US Firms moving abroad, US has the highest corporate taxes in the developed world. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;37495140]I will never understand why our government skews the differences between personal Income and Corporate Taxes so badly. Ban all restrictions on international trade, end our embargoes, Lower the taxes on companies, and institute a flat income tax. So we can fuckin' move on to deal with more important shit than basic 9th grade economics.[/QUOTE] You act like it is that simple to just go "yeah end our embargos, open that shit up, drop the taxes and throw that income tax in". We could probably do that, but that would take decades upon decades.

We have 20% VAT in europe though. So essentially customers pay the tax that normally companies have to pay.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;37495140]I will never understand why our government skews the differences between personal Income and Corporate Taxes so badly. Ban all restrictions on international trade, end our embargoes, Lower the taxes on companies, and institute a flat income tax. So we can fuckin' move on to deal with more important shit than basic 9th grade economics.[/QUOTE] This is the type of thinking that leads to our current situation. Flat income taxes result in bad, bad things.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;37495140]Ban all restrictions on international trade, end our embargoes, Lower the taxes on companies, and institute a flat income tax.[/QUOTE] yes, yes, maybe, no

I was under the impression that the US tax system is fundamentally broken. While it has higher than standard taxes for a lot of stuff (apart from sales tax) it has a huge load of exceptions, holes and similar which allow a lot of companies and people to have an incredibly small tax rate.

We need to focus less on corporate taxes and more on income taxes for the higher-ups. We need the individuals to leave the country, not their capital and jobs.

[QUOTE=mac338;37492109]Corporations act like the people who own them, and if it was lower I think a lot more would be willing to pay that 10%. The logic is the same as lowering piracy by lowering prices. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline][/quote] The logic is not the same. Pirates largely want to pay reasonable prices to support people who create good content. People who run large companies have no sense of loyalty and will evade taxes as long as they can get away with it. We can discuss lowering taxes when corporations actually start paying what they should be paying.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;37492293]The idea that lower taxes means more jobs really is just a myth, a busted one at that. Lowering taxes does nothing to inspire growth.[/QUOTE] I've rarely heard anyone argue that lowering taxes [i]always[/i] means more jobs, of course it doesn't because there are a lot of other variables involved. Lower taxes [i]can[/i] quite plausibly help employment though. The money that isn't taxed could potentially go to expanding the business, which will require more people to run it. I would argue that the claim that lower taxes does [i]nothing[/i] to inspire growth is false.

Isn't there a law preventing US companies from going abroad to dodge any/all taxation? I heard it has some massive loopholes, but damn, enforce that shit.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37494648] why wouldn't they[/QUOTE] might be cheaper to outsource, I dunno

[QUOTE=DarkendSky;37496115]Isn't there a law preventing US companies from going abroad to dodge any/all taxation? I heard it has some massive loopholes, but damn, enforce that shit.[/QUOTE] That's a terrible law. Holding company prisoner because it was founded in US?

I love how Ireland's is far below the agreed EU standard and the EU doesn't do shit about it. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] Not sarcasm, I actually love it.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;37496205]That's a terrible law. Holding company prisoner because it was founded in US?[/QUOTE] If its founded on national land and with the national labor force, why the fuck not? Who wants to breed rootless capitalists?

[QUOTE=Conscript;37496245]If its founded on national land and with the national labor force, why the fuck not? Who wants to breed rootless capitalists?[/QUOTE] National land and labor force my ass. That's all collectivist nonsense. That isn't the government's labor force, it's millions of individuals interacting/making transactions within land that the government claims that it owns.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;37496205]That's a terrible law. Holding company prisoner because it was founded in US?[/QUOTE] The company is not "being held prisoner". The law simply prevents them from trying to dodge taxes they owe and are legally obliged to pay here in the United States by running overseas. It makes perfect sense.

[QUOTE=Noble;37496280]National land and labor force my ass. That's all collectivist nonsense. That isn't the government's labor force, it's millions of individuals interacting/making transactions within land that the government claims that it owns.[/QUOTE] Lol this methodological individualism is getting ridiculous. This has nothing to do with the government, I said NATION. We exist in a world of nation-states, we're not an indistinguishable bunch of 'individual economic actors'. These millions of individuals hold a common interest because they are fraternized by capitalism and nations. We build up our nation's capital because we are pigeonholed into the national labor market, where we refuse to be atomized and drive up the cost of labor (the living standard) to our benefit. Now with liberals such as yourself taking over the state, the capitalist has more incentive than ever to take the wealth we produced for him and use it to invest in some other nation. Why? Because he is a rootless fuckwit on a quest for an ever-increasing rate of profit, so he preys on other national labor markets and gains ridiculous amounts of wealth, and the laborers in the national market he used to prop up his baby crib of a business will never see the fruits of it. This kind of libertarian logic demonstrates exactly why their ideas are impossible and counter-intuitive in a capitalist world of nation-states. Humanity is not a 'cosmopolitan' global market.

[QUOTE=Catdaemon;37485581]All that socialist public healthcare etc happening in the USA is clearly terrible for the economy and drives up taxes. As you can see, companies are moving to countries with a more free market and less socialism. oh wait[/QUOTE] Curses, the capitalist corporations have finally caught up on our plans of slowly converting the world into communism throught socialism. But they can go on only so long, oh yes. Sooner or later they find themselfs in the position of having no places to run.

[QUOTE=Conscript;37496680]Lol this methodological individualism is getting ridiculous. This has nothing to do with the government, I said NATION. We exist in a world of nation-states, we're not an indistinguishable bunch of 'individual economic actors'. These millions of individuals hold a common interest because they are fraternized by capitalism and nations. We build up our nation's capital because we are pigeonholed into the national labor market, where we refuse to be atomized and drive up the cost of labor (the living standard) to our benefit. Now with liberals such as yourself taking over the state, the capitalist has more incentive than ever to take the wealth we produced for him and use it to invest in some other nation. Why? Because he is a rootless fuckwit on a quest for an ever-increasing rate of profit, so he preys on other national labor markets and gains ridiculous amounts of wealth, and the laborers in the national market he used to prop up his baby crib of a business will never see the fruits of it. This kind of libertarian logic demonstrates exactly why their ideas are impossible and counter-intuitive in a capitalist world of nation-states. Humanity is not a 'cosmopolitan' global market.[/QUOTE] You appeared to be implying that a law holding a company prisoner because it was founded in the US was justified because it's on "national land" and utilizes the "national labor force", and I was denying the existence of such a thing. I said government because they are the ones who are going to enforce such a law. We're not the government's labor force, "the nation's" labor force, society's labor force, or any of that, those things don't even have a physical existence, and they have no absolutely justification in coercing any individual to do jack shit. "Driving up the cost of labor" to the workers benefit, how is that a good thing exactly? I assume you're talking about the minimum wage among other things, which I'm sure you're aware has some criticisms. Having the government fuck with the cost of labor is going to affect employment. It's not to your benefit if the minimum wage is $30/hour and you find yourself surfing couches, making $0 an hour, when companies aren't hiring. I also don't understand this demonization of capitalism and the profit motive. The capitalist isn't preying on anyone, they are offering a voluntary transaction to someone. The transaction would not take place if either party did not gain a subjective benefit from it. It's also his wealth, which he should be free to invest as he pleases. The transaction already ended when the laborer received their wages, the capitalist does not owe a debt to anyone just as the price for engaging in that transaction.

I'd feel far better corporations would work within the boundaries of their own countries.

