It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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)
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.
"We now give tax incentives for people who move offshore. That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
Originally posted by XPLodER
why is tax money being used as an incentive to offshore jobs?
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.
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.
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.
(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)).’.
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.
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
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,
ABedit on 19-7-2012 by AboveBoard because: oops!