit for taxes paid to foreign governments on income earned abroad, but only up to their US tax liability on that income. Firms may, however, take advantage of cross-crediting, using excess credits from income earned in high-tax countries to offset US tax due on income earned in low-tax countries.

US multinationals generally pay tax on the income of their foreign subsidiaries only when they repatriate the income, a delay of taxation termed “deferral.” Deferral, the credit limitation, and cross-crediting all provide strong incentives for firms to shift income from the United States and other high-tax countries to low-tax countries.

Suppose, for example, a US-based multinational firm facing the 35 percent maximum corporate income tax rate earns $800 in profits in its Irish subsidiary (figure 1). The 12.5 percent Irish corporate tax reduces the after-tax profit to $700. Suppose the firm then repatriates $70 of this profit and reinvests the remaining $630 in its Irish operations. The firm must then pay US tax on a base of $80 (the $70 plus the $10 in Irish tax paid on that portion of its profits), or $28, but it claims a credit for the $10 Irish tax, leaving a net US tax of $18. If the firm has excess foreign tax credits from operations in high-tax countries, it can offset more (or possibly all) of the US tax due on its repatriated Irish profit. Meanwhile, deferral allows the remaining profit ($630) to grow abroad, free of US income tax until it is repatriated.


The problem for multinationals was that they couldn't use the income earned overseas for paying dividends and buying back stock unless they were willing to pay US taxes when they did so. They found ways around that (using the overseas money as collateral for loans which were then used to pay dividends for instance) but still kept the money overseas, often registering the income in tax havens like Grand Cayman. The US taxes were 'deferred' by doing so; in practice this 'deferral' was indefinite. The multinationals were betting that at some point they'd get a break on the taxes on this income (as they have in the past) and the new tax code did just that, as well as giving them a very large reduction on any offshore income they earn in the future. In effect, this is nothing but an incentive for multinationals to continue to shift investment offshore.

'How the Tax Plan Will Send Jobs Overseas'

As discussed in my previous Atlantic piece, the GOP plan was rumored to use only a 10 percent minimum tax, and to make it worse, would make the minimum tax determination based on the average of a company’s total global profits. What was problematic about this design was that it not only encouraged companies to move profits to tax havens, but it actually encouraged them to simultaneously move jobs and operations such as manufacturing to industrialized countries that had typical tax rates and to shift more profits to tax havens. Why? Because if you had $100 million of profits in Bermuda facing no tax, you might have still had to pay $10 million in U.S. taxes to meet the new global minimum tax. But if you moved a factory to Germany that made $100 million and paid 20 percent in taxes there, you could still pay zero on your profits in Bermuda because the average taxes paid on your global profits (from both Bermuda and Germany) would be the global minimum rate of 10 percent. This perverse design means the more a U.S. multinational shifts jobs and operations to industrialized nations with similar tax rates to the U.S., the more it can get away with shifting more and more profits to tax havens.
User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!

Previous

Return to News, Current Events & Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests