House Republicans Block "Bring Jobs Home Act", page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 53 times

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 04:55 AM by dawnstar

reply to post by beezzer

the jobs will come back when the gov't has printed so much money to keep operating, since, well, unemployed americans seem to take more out of the system than they put in, that the dollar devalues enough to make our labor cheaper than chinas and everyone decides that america isn't such a great trading partner since it can't pay it's bills!!!

or, heck, they could pass a bill like this, and find less tax revenues going out in the form of the safety nets, more revenue coming in in the form of income tax, more people spending and paying sales tax, and maybe eventually, we might get back on our feet...

but, nope, and ya know why it's a nope?? they want us all dependant on their kind hearted charity, and thus enslaved by them!! the republicans are no different than the dems in that respect!

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 05:36 AM by Valhall

reply to post by SJE98

Thank you for adding what you heard from the congressional discussions on this. It makes the no vote make more sense.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 05:45 AM by mclarenmp4

Originally posted by SJE98
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

"Bring Jobs Home Act"
sponsored by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

I read the bill, in addition I also watched Sen. Debbie Stabenow ,D-mich. present this bill and explain the bill on the Senate floor yesterday on Cspan.

What you left out op , is that Sen. Debbie Stabenow specifically stated that the tax benefits are for "cretin companies" operating in china and abroad. . This is a Union agenda as this bill does not apply to all companies that have moved jobs out of the U.S.. The media is also leaving this very important fact out as well. The plan also entails writing tax new legislation which also must be drafted separately then pass congress and senate in addition to the Act.

Yet, Sen. Debbie Stabenuow D-Mich did not state which companies these are during her presentation on the Senate floor yesterday. This is just like" lets pass the bill to see what in it " This is why it was defeated, because it's not fair only to include a select few. There were many of augments on this Act from both Dems and Rep on why only certain companies.

This bill does not do very much when it applies only to select few companies. At most what you will get from a bill like this if ever passed is call center jobs, and presto the companies gets a 20 percent tax break. While yet all the manufacturing base remains in china, I.e. the support customers services center is part of the manufacturing process. there is a lot of loop hole in this. I'm sure there would more for the tax legislation as well.

Again this is why it was defeated. It applies only to cretin companies. These cretin companies would be named by industry in the accompanying tax legislation , not the Act Bill itself.

edit on 19-7-2012 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)

Everyone should read this post before commenting with their political bias. It makes no sense for the GOP to block this legislation unless there was a valid reason and someone who actually watched the bill presented has stated why they blocked it & it does seem reasonable grounds to vote against it. The problem is that the bill is too short and doesn't explain which companies or how this tax break is going to be maintained.
I'm sure if they rewrote it to explain how it will work & represent it to the house it would be approved.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 05:48 AM by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by beezzer

Tell me, do you think those corporations should have a RIGHT to outsource our jobs?

I think the U.S government owes it to EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN to BRING JOBS HOME! If the government has to offer incentives to do it, THEN SO BE IT!

Again, you have to be asleep to NOT support such a notion!

The US government has not right to TELL someone what to do or where to do it.

It's an icky Soviet-kinda thing.

No one is TELLING anybody what to do. The bill just involves taking away tax incentives for outsourcing. Companies are free to continue outsourcing all they want.

Also, I haven't seen any documentation or proof that this bill will only apply to union jobs. Can someone provide a link or something that is more than just conjecture?

In theory, I support this bill, but in reality, I don't think it will change anything much. I think that companies that outsource will look at the bottom line, and decide that it's still cheaper to pay the lower wages overseas. They'll just raise the prices of their products/services a little to make up for the tax incentive lost - so it will be a wash for them.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 05:53 AM by BIHOTZ

"We now give tax incentives for people who move offshore. That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard."

and how.

I swear they really make me feel smart. The things they say and do are either insane or VERY dumb.

I don't know where this will end but I hate my leaders every day more and more.

This is being done with malice. They aren't innocent any more, if ever they were. Now they deserve to be placed with the rest of our countries leaders/ traitors.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 06:56 AM by jtma508

I watched an interview with Anne Romney this morning, Lovely lady. She says her husband 'has the answers' to fix the economy. Really? So why doesn't he and his fellow Republicans share that solution and fix everything? Or do we ONLY get the fix if Mittens gets to be President? Not a very patriotic thing to do.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 07:38 AM by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by XPLodER

why is tax money being used as an incentive to offshore jobs?

Globalization.

International welfare crap.

A sack of rice to Ethiopia and some call center jobs to India.

You dont want to be a crack-pot isolationist do you?

Globalism must move forward!

This is what the NWO is. It's not some shadowy cabal of super-villains in some tower fortress. It's misguided ideas of world unity that spread the misery in order to equalize the plebes while dumping billions of dollars and all the power into a handful of politicians and corporatists who are just taking advantage of a trend for their own benefit.

Making the world a "better" place by paying incentives to help industrialize poorer nations is really no different than dumping millions of dollars into the lap of some pipe-dream solar company to save the planet from global warming.

It's all well-intentioned stupidity for the masses but personal gain for the gamers.

Protip: Everyone in Washington is a gamer.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 07:38 AM by buster2010

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Companies will come back to the US when the fascists are out of the White House.

When the class-warfare president is out of office, you'll see growth here.

More of the class warfare crap? You seem to forget Bush gave these companies tax breaks to move overseas. Now what party is waging class warfare the party that moves jobs overseas or the one that wants the jobs back in the states?

I forgot when it's against the wealthy it's class warfare I guess the middle class and the poor don't count as a class here huh?

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 07:59 AM by Kaploink

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Companies will come back to the US when the fascists are out of the White House.

When the class-warfare president is out of office, you'll see growth here.

You do realize that companies were sending jobs overseas while Reagan was president. Was he a fascist also?

Jobs were going overseas when G.W. Bush was president and the Republicans controlled both houses. Were they fascists also?

Jobs were going overseas when Bush Sr and Clinton were president too.

The truth is that corporations could care less about the United States. Their only concern is to maximize profits. If they can use foreign child labor or even foreign slave labor without repercussions, they will do so. It's the famous race to the bottom.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 08:06 AM by grey580

I really want to know the reasoning behind the filibuster.
Why did they filibuster it?

Are they too busy blowing their corporate master? I want to know.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 08:08 AM by gncnew

I'm no lawyer, but there are a couple of things I'd be worried about in the bill:

SEC. 45S. CREDIT FOR INSOURCING EXPENSES [...]
(b) [...]
‘(2) ELIGIBLE EXPENSES- The term ‘eligible expenses’ means--

‘(A) any amount for which a deduction is allowed to the taxpayer under section 162, and

‘(B) permit and license fees, lease brokerage fees, equipment installation costs, and, to the extent provided by the Secretary, other similar expenses.

Such term does not include any compensation which is paid or incurred in connection with severance from employment and, to the extent provided by the Secretary, any similar amount.

This section reads that essentially you're ONLY awarded the credit towards the cost of establishing the jobs within the US but NOT for the any costs of removing the jobs from the other location. This could prove extremely costly as many of the host countries of these jobs will fine the company as well as seize and/or block the sale of any manufacturing facilities already established outside of the U.S.

Not saying I know anything - but this alone may be one reason, it simply doesn't cover the larger part of the expense of bringing those jobs back to the US.

But more importantly there is a little thing at the bottom that essentially (in my opinion) ammends the existing tax code to "eliminate" (read tax increase) the ability of a company to deduct any operating costs that are related to outsourcing from their net taxable income:

(b) Limitation on Subpart F Income of Controlled Foreign Corporations Determined Without Regard to Specified Outsourcing Expenses- Subsection (c) of section 952 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘(4) EARNINGS AND PROFITS DETERMINED WITHOUT REGARD TO SPECIFIED OUTSOURCING EXPENSES- For purposes of this subsection, earnings and profits of any controlled foreign corporation shall be determined without regard to any specified outsourcing expense (as defined in section 280I(b)).’.

Again, maybe I'm just misreading it, but it looks to me like a sneaky way to essentially massively increase taxes on corporations that have overseas operations.

Not saying this is a bad thing, but if that passed, without a significant reduction in taxes (not a one time credit like this bill) for them, you'd make every major international American corporation obsolete in one swift blow.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 08:32 AM by Valhall

Originally posted by gncnew

Again, maybe I'm just misreading it, but it looks to me like a sneaky way to essentially massively increase taxes on corporations that have overseas operations.

Not saying this is a bad thing, but if that passed, without a significant reduction in taxes (not a one time credit like this bill) for them, you'd make every major international American corporation obsolete in one swift blow.

You bring up a good question. What if you are an international company providing SERVICES through-out the world market? In that case you're not outsourcing anything, you're selling your services to the global market. In order to do that you have to have employees in those countries that you provide the services you sell. How would this bill effect those companies? Would all their costs associated with operating in other countries all of a sudden not be something they could declare?

I'm starting to see the problem.

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 09:01 AM by dutchmilpo

Shame the US-citizen have only 2 choices. To my foreign eyes these choices: being whipped 14 lashes with a whip, or being beaten with14 hits to the soles of the feet.

Why is Every attempt at creating more parties snuffed? Is a third, an even a fourth-party thát fear-inducing in the current Congress, that they are prepared to go at great lengths to prevent that (ironically, it would be the first réal bit of co-operation in that dysfunctional bunch)

I don't get it, I júst don't get it. Why do Americans keep allowing this simplistic left-right, Dem-GOP black-white bit of manipulating? Isn't, by law and constitution, ányone, born of American citizens, allowed to start a party? Or does it come down to plain money?

I.e. no money: not a chance in Hell to become politically important?

edit on 19/7/12 by dutchmilpo because: Glaring typo's

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 09:13 AM by dutchmilpo

@GNCNEW

Hmmm.. It takes some time to cut through the wishy-washy-whoolly legal speak, but to me it looks like the bill wanted to put a penalty on outsourcing, but nót so high a penalty that outsourcing could Still not still be profitable.

Buuut.. It also wanted to make "insourcing" more attractive. There is some sort of logic to it: Outsourcing means missed opportunities for workers in the US. Those missed opportunities will cost the government (read:taxpayer)money. The companies that insíston outsourcing, are in this way forced to pay for the loss of jobs on US soil.

I wonder: would it be feasible to subsidize those companies that keep their production on US soil? Carrots & sticks, so to speak.

Oh, wait, that's what this bill is about, so it seems. And to boot,Through the taxes paid by the outsourcers (is that even a word??) the tax-cuts for the middle incomes could be financed for the foreseeable time. Which, in turn, would keep the middle-class in better shape to spend. Maybe even re-start a healthy housing market.

Maybe I see this as a bit too simplistic?

edit on 19/7/12 by dutchmilpo because: Forgot something

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 09:26 AM by AboveBoard

reply to post by Valhall

But I'm confused on this - so perhaps you could help me? The word "cretin" simply translates to "stupid" or - it is a derogatory term, not a certain kind of corporation - I think it sounds like the Rep was doing a bit of firm name-calling to drive home her opinion of outsourcing companies. So it wasn't referencing a particular kind of industry or class of company at all, only the 'cretins' who would take US jobs to foreign shores.

I may be wrong, but that is my interpretation of that.

peace,
AB

edit on 19-7-2012 by AboveBoard because: oops!

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 09:26 AM by dutchmilpo

reply to post by Valhall

Consider this: overhere, in The Netherlands, we have séveral offices of bíg American companies. Offices that do nothing more than rotating funds. Mostly it's just an operator and a terminal. Sometimes it's not even thát, but an Avaya auto system.

Thusly, the companies can claim that their financial services are "abroad". The funds flowing through those ghost-offices are out of reach of the Tax-Collector in the States, that would, normally, get about 35% of every transaction.

Here's the nasty bit: The Netherlands have an exemption in the tax-code for foreign companies. Dutch companies pay about 15% corporation-tax, fóreign companies pay just 5%!!!. The Netherlands are a kind of cayman Isles in the North, but without the mosquitos and corruption.

Ka-chingng!!

Edit:

That is about to change (a little) because the EU iscworking on a Tobin-tax of 0.01% on ALL financial transactions.

Suffice to say that corpocrats like Cameron went ballistic and tried to veto it.

edit on 19/7/12 by dutchmilpo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 09:34 AM by gncnew

Originally posted by dutchmilpo
@GNCNEW

Hmmm.. It takes some time to cut through the wishy-washy-whoolly legal speak, but to me it looks like the bill wanted to put a penalty on outsourcing, but nót so high a penalty that outsourcing could Still not still be profitable.

