Personally, I won’t do business with a company that does this and I’d like to see the U.S. government make them ineligible for government contracts. Instead of acting like a good corporate citizen of this country and fighting to change the system to be more competitive, they just effectively renounce their citizenship. They shouldn’t let the door hit them in their posterior on the way out.
Kinda. Not wanting to pay Bs taxes to a monarchy across the ocean, really, not just tax dodging in general. That’s why they went with the whole democracy thing. I’d have to look into it, but did the original US government include no taxation? I’d have to assume no. I’d assume that paying taxes to the US government to provide for the benefit of all Americans was part of the plan. Rather than pay a king.
My recollection is that federal income taxes started to fund the Civil War. Before that government was basically funded via tax on the sale of certain goods, etc.
I’m sure there was taxation originally, it just seems to have gotten out of hand since…what, the 30’s/40’s? I’m not up to snuff on the history, but there was a time when the IRS didn’t exist, and you weren’t taxed cradle to grave. Not to mention double-dipping on them, i.e., “death tax”, etc…
Was more of a knee-jerk comment on the “bully for them” statement, Bill, so my apologies, if I offended.
Still enjoying reading this thread, though, lots of input!
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how corporate taxes work. Money made in the US is taxed in the US regardless of where the company is headquartered. Money earned in other countries is taxed by the country it is earned in first, and then IF the company decides to bring the profits into the US they get a credit for the tax paid in the country where it was earned, but have to pay the difference between what they paid in the country where the money was earned and the US tax rate.
So if Apple sells an iPad in Ireland, they would pay the tax there of 12.5% IF they chose to bring the rest of the profit into the US they would then have to pay the difference between what was owed in Ireland and the US rate currently about 28%, or another 15.5% in taxes. The US has the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, so companies have a very strong incentive not to bring the money into the US. For example, Canada has a 15% corporate tax, and they keep lowering it.
It is estimated that there is probably $1 trillion in money that could come back to the US if we lowered the tax rate. That is money that businesses could use to invest here. We really have nothing to lose as the companies are very happy to keep that money overseas and use it invest there. They don’t ever have to pay US tax until the money is actually brought into the US. Keep the money in Hong Kong and it’s all yours.
The income tax started in 1913. Before that the government was funded by charging tariffs on imported goods. Eventually Congress realized that this a huge subsidy to the oil rail and steel barons who not getting taxed at all, and it was punishing the consumers that were buying goods that were imported. Basically the idea was to shift the burden of tax to the rich. Here is a good history of taxation and its impact. There is some stuff about the income inequality myth as well. This is pretty long, but if you will take the time to read it you will much better understand how we got where we are today.
I watched a 60 Minutes episode that covered this Bill. I found it to be interesting that so many US companies do this do get around our high corporate taxes. If the money’s stays overseas we have zero if we lower our corporate tax to be competitive with these tax havens maybe it could help our economy. Look at the link it gives a pretty good overview of the episode.
See, I still think you are missing the point. They are not “getting around” US taxes. They are paying US taxes on the money they earn here, but not on the profits they earn overseas. The only time they have to pay US taxes is when they bring the money back into the US. What we are doing in effect is telling business to keep the money out of the US, to invest in other countries. Every other country in the world has figured this out but us.
Optically speaking, given the “occupy wall st.” protests, and the general idea of the big, evil corporations, is there a president out there that wants to go down in history as the guy who reduced the corporate tax rate? I doubt it, not even if it brought in more absolute tax revenue dollars.
Funny thing is that Obama, since he’s now unfetterd by the possibly of re-election, could be just the guy to do it. Of course if you subscribe to the notion that Gov’t is in the pocket of large corporate interests, it will never happen.
Yeah, that’s what I was trying to say, but Bill is much much better at explaining it 
. " Although a lot of other taxes will still be paid to conduct and do business in the US as we have many US locations".
Our CEO has been to the white house many times with other corporate CEO’s. Not there just to try and get lower corporate tax. Mainly to get a stable tax code so the companies know what they will be paying each year. This gives them stability on what taxes will be paid. For a public traded company that means more investores if you can show a five year plan and a set tax rate you will be paying. The stock market likes a company that can show long term stability. They got no where with the gov’t to change the tax code so you can’t blame them for going this route to get a stable tax code which in return will create more investors in the company.
