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.
All that will happen with cash brought back to USA are mergers & acquisitions, big bonuses, share repurchase programs, higher equity prices... All stuff that will generously benefit rich people but not do a damn thing for main street America. Job growth will be negligible. It's not like cumulative demand for goods or profitability / productivity of American goods goes up because you put a big pile of cash on rich peoples' tables.
We are talking multinational corporations, here. You know, the businesses that made decisions to expand their operations beyond just 5% of the world's population. For example, Ford has had offshore assembly operations for nearly 100 years. Ford, like all auto manufacturers, custom builds to the specifications of the market they intend to sell. No two countries have the same requirements. To compete with foreign manufacturers, they have to avoid incremental shipping costs as well as import duties, thus the need to strategically operarate in global regions.
Starbuck's expanded their stores by more than 700 last year. Most of these new stores were created in Asia. No reason why the world should be denied the opportunity to buy premium coffee drinks at premium prices.
Multinational corporations pay taxes on their profits in countries they operate. Taxes paid in foreign countries come right off the top. They are obligated to pay the difference between the foreign and US EFFECTIVE tax rates if they repatriate profits to the US.
I am not opposed to eliminating taxation on world- wide profits. Doing so because of a faulty belief it will create incremental jobs and/ or result in raises however, is darn silly stuff.
Starbucks gets around paying taxes by setting up a headquarters in a tax-haven like Ireland and claiming the shell company owns the proprietary licensing rights for the stores. It sets up payments to the shell company from the its subsidiaries in the US, UK, and other higher tax countries in order to avoid taxes. The shell company holds the money in various financial institutions throughout the world (NYC, London, Tokyo, etc.) to hedge currency fluctuations.
You are complaining about someone trying to keep more jobs in the U.S.
Tax rates and hourly wages are irrelevant if there are no jobs. If anything, lower tax rates may help promote keeping more jobs in the states.
Your economic comprehension is severely limited.
Corporations that keep jobs in the country should be given incentive to do so. Corporations that offshore jobs for cheaper labor should be taxed at a higher rate.
Comprende?
In late 2015, well before anyone knew who would be nominated, let alone win in 2016, 500 global manufacturing CEOs concluded the US was positioned to reclaim the top spot in manufacturing by 2020. This was not based on politics or taxes. Rather these forecasts were based on the unprecedented bag log of orders for custom industrial robotics being designed to compete with the lowest costing pools of global labor.
If these projections are realized, whomever was elected in 2016 would certainly take credit, despite the frameworks preceding their term.
This is all about big ticket stuff like commercial aircraft and weapons, not cheap toasters. Boeing's future and that of its employees depends on filling the pipeline of orders from China for commercial aircraft. Their top competitor has positioned themselves in China to better compete with Boeing. How long before Boeing loses market share because they continue to manufacture in the US. Their unions raised holy hell when Boeing agreed to allow China to finish the interiors in China.
lol you don't have any idea what it's about or you wouldn't have posted this.
Of course money saved from taxes goes into the workers hands. That's basic economics. Only someone completely ignorant on economics would say otherwise. The extra money is used to hire and increase product in good times. In down times employees are held onto longer since the cost of training the new employees is high. People in research and development keep their jobs since that is usually the first to go.
That's the basic equation in a 'model' but the model has so many moving parts that this theory -- basically trickle down -- has proven not to work as effectively. I'm not convinced these CEO's will increase wages...they haven't before.
A new report by the Economic Policy Institute shows that CEO compensation at the largest corporations has ballooned by 937 percent since 1978, when adjusted for inflation. A typical worker’s compensation grew a measly 10.2 percent over the same period.
The basic premise of this argument that higher taxes lead to higher wages is totally unsupportable.
Explain exactly how the idea that higher taxes which go through a middle-man type of bureaucracy, instead of the actual workers themselves, actually promotes higher wage earnings in the private sector, which is the backbone and foundation of the economy itself, not the public sector. Keep in mind in a healthy economy all of the revenue comes from private growth and govt. should never have to print currency to support itself. But the economy is not healthy at all. It is all debt based currency.