[quote]We're not the government's labor force, "the nation's" labor force, society's labor force, or any of that, those things don't even have a physical existence, and they have no absolutely justification in coercing any individual to do jack shit.[/quote] Since the people who I compete for jobs with are other nationals trying to work in domestic workplaces producing goods for (usually) other nationals, I and other workers are certainly a part of 'the nation's' labor force. We are all nationals and laborers confined to a national labor market. I don't even know why you dispute it since capitalism already reflects this and only reinforces the existence of these interests. [quote]"Driving up the cost of labor" to the workers benefit, how is that a good thing exactly? [/quote] How isn't it? I'm not talking from the perspective of an investor who only wants to accumulate more capital at a greater rate from anyone, anywhere. I'm talking from perspective of the of the producers who build and reside in communities and make capitalist production possible, and whose livelihood is entirely derived from the (in today's case, national) labor market and its wages. Who benefits from the slashed cost of labor? Is it supposed to be 'the consumers'? If these consumers are the same men and women that made the product, what is gained? A loss in wages but a cheapening of product? An expansion of production that replicates the same conditions elsewhere? [quote]It's not to your benefit if the minimum wage is $30/hour and you find yourself surfing couches, making $0 an hour, when companies aren't hiring.[/quote] If companies are too sour to employ because the projected profit margin isn't the % they like, their problem. Nationalize their local assets and resume production with wages that near the cost of production and product with little mark-up, and we will create the closest we'll ever be (in these conditions) to economic equilibrium, which liberal capitalism utterly fails to ever inch towards. Also it is not the cost of labor that determines employment, it is labor's productivity. If the minimum wage for a sector of the market was indeed 30 dollars an hour, but capital extracts that much in less than 30 minutes of work, big fucking deal. If the margin exists but it's not wide enough, that's not anyone's problem but the dude that just wants to accumulate more. The fact the margin exists signals the production is sustainable. But then, of course, you'll say he is our employer, the source of our livelihood. Any less burden on him will translate to less on the laborers. But this is only by virtue of the fact he is an owner of private property, and subsequently an appropriator of the value produced. We produce because it is a social necessity, we live off of the fruits of each others labor, we would otherwise die. Capital is simply a middle man. [quote]The capitalist isn't preying on anyone, they are offering a voluntary transaction to someone.[/quote] I don't see how this follows, it's just a moral. Capital is the fruit of work and if we don't see its reinvestment or enough of it the capitalist loses his right to the fruit of our work. Unfortunately this can't be enforced as workers would starve if they didn't accept every little wage slash, hour slash, or whatever the employer throws at them. That is where the state comes in. [quote]The transaction would not take place if either party did not gain a subjective benefit from it.[/quote] Again with morals. Of course someone who would otherwise die if he didn't sell his labor would take a wage. [quote]The transaction already ended when the laborer received their wages, the capitalist does not owe a debt to anyone just as the price for engaging in that transaction. [/quote] This is arbitrary, and I will be the same way and say the capitalist owes everything to us, including his existence. At least this is grounded in reality, as he would be nothing without labor. Have you ever heard the phrase 'labor precedes capital, and deserves much higher consideration'?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;37497462]I'd feel far better corporations would work within the boundaries of their own countries.[/QUOTE]We already suffer from "US only" on many services. This would not help.

[QUOTE=GunFox;37488790]Impose steep tariffs on all former US companies. Reduce taxes for companies producing goods domestically. Further reduce them for companies keeping a certain percentage of their employees in country, with different tiers of tariffs for different percentages of employees. This calculation would include all holdings and associated corporations. Breaking your corporation down into smaller chunks in order to fuck with the numbers would not affect the calculations. Attempts to game the system would be met with major prison time and other major repercussions such as the company being forced to surrender control to the feds until it rectifies whatever issue has arisen or can fold the current goods and employees into another company. WE ARE IN CONTROL. Issues aside, the United States still kicks around a shit ton of money. Losing us as a market due to tariffs is a bad plan. Even ignoring my solution, there are a thousand others (probably ones which are way better) that could take its place. We have the ability to make outsourcing and setting up in tax havens a very unpleasant activity.[/QUOTE] Because protectionism is not an outdated, archaic, and ineffective policy

[QUOTE=Conscript;37496245]Who wants to breed rootless capitalists?[/QUOTE] I do

[QUOTE=LF9000;37498136]Because protectionism is not an outdated, archaic, and ineffective policy[/QUOTE] Because punishing companies that actually pay their taxes and employ people in the country is a totally great fucking plan. Meanwhile larger companies can avoid virtually all of the taxes and employ as few people as possible to sidestep our laws. Yeah, great fucking plan. How is that working out for us? OH RIGHT, IT ISN'T. How many times do we need to learn the lesson that the free market will fuck you EVERY TIME.