Can’t say I totally disagree with you Bill. I wish they could have found a way to keep it “all” here. But, you used about a dozen of our products today and 99% of them you didn’t even know you were using.
Bill I might not have made myself clear when I said “getting around” cooperate taxes and safe havens. I understand that whatever money that is brought back they pay taxes on. It’s just that I don’t see the incentive for American companies to bring overseas profits back to the USA and pay such a high tax on those profits. If overseas profits stay overseas we (America) get 0%. If we offer a competitive tax rate on those profits maybe companies would be wiling to bring some of those profits home. Maybe a portion of that tax revenue could help pay down the deficit.
60 Minutes Video Link
http://m.cbsnews.com/postwatch.rbml?pageType=video&cbsID=7360936
Well, there’s not much I can do about that! 
BTW, here’s an article about another politically-driven corporate decision that falls into the head-scratching column:
Down here in the red states there are a bunch of middle aged white guys that feel completely disenfranchised right now. They feel that they are completely powerless to do anything to change the direction of the country, which they think is going in completely the wrong direction. These folks may no longer control the government, but they do control a very large part of the wealth and productive assets of the country. I know that this attitude must be incomprehensible to most on the blue coasts.
Actions speak louder than words. How will these folks act as they begin to see themselves as no longer a part of the country. We have seen the explosive growth of weapon sales, the prepper movement, and the Tea Party, what comes next? The mood among small business owners even before the election was to sell out and bug out. Having these people vote no confidence looks grim. Do you imagine any of these folks hiring or expanding a business right now? I sincerely hope that Obama will some how reach out to these people and given them some reason to believe in America, right now they don’t.
Here in Arizona we have a huge influx of winter visitors we call snow birds. The biggest influx arrives on November 1st. Usually they fill every restaurant to capacity. Following the election they emptied out the grocery stores, and the restaurants are begging for business. It seems that every one has hunkered down. The thing is, nothing is really any different than it was the day before the election.
I generally agree with you Bill, but not with this statement. Everything is different now. The day before the election there was the hope that Obama would be replaced. In some cases even the expectation. There was a chance to repeal the job killing Healthcare plan. There was a chance that a we would have a business friendly administration rather than one that’s antagonistic at best. Now that hope is lost.
It’s not at all surprising to me to see a coal company laying people off. He’s had it in for them since day one. Now they are on the defensive since they know he’s here for four more years.
You’re using the wrong numbers Scott. Everybody gets two electoral votes to start. You can’t count these against population because it’s the same for everyone. Then you get one per seat in the house. CA has a population of 702,905 per house seat. WY has a population of 563,626 per seat. Hardly a difference of 4 times or 3.5 or even 3.
Not incomprehensible at all, here on the coast of Lake Michigan. 
This perfectly describes how almost every person I know felt when Bush was re-elected.
I read the first 6 pages of your link above earlier today. I’ll read the rest, maybe tonight.
This perfectly describes how almost every person I know felt when Bush was re-elected.
Good point. I don’t recall that, but most of the people I know in Michigan were not happy with John Kerry’s attitudes towards the automotive business. Not to say they were crazy about Bush either. Regardless it was still pretty close in Michigan. Considering the pay off Obama gave the UAW, it would have been insane for Ohio and Michigan to go any other way this time. Fun fact, What Romney actually suggested in his NY Times article is very very close to what actually happened, and most Obama supporters do not know that Obama DID take GM and Chrysler bankrupt. No one ever suggested the voters know the issues.
Yeah, I don’t think I knew a single person excited about either Gore or Kerry, it’s just that they would have taken a hundred thousand people before Bush. It’s probably the same with lotsa red state folks today and Obama.
How sad is it that we’re usually left choosing between the lesser of two evils? Most folks I know aren’t big Democrats at all, they’d mostly be 3rd party if there was a 3rd party both that lined up with what they want and actually had a shot. Personally I’ve only ever voted once, and I voted Libertarian. I don’t feel like the democrats or republicans actually care anything about what I think, or about me as a person, all they care about is getting votes however they can, to secure the win. Wanna talk about disenfranchised? 
How is voting for evil working for you?