Buuut.. It also wanted to make "insourcing" more attractive. There is some sort of logic to it: Outsourcing means missed opportunities for workers in the US. Those missed opportunities will cost the government (read:taxpayer)money. The companies that insíston outsourcing, are in this way forced to pay for the loss of jobs on US soil.

I wonder: would it be feasible to subsidize those companies that keep their production on US soil? Carrots & sticks, so to speak.

Oh, wait, that's what this bill is about, so it seems. And to boot,Through the taxes paid by the outsourcers (is that even a word??) the tax-cuts for the middle incomes could be financed for the foreseeable time. Which, in turn, would keep the middle-class in better shape to spend. Maybe even re-start a healthy housing market.

Maybe I see this as a bit too simplistic?
edit on 19/7/12 by dutchmilpo because: Forgot something

I dont think you're being too simplistic. I think this bill is intended to penalize and incentivize - but I'm reading it as a very heavy penalty with only a one time tax credit incentive.

Think of it like this: I'm going to roughly double your taxes from now on if you outsource at all - because from now on all costs of doing business (an amount normally deductible from your "income") are non-deductable if they're from outside the US.

But if you bring some jobs home, I'll give you a credit worth up to 20% of the cost to bring those jobs into the US.

It costs me $100 million to operate outside the US every year. It would cost me $700 million to bring that operation home.

I would get a one time $140 million dollar credit on next years taxes - but after that, back to normal taxes, which by the way just tripled because China doesn't make me pay Social Security and Medicare or matching Income taxes on my overseas operations.

If I DON'T do this - then I have to pay full income taxes on the additional $100 million of what is deemed non-deductible operating costs.

-----

All around, you're just trying to raise taxes on me. Either in a long slow burn of me bringing jobs to the US, or in a quick hit by making my overseas operating expenses non-deductible.

----
Maybe I'm making it too simplistic?

edit on 19-7-2012 by gncnew because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 10:01 AM by dutchmilpo

reply to post by gncnew

So, You think it is a bit like shooting a gnat with a 12-gauge? Politicians over-reaching? Nâh.. They wouldn't.

On a more serious note. Overhere, we are taxed to the brim, but we dó get a lot back for that. Corporations are taxed waaaay lower than in The States. There múst be a balance somewhere. A balance that does not require still-born bills.

But..well.. I guess that requires a functioning government. And, to be brutally honest, as a Dutchie that has just seen his own government asplode over some triviality. I guess I should wisely keep mum about "dysfunctional Government", as polarisation and trivial quibbles did ours in.

There's a lesson there

edit on 19/7/12 by dutchmilpo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 10:04 AM by Valhall

Originally posted by AboveBoard
reply to post by Valhall

But I'm confused on this - so perhaps you could help me? The word "cretin" simply translates to "stupid" or - it is a derogatory term, not a certain kind of corporation - I think it sounds like the Rep was doing a bit of firm name-calling to drive home her opinion of outsourcing companies. So it wasn't referencing a particular kind of industry or class of company at all, only the 'cretins' who would take US jobs to foreign shores.

I may be wrong, but that is my interpretation of that.

peace,
AB
edit on 19-7-2012 by AboveBoard because: oops!

I actually can't help you on that. I have no idea what she meant, but I do agree with your interpretation of cretin. Please don't assume I've decided to fall on either side of the decision to vote it in or out. I'm actually asking a question to better understand if the bill was written properly.

In the case I presented I'm still not clear on whether that type of global company (but US in foundation) would be penalized on this bill. That's what I was trying to find out.

Now I'm wondering what the "cretin litmus test" would look like. lol

reply posted on 19-7-2012 @ 10:23 AM by Blackmarketeer

reply to post by SJE98

The word "cretin" does not appear anywhere in the text of the bill. (full text of bill here).

The tax credit for INSOURCING jobs would apply to any company moving jobs to the US. Not sure why you feel that is a "union agenda therefore a negative". The bill addresses the tax code, some from 1986, which rewarded companies for REMOVING jobs from the USA and sending them overseas. The bill would change that code to take away that tax incentive to remove jobs from our country.

The bill seeks to instead give a tax break to companies that bring jobs home.

In effect it will reverse the trend of giving away our tax dollars, as a financial reward, to US companies that are removing jobs from Americans and giving them to another country.

Here is Sen. Stabenow's cspan appearance: