Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US employee gets fired.
The subsidiary company in country X hires an employee to work there under that country's labor law and that country's salary and pays that country's taxes. The US government has NO control over that.
What our government does and has done is to grant an increasing number of H1B visas so that coporations can import foreign workers.
Kill the H1B is the best you can do.
Too many folks are waking up...40 years too late
They outsource to escape the corp tax rate, and pay a lower rate in the host country, then get to write off the tax they pay via the Foreign Tax Credit, then escape paying tax on the profits by reinvesting them into the host country. The H1B takes jobs too, but the majority are in the outright outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing plants.
It would seem the OP is still marching and carrying out the orders of the WH talking points to
demonize corporations.
Why not pay attention to the mostly liberal policies that drove businesses overseas to begin with? Why not examing the 35% corporate tax that drove companies abroad and made the US the 3rd highest corparate taxed country in the West? Why not look at all the aother federal regulations imposed upon businessed by federal agencies?
It would seem that without addressing these items that the OP's only point is to sling hyperbole.
LOL, I can guess the source for your mythical, revisionist history lessons.
"In 1988 Canada and the United States signed the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement after which the U.S. Congress approved implementing legislation. The American government then entered into negotiations with the Mexican government for a similar treaty, and Canada asked to join the negotiations in order to preserve its perceived gains under the 1988 deal.[1] The climate at the time favored expanding trade blocs, such as the Maastricht Treaty, which created the European Union in 1992.
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it.
In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. The ability to enforce these clauses, especially with Mexico, and with much consideration and emotional discussion the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats."
And as for the corporate tax rate, the Rupert party by their own admission had control of the Congress for 12 years from 1994-2006, why the hell did they reduce the rate when they had the Presidency and both houses under their control?
"Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), said that the GOP would take a more aggressive tack toward health reform than they did during their control of Congress from 1995 to 2007."
They outsource to escape the corp tax rate, and pay a lower rate in the host country, then get to write off the tax they pay via the Foreign Tax Credit, then escape paying tax on the profits by reinvesting them into the host country. The H1B takes jobs too, but the majority are in the outright outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing plants.
But the US cannot tax them which is what you posted as a way to stop it.
It cannot be stopped by punitive measures.
Create an environment where companies want to stay, where they can make profits and expand.
The corp tax is not what drove them over there. They want to take advantage of tax breaks and cheap labor to pad corp profits which are then funneled to the top execs. They win - American workers and the nation loses.
Your explanation is the correct one. Idiotic conservatives stink with their view of how things work. I have to admit. I think in 2010 now, we are being subjected to the most pathetic, anemic, backwards, and ignorant Conservative representation since the days of slavery and Jim Crow. This country is reeling from the stench of their ideology focused solely on taxes and protecting those benefiting from the unearned privilege.
American conservatives are the biggest weapon of mass destruction that exists today.
You can NOT compete with some guy, living under a tarp, and making $5 a DAY!
The corporations KNOW THAT!
So they would rather pay some guy $5 A DAY in Vietnam, than pay a guy $8 AN HOUR in Virginia.
See that way, the stockholders get their dividend checks, the top company execs get big bonus checks, and their FORMER American employees.....get to watch their hopes and dreams slip away.
You can NOT compete with some guy, living under a tarp, and making $5 a DAY!
The corporations KNOW THAT!
So they would rather pay some guy $5 A DAY in Vietnam, than pay a guy $8 AN HOUR in Virginia.
See that way, the stockholders get their dividend checks, the top company execs get big bonus checks, and their FORMER American employees.....get to watch their hopes and dreams slip away.
Steve
True that. Notice how in this recession dividend checks did not get cut; rather they increased and profits increased. Not typical of a recession.
It would seem the OP is still marching and carrying out the orders of the WH talking points to
demonize corporations.
Why not pay attention to the mostly liberal policies that drove businesses overseas to begin with? Why not examing the 35% corporate tax that drove companies abroad and made the US the 3rd highest corparate taxed country in the West? Why not look at all the aother federal regulations imposed upon businessed by federal agencies?
It would seem that without addressing these items that the OP's only point is to sling hyperbole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
LOL, I can guess the source for your mythical, revisionist history lessons.
"In 1988 Canada and the United States signed the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement after which the U.S. Congress approved implementing legislation. The American government then entered into negotiations with the Mexican government for a similar treaty, and Canada asked to join the negotiations in order to preserve its perceived gains under the 1988 deal.[1] The climate at the time favored expanding trade blocs, such as the Maastricht Treaty, which created the European Union in 1992.
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it.
In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. The ability to enforce these clauses, especially with Mexico, and with much consideration and emotional discussion the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats."
And as for the corporate tax rate, the Rupert party by their own admission had control of the Congress for 12 years from 1994-2006, why the hell did they reduce the rate when they had the Presidency and both houses under their control?
"Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), said that the GOP would take a more aggressive tack toward health reform than they did during their control of Congress from 1995 to 2007."
I remember in aspie's green thread you complained about me not answering replies, mogal, so I wonder, will you hold yourself to the same standards?
But the US cannot tax them which is what you posted as a way to stop it.
It cannot be stopped by punitive measures.
Create an environment where companies want to stay, where they can make profits and expand.
If Americans are getting paid 3 times the salary of an off-shore resource, reducing the corp tax 5% is not going to help. The profit to be made in offshoring is too great, and the incentive is personal gain.
You can NOT compete with some guy, living under a tarp, and making $5 a DAY!
The corporations KNOW THAT!
So they would rather pay some guy $5 A DAY in Vietnam, than pay a guy $8 AN HOUR in Virginia.
See that way, the stockholders get their dividend checks, the top company execs get big bonus checks, and their FORMER American employees.....get to watch their hopes and dreams slip away.
Steve
It's not just manufacturing.
Two of the worlds three top supercomputers are now out of China.
China and India have moved beyond unskilled manufacturing.
They are doing R&D and building supercomputers.
If Americans are getting paid 3 times the salary of an off-shore resource, reducing the corp tax 5% is not going to help. The profit to be made in offshoring is too great, and the incentive is personal gain.
You are right. But no one wants to discuss what will happen to even that playing field. We are busy kicking and fighting and turning to government to "fix this". And while we are fighting..hours are cut, salaries are cut, benefits are cut. Are people walking out ? No, they are swallowing their pride, tightening their belts and being "thankful they have a job".
Now..unions are a different story. What I just posted here is non-union.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excellent