[QUOTE=Conscript;37497713]If companies are too sour to employ because the projected profit margin isn't the % they like, their problem. Nationalize their local assets and resume production with wages that near the cost of production and product with little mark-up, and we will create the closest we'll ever be (in these conditions) to economic equilibrium, which liberal capitalism utterly fails to ever inch towards. Also it is not the cost of labor that determines employment, it is labor's productivity.[/QUOTE] With a minimum wage of $30 an hour, many companies wouldn't be able to make ANY profit. How can the local deli owner pay his cashier $30 an hour, if the total revenue for that hour is only $20? That high of a minimum wage would KILL small retail businesses. And nationalize their assets? you can't do that, it's called theft. I'm going to ignore the last part, as it's obvious you don't understand what economic equilibrium is. [QUOTE=Conscript;37497713]If the minimum wage for a sector of the market was indeed 30 dollars an hour, but capital extracts that much in less than 30 minutes of work, big fucking deal. If the margin exists but it's not wide enough, that's not anyone's problem but the dude that just wants to accumulate more. The fact the margin exists signals the production is sustainable.[/QUOTE] many times the margin is smaller than $30, good job killing small businesses. And the "capitalist" owns the business, he decides what profit margin he wants to make, no one else deserves ANY say. [QUOTE]But then, of course, you'll say he is our employer, the source of our livelihood. Any less burden on him will translate to less on the laborers. But this is only by virtue of the fact he is an owner of private property, and subsequently an appropriator of the value produced. We produce because it is a social necessity, we live off of the fruits of each others labor, we would otherwise die. Capital is simply a middle man. [/QUOTE] Only the owner of private property? let me explain something to you: Without capital, our current world would not be possible. Capital is extremely important. [QUOTE]I don't see how this follows, it's just a moral. Capital is the fruit of work and if we don't see its reinvestment or enough of it the capitalist loses his right to the fruit of our work. Unfortunately this can't be enforced as workers would starve if they didn't accept every little wage slash, hour slash, or whatever the employer throws at them. That is where the state comes in.[/QUOTE] What? Capital is the fruit of his work, he is the only one who has a right to it. And capitalists are not these greedy scumbags, constantly cutting wages. 94.8% of workers make more than minimum wage. If capitalists were constantly cutting wages, everyone would be making minimum wage. [QUOTE]This is arbitrary, and I will be the same way and say the capitalist owes everything to us, including his existence. At least this is grounded in reality, as he would be nothing without labor. Have you ever heard the phrase 'labor precedes capital, and deserves much higher consideration'?[/QUOTE] Wrong, capital precedes labor. Without capital, companies would never be started, laborers would never be hired.

