We have to design to standards desigbed to accommodate the Chesapeake bay watershed even though we are in the mon-ohio watershed. Simply because pa standards are written in Harrisburg and the dep in western pa wont differentiate.
The simple reason why corporations are keeping money overseas
- Thread starter Airport
- Start date
I figured you'd blame American workers for demanding better pay. Or the consumer for demanding lower prices. Your Social Darwinist attitude is about 80 years outdated. The "haves" and "have nots"???? Really? When you have people in this nation having to pay $50,000-100,000 (or more) to get a basic education degree just so that they can look for a job in their field and then settle for a $9/hour job at Best Buy or Walmart....then you have a problem. And people are having to pay $250 to have a tooth pulled......or $500 to go to the emergency room to simply have the doctor on call see them for 15 minutes to say "take two of these".....you have a problem.
But, yeah, the "haves" are better.
And when will that trickle-down stuff start working? It's been since the Coolidge administration...and I'm still waiting...
No they do not change agendas. The underlings, the permanent employees, are primarily democrat. They want a bloated government, afterall. Best and brightest!
No kidding. The trillions we have spent in social programs haven't made the issues any smaller.
You just don't understand real lif vs utopia. The gap in wealth now is the highest it's been since the 20's. We had more socialist programs that keep people down and the rich make sure that thye can take care of the loopholes that Congress writes for them. Giving school loans for Art teachers is a waste of time. Doing away with all deductions and special loopholes and getting to a simple tax code that doesn't require you to hire somebody to do your tax return is a good start. By the way, I'm a dentist, how many people do you employ? Do you maintain an office? Do you pay taxes on that property? While it doesn't cost $250 to get a simple extraction in my office, I bet you would be happy to pay it if you needed it.
All you do is make stupid remarks about people. I have yet to see you propose anything that isn't already being doesn't actually hurt the economy. What do you do for a living?
Because you all say the stupidest stuff. The government is made up of mostly democrats that want big government? That's idiotic. Here's a newsflash for you; there's no box that gets checked on an employment application for the federal government where the applicant indicates he or she is a democrat or a republican. Get rid of the EPA, the IRS, etc. Yes, that's idiotic. I could go on and on. And most of the time, it's just you guys repeating some stupid nonsense you have heard on Fox "news". Now you all are applauding Americans for hiding their money in off-shore bank accounts and evading taxes. Come on. Yes, that's stupid.
I could propose some great ideas but the ideas would be criticized or complimented, according to party lines, on this forum. It's the same ole same ole. This forum is starting to get old, that's why I have posted less and less. I'll check from time to time to see if you all are really having meaningful conversations where you debate things, back and forth, but that hasn't happened lately. And dave is the worst about just simple name calling rather than offering something meaningful and thought out.
Can you substantiate anything you offered in that post? Presidents do appoint the coordinators in agency law. The direction is changed to support the agenda of the president. No change at IRS, but the coordinator took the 5th rather than respond to congressional hearing. Did she simply chose to not enter into a discussion that day?
"Regulations are meant for the good of entire societies". Who decides the good? In this administration, it is little left wing groups with many names that would suggest good vs evil.
What is your proof about the guy in Charleston who is on trial for 29 deaths? He may be guilty as you proffer, but what is your proof? Even in Agency Law, we still go by the Constitution with oversight.
So offered by a loser, IMO. What do you offer that gives you the right to choose who or what is correct and a winning position on the board without some discussion.
Dave is normally a little advanced and makes short offerings that are a bit difficult to misunderstand the meaning.
And yes , I do not have the right to unilaterally choose you as a loser, but I do qualify by stating it is my opinion - not to be mistaken as a fact.
You all say the stupidest stuff. I told you why they, corporations, leave it and why. Come back with a reason for them to bring it home and make it available to improve lives. So far, you haven't. I never said that govt workers are all democrat. They're not. It's those that are appointed to that post to lead that are the partisans.
Simple question. Should I pay taxes in the US on money I made overseas that was taxed already by the host nation? Yes or no? Why?
The irony of irony of this whining is that I have added more to this thread than either of the crybabies calling me out. I called out countryroads for his strawman.
@mneilmont my posts are usually short and every other word misspelled because I make most entries from my phone and it is hard to write out a long post and even harder to edit it to replace all miss-hits on my phone keyboard. I try to reply short and to the point if I have something to add.
Who are you, his dad? How about you stfu. I wouldn't have picked out that comment if it wasn't true. Dave is limited and struggles to participate in the conversation and quickly resorts to name calling which shows that he should just stay on the sidelines mostly.
Simple questions are often irrelevant questions. Especially ones about economics and specifically taxes. But in simplest form, if the company is American based and the profits are part of their overall operations, then yes they should have some tax liability. But since this question is too simple and there are many other factors to consider, that is not an absolute answer. But what do i know? I am a poser.
International corporation aren't American or Russian, etc. It's just that money already taxed in one country should be free to move around in another. We would be better off getting 10% of something than 0% of anything.
