• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pawlenty: Deep Tax Cuts and a ‘Google Test’

ChrisL68 said:
There is an incentive for US based multinationals to park money overseas since we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. We should lower the rate and institute a VAT.

The fair tax nonsense somehow ascribes to the belief that the small percentage of the population that is accumulating a lion's share of the nation's wealth needs a giant tax break.
Click to expand...

This is what I've been trying to say for a half dozen posts. Lower the 35% corporate tax rate. Reduce the incentive.
 
RJKarl said:
Or simply make moving that money illegal. Create an export of capital tax for corporations.

We don't need Switzerland for anything. Let's put outrageous taxes on their holdings in the US for them doing this.

If they want to steal from us it's perfectly fair.
Click to expand...

The money isn't moved from the US to Switzerland.

It is parked overseas to avoid having foreign profits repatriated into the US

This idea that we are going to penalize US multinationals is the most bass ackwards idea ever and will incentive corporations to organize overseas in the future and just sell into the US.
 
fuheel said:
didn't read anything in the article saying that Cain was the voice of the ad
Click to expand...

Neither did I -- just that he voiced some of the ads, so he may have voiced that ad. That's why I asked Go if he was sure Cain didn't because he said it with such certitude.

No that it matters --he still bankrolled it and put it on the radio.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
The money isn't moved from the US to Switzerland.

It is parked overseas to avoid having foreign profits repatriated into the US

This idea that we are going to penalize US multinationals is the most bass ackwards idea ever and will incentive corporations to organize overseas in the future and just sell into the US.
Click to expand...

Yes, this. It's not about tax avoidance, but tax deferral. Why pay 35% on profits today, when you can defer paying anything (arguably, indefinitely) into the future - given Competent Authority and the elimination of double taxation, there is no incentive for a company to repatriate earnings to pay the US corporate tax rate, in particular, if they have to turn around and invest this money to expand globally. You lower the tax rate and that at the minimum at least prods the MNC to bring operations (and/or profits) back to the US.

Regarding a VAT, it is interesting that I think Canada (or maybe just Alberta) tried this recently... not sure of the results yet - it is politically unpopular
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
The money isn't moved from the US to Switzerland.

It is parked overseas to avoid having foreign profits repatriated into the US

This idea that we are going to penalize US multinationals is the most bass ackwards idea ever and will incentive corporations to organize overseas in the future and just sell into the US.
Click to expand...

f they are moving all their profits anyway, what's the difference?
 
ChrisL68 said:
The difference is jobs, money and the taxation of any domestically sourced income.
Click to expand...

Huh?

The jobs that produced the profts in the Us won't be moved. They simply wire the money to offices that have virtually no employees at them in Switzerland.

The same is true in the Caymans, Bahamas and other places.

The money that is sent out of the country stays there.
 
RJKarl said:
Huh?

The jobs that produced the profts in the Us won't be moved. They simply wire the money to offices that have virtually no employees at them in Switzerland.

The same is true in the Caymans, Bahamas and other places.

The money that is sent out of the country stays there.
Click to expand...


Some do, and some just move the corp HQs overseas.
 
The purpose of Mr Pawlenty's speech was not to lay out a rational economic policy fit for a president. The purpose was to lay out an irrational economic policy fit for Republican primary voters. And, just as important, to lay down a marker for Mitt Romney, Mr Pawlenty's main Hunt Mitchman rival and the current frontrunner. By staking out ground so far to the right, he now forces Mr Romney to forge an even zanier economic scheme, lest he be accused of dishonouring the legacy of Reagan (as defined by people far to the right of Reagan). It's a canny political strategy.

And it's awful for America. As the candidates try to out-tea-party one another, they push the Overton window of acceptable economic policy to the absurd right. This makes it much more difficult for a reasonable Republican candidate to win office, and for any Republican politician to support reasonable economic policy. And no matter what party you belong to, you should find it troubling that Mr Pawlenty's ridiculous economic plan could ever be considered acceptable by a large portion of the population.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/06/tim-pawlentys-economic-plan#comments
 
Implementing a VAT with the economy so weak would be disastrous.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Some do, and some just move the corp HQs overseas.
Click to expand...

The corp HQs in Switzerland, Luxembourg or the Caymans are often a PO box or one or two people in office suite for a billion dollar comapny.

It's not a real HQ like 30 Rock.
 
Last edited:
Back to Pawlenty now.

He has no chance in hell with these ideas or any others.
 
Pawlenty is the geek who tries to dress cool. He buys the right kicks, the right pants but doesn't understand why people still don't think he looks cool.

Take out the pocket protector Tim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top