[QUOTE=Conscript;37497713]Since the people who I compete for jobs with are other nationals trying to work in domestic workplaces producing goods for (usually) other nationals, I and other workers are certainly a part of 'the nation's' labor force. We are all nationals and laborers confined to a national labor market. I don't even know why you dispute it since capitalism already reflects this and only reinforces the existence of these interests.[/quote] It's not so much that I dispute it (though I could) as that I see it as a meaningless statement. We happen to co-exist in the same geographical region and make transactions with each other, I'm not sure exactly how that means we are "confined" to some non existent entity that you call "the nation's labor force", and how that really means anything. [QUOTE=Conscript;37497713]How isn't it? I'm not talking from the perspective of an investor who only wants to accumulate more capital at a greater rate from anyone, anywhere. I'm talking from perspective of the of the producers who build and reside in communities and make capitalist production possible, and whose livelihood is entirely derived from the (in today's case, national) labor market and its wages. Who benefits from the slashed cost of labor? Is it supposed to be 'the consumers'? If these consumers are the same men and women that made the product, what is gained? A loss in wages but a cheapening of product? An expansion of production that replicates the same conditions elsewhere?[/quote] It enables more people to be employed and the skilled, dedicated employees to move higher up, rather than having all those people making $0/hour while unemployed. "The consumers" is a far larger group beyond just the laborers who produced it. Everyone benefits by lower prices, including other producers who can now make better products, and do it more efficiently, and so on. [quote]If companies are too sour to employ because the projected profit margin isn't the % they like, their problem. Nationalize their local assets and resume production with wages that near the cost of production and product with little mark-up, and we will create the closest we'll ever be (in these conditions) to economic equilibrium, which liberal capitalism utterly fails to ever inch towards. Also it is not the cost of labor that determines employment, it is labor's productivity.[/quote] That is insanity. First off, those assets aren't anyone else's to take by force and that is an atrocious violation of individual freedoms. Second, if you eliminate the profit motive, you eliminate the heart, the engine of growth that has driven the greatest increases in the standard of living that humanity has ever seen. Without the profit motive, you can kiss that level of growth goodbye. [quote]If the minimum wage for a sector of the market was indeed 30 dollars an hour, but capital extracts that much in less than 30 minutes of work, big fucking deal. If the margin exists but it's not wide enough, that's not anyone's problem but the dude that just wants to accumulate more. The fact the margin exists signals the production is sustainable. But then, of course, you'll say he is our employer, the source of our livelihood. Any less burden on him will translate to less on the laborers. But this is only by virtue of the fact he is an owner of private property, and subsequently an appropriator of the value produced. We produce because it is a social necessity, we live off of the fruits of each others labor, we would otherwise die. Capital is simply a middle man. [/quote] So your stance is to get rid of private property, am I correct? [quote]I don't see how this follows, it's just a moral. Capital is the fruit of work and if we don't see its reinvestment or enough of it the capitalist loses his right to the fruit of our work.[/quote] How do you draw that conclusion, exactly? The way I see it, you're entitled the wages you agreed to in the labor contract, nothing else was agreed to, nothing else is owed. [quote]Unfortunately this can't be enforced as workers would starve if they didn't accept every little wage slash, hour slash, or whatever the employer throws at them. That is where the state comes in.[/quote] They can't continue to slash wages below market levels because wage competition puts upward pressure on the cost of labor. Companies want to attract skilled workers away from their competitors by offering them raises, benefits, better working conditions, etc. [quote]Again with morals. Of course someone who would otherwise die if he didn't sell his labor would take a wage.[/quote] They could beg for coins on the streets or make a living farming crops all day in the sun. The capitalist offers them a better alternative to those things and they voluntarily accept it. They have other options, but those options are less attractive. [quote]This is arbitrary, and I will be the same way and say the capitalist owes everything to us, including his existence. At least this is grounded in reality, as he would be nothing without labor.[/quote] How is it arbitrary? A and B transact. A sells his labor to B, and B provides him something in return (a wage). You're saying that somehow after this transaction, B somehow owes a debt not only to A, but to C,D,E,F,G and the rest of society? [quote]Have you ever heard the phrase 'labor precedes capital, and deserves much higher consideration'?[/QUOTE] Yeah, but I don't understand the relevance. Appeal to authority?

[QUOTE=GunFox;37498958]How many times do we need to learn the lesson that the free market will fuck you EVERY TIME.[/QUOTE] Protectionism just delays the inevitable. It's unsustainable to keep running stuff at a loss. Many countries found this out the hard way.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37499221]Protectionism just delays the inevitable. It's unsustainable to keep running stuff at a loss. Many countries found this out the hard way.[/QUOTE] Letting them run off is running at a loss. I don't understand what you're talking about because they've run WITH ALL OUR FUCKING MONEY.

[QUOTE=Swilly;37499259]Letting them run off is running at a loss. I don't understand what you're talking about because they've run WITH ALL OUR FUCKING MONEY.[/QUOTE] what? are these companies bank robbers now?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37499316]what? are these companies bank robbers now?[/QUOTE] Pretty much when that tax money could've helped things like pay our deficit or any number of things. They don't create more jobs, they're raising the prices on us to make more profit, they're the equivilant of England when it would buy raw materials from the Colonies at lower prices and then sell it back to us at a much higher price.