Partly. Personal performance is important, that is true. But if the company isn't making the kind of profit that it should, wage/salary increases will be smaller than if the company as a whole is performing well;i.e., profits are up.
Also remember, that any given position has a wage/salary range (or scale). When you reach the top of that scale, you aren't going to get pay increases "just because." A company is not going to pay more than the value of that position (that's what's wrong with mandating a minimum (living) wage of $15/hr ...which in some places still may not be a "living" wage). Those jobs will just disappear if an employer is forced to pay more than they're worth, leaving the employee worse off than before ...unemployed, and maybe even "unemployable."
Increased productivity has long been separated from manpower/ wages.
In the late 60's ( while I was a kid) daily trading volume was about 12 million shares a day, double what it was just 3 year's prior. Wall Street was overwhelmed with a paper crisis. Trading ceased on Wednesdays and shorted hours on other days.
Average shares traded per day was 315 billion in 2016, not including derivitives.
This was made possible by technology substitution. The back offices of Wall Street are a fraction of the size they once were.
When I had my first full time job, en entire lunch hour was devoted to waiting in line to deposit the paycheck. It would take several business days to clear. Automatic deposit, ATMs and electronic banking / check clearance changed all that. Middle class jobs were permanently eliminated by technology substitution.
Between 2000-2010, 15% of all US manufacturing jobs were eliminated by technology substitution. No doubt, the same will occure between 2010 and 2020.
This is nothing more than trickle down. Been there done that. Try something else Trump. Many companies don't pay taxes now. We would be better off to make every company pay a minimum tax. The Republicans hate to let go of Trickle down. It's proven not to work. It just makes their rich friends richer. How about doing something to benefit the average tax payer?
Partly. Personal performance is important, that is true. But if the company isn't making the kind of profit that it should, wage/salary increases will be smaller than if the company as a whole is performing well;i.e., profits are up.
Also remember, that any given position has a wage/salary range (or scale). When you reach the top of that scale, you aren't going to get pay increases "just because." A company is not going to pay more than the value of that position (that's what's wrong with mandating a minimum (living) wage of $15/hr ...which in some places still may not be a "living" wage). Those jobs will just disappear if an employer is forced to pay more than they're worth, leaving the employee worse off than before ...unemployed, and maybe even "unemployable."
What does " making the kind of profit it should mean"?
Wage does not matter. It's all about the purchasing power of that local wage in the local market does. The higher the wage, the higher the cost of living.
A Federal Minimum Wage does not take the thousands of local economies into consideration.
This is nothing more than trickle down. Been there done that. Try something else Trump. Many companies don't pay taxes now. We would be better off to make every company pay a minimum tax. The Republicans hate to let go of Trickle down. It's proven not to work. It just makes their rich friends richer. How about doing something to benefit the average tax payer?
The last pres. that you probably voted there "tried something else". The middle class is not better off than they were. Wall St.is. Wealth inequality has grown.
What do you blame for the lack of success of the high hopes that you had?
See, "trying" isn't good enough. I can "try" to install a skylight by first setting my roof on fire to create a hole, but that would be idiotic. I can "try" to avoid bridge traffic by driving across the water, but I'll just wind up with a destroyed car.
We've already tried lower rates. We've already tried tax holidays. We know they don't work. Costs are so much lower in other countries that we can never cut taxes enough to make it cheaper to do many types of work here.
What we can do is offer stability, an educated workforce, financial stability and regulation, and strong IP laws. Those are things that make the US attractive.
I will never understand why so many people want to engage in some race to the bottom with developing countries.
Honestly, I think this is getting at why right wing administrations are always fiscal disasters. There's simply no conception of what makes the US economy run, which leads them to do stupid things like try to compete against Vietnamese shirt manufacturers by cutting taxes.
Industrial robotics are being created to compete with the cheapest global labor pools, especially for big ticket items.
The US people clearly don't care where their clothing, shoes or toasters are made and are not likely to pay substantially more for routine stuff made in the USA.
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.