I believe we just have different definitions of greed. When you are living paycheck to paycheck and hand to mouth and you want more, I don't see that as greed, I see that pragmatic and just wanting to be a little bit more secure. To have the ability to actually save some money to protect yourself in case of unforeseen circumstances that come up. Furnace goes out on your house, saving for a downpayment to buy a house, etc. etc.
There becomes a point where having more money isn't really going to make an appreciable difference in your life, and at some point beyond that you get into greed. This Martin Shkreli guy, jacking up prices on things people need to live just because he can ... that's greed. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and those types have passed beyond the point of more money improving their life long ago, but I still wouldn't consider them greedy because of all of the philanthropic things that they are into.
The dictionary definition is "a selfish desire to have more of something" ... the "selfish" part is key.
Holding on to a stock too long because you wanted more and missing ... I don't think you'd call that greed because there's nothing selfish about it.
Over regulation ... yes. But history has shown time and time again the problems with under-regulation.
We don't need government to "get out of the way", but we need a common sense approach to what they are doing. Fining somebody because people don't have lifevests on in 6" of water is ridiculous ... but even more ridiculous is letting the Blankenship guys get away with violation after violation that eventually gets people killed. Making a 1/4 acre pad so expensive to get done is ridiculous, but it is not as ridiculous as allowing unfettered development to the point that the Chesapeake Bay can't sustain life.
It is short sited to say we need to get rid of all of these agencies. There was a legitimate reason they were formed in the first place and it's because without them we were destroying everything and killing workers, or getting workers seriously injured and then just tossing them to the curb. You can't do that either, and without some regulation you can't trust corporations to just fix that on their own. History has shown that.
We simply need to evaluate what we have and recognize where it's getting ridiculous and stop that, while still providing the necessary oversight that drove the genesis of these agencies in the first place.
The stock thing was absolute greed on my part. Knowing that the tech bubble was going to burst because company profit was non existent. People were simply bidding the stock up. Knowing that it is going to burst, and I still stayed in it because the ROI was unbelievable(the burst was a rude awakening).
We will just have to agree to disagree. As to Gates and Buffet, of course they are greedy or they could give their market a price reduction on their product. They have to take money from someone to give to others.
And you can call it whatever you prefer, but people wanting more, and more, and m........ , they are a bit greedy. The difference between us is that I do not see greedy as bad - they are producing something somebody wants. I do not see the bad in that.
Wanting more, more, more...... is selfish. and greedy. Holding onto stock when you know a downturn is imminent is greedy and probably dumb. You just want the higher return and it is exceeded by risk. The gentlemen you speak of are greedy. They want more profit for their product. Then they get to give it away and get name in paper.
At what point does living beyond your means and putting yourself in an opportunity where you expect to be bailed out on those kid's braces etc. become a discrepancy with personal responsibility. Even as heartless and fiscally conservative as I am, believes we have to have safety nets. However, I'm not willing to blow up the **** because there aren't enough lifeboats. There is a happy median somewhere but again, we are stuck at gridlock and any attempt to address it logically is ground to a halt from the left.
Wanting more money is not necessarily greed in my definition. So, where you and I are in agreement is that greed (by your definition) isn't necessarily bad. If somebody is producing something somebody wants, then they owe it to themselves and their employees and stockholders to make as much profit as they can. Within certain constructs that is, i.e. don't skirt labor laws and safety laws in the name of profits and don't cook the books or engage in any other kind of unethical behavior.
In my definition greed is when the pursuits of money trumps all else and people can never get enough and they don't care how they get it.
Lol. It doesn't promote growth in the U.S. That's why those profits are staying overseas. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Not good for jobs.
Don't worry Coop, this Troll will claim you have no clue on your expertise and will prove it by claiming a bunch of stuff off a imaginary resume. He did the same to me. But then again, I'm a poser so I deserve it.
LMAO
"Simple question. Should I pay taxes in the US on money I made overseas that was taxed already by the host nation? Yes or no? Why?"
I didn't see Dog say a word about corporate rates.
How would paying taxes on overseas income promote growth? In your view, taking money from a business promotes growth. Amazing.
As to your question, I believe that money earned in countries with taxes paid to that country should not be taxed a second time by the US.
Never said anything about businesses and that is not close to my "view".
If we allowed individuals to invest money overseas and pay less taxes, what incentive would they have to invest their money here?
They get credit for taxes paid to foreign countries, so in reality they are just paying tax on the difference.
I may have misinterpreted your post, but the whole thread is based upon overseas corporate income. But if someone creates a business in a foreign country and earns money and pays taxes, that money may never come back to the US if it is taxed again. This is already happening to the tune of a couple trillion dollars. Wouldn't it be better to let that money flow back to the US to create more jobs here?
The very sad fact is that since US corporate taxes are so extraordinarily high, earnings repatriated would likely be taxed at a very substantial rate. That is why the money remains overseas. It's also why corporate inversions are happening, in effect a US company leaving the US and moving its headquarters to another country.
I was a partner in a group that had an international company that produced a product overseas, borrowed money overseas to do it, and ran all the money through a Carmen bank due to the instability of the country we operated in. We never bought the money back to the US for the sole reason to pay taxes.