It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Many analysts say it's true. "The U.S. tax system does provide an incentive to locate production offshore," says Martin Sullivan, a contributing editor to Tax Notes, a non-profit publication that tracks tax issues.
"If you had two companies in Pittsburgh that both were going to expand capacity and create 100 jobs, our tax code puts the company who chooses to put the plant in Pittsburgh at a competitive disadvantage over the company that chooses to move to a tax haven," says former White House economist Gene Sperling, a Clinton adviser.
The Democrats, saying the United States has overlooked the costs to working Americans in its rush to embrace globalization, have vowed to eliminate any tax incentive for further offshoring.
The deferral clause has been in the tax code for more than half a century and has outlasted numerous reform efforts. In April 1961, even as U.S.-backed rebels were dying at Cuba's Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy asked Congress to rewrite tax provisions that "consistently favor United States private investment abroad compared with investment in our own economy."
The bill is nothing but a hoax, people still doesn't see the true colors, the tax code to protect companies oversea has been enacted since the 60s
There has always been and there will always be, no matter what form of government you have, people who have more (money and/or power) and people who have less. Even in a socialized government all you have done is made the populace below the bar of "have more" and those in power the extremely limited group above that bar. And the major difference between the system you get with a socialized economy and that you naturally have with a capitalistic economy is in the former there is little to no chance of making your own way up above that bar. The government legislates that forced "caste" system on the society.
The government should not be trying to TAX companies back into America.
‘SEC. 45S. CREDIT FOR INSOURCING EXPENSES.
‘(a) In General- For purposes of section 38, the insourcing expenses credit for any taxable year is an amount equal to 20 percent of the eligible insourcing expenses of the taxpayer which are taken into account in such taxable year under subsection (d).
If they want to legislatively force the situation, the penalizing movement should be toward imports.
If people (ALL people) are not required to support the common services they are provided, to every single instance in history it devolves into the Tragedy of the Commons. When people perceive a common benefit/service as "free" (even though it is not), that service falls into abuse by those who can use but are not held accountable. That service falls into ruin due to lack of ownership and accountability. Over and over in history the tragedy of the commons has been proven out and right now, right here, we're watching it occur again.
You can hate on them all you want but guess what? They couldn't have done it without us, the consumer, flocking to their store, abandoning the local stores to save a few bucks, and now we are complicit.
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
It's a very short bill, just one page, very easy to read. the text is here:
S. 3364: Bring Jobs Home Act - full text
There is nothing in there that would detract from the stated goal of the bill - to reduce tax breaks for sending jobs overseas, and to install tax breaks for bringing jobs back home (unlike the Highway bill, which was LOADED with crap that had nothing to do with funding the highway system).
It's very cut and dry - the only reason for voting against this bill is that the financial backers of the GOP - namely the Kochs - don't want their gravy train to end.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Wow. You're referencing the AFL-CIO website's Republican hit piece? And what are we supposed to do? Believe that they are just passing on the "facts"?
What other Democrat pork is in that AFL-CIO-authored bill? "Bring Jobs Home Act"? I bet it's more like "Create More Union Jobs and Make The Unions Even More Powerful Act". And you wonder why Republicans would oppose another piece of Union-authored legislation to further destroy our economy. Just because these parasites give it a feelgood title like "Bring Jobs Back Home Act" doesn't mean that is what the act does. It just makes it easy to write disparaging headlines like "House Republicans Block 'Bring Jobs Home Act'".
Let's not get crazy with the propaganda now, okay?
edit on 19-7-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by gncnew
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by artnut
No it is not a tax increase on companies that are already outsourcing. Those tax breaks they received were a one-time break to move their company's jobs overseas. It is not an ongoing tax break. This bill would, however, stop rewarding companies with tax breaks for closing down a job center (shop, facility, etc.) and re-opening it in another country and employing their citizens instead of our own. This bill would have no impact on a company that is expanding overseas either. Example, Ford Motor Co. opens a new manufacturing facility in Europe to produce cars that are sold in Europe. That is not outsourcing. Outsourcing is closing a facility or job center in America and transferring those American jobs to another country. Now if Ford were to close a parts plant in Alabama and then reopen that same parts plant in Mexico, employing Mexican labor, and then shipping those parts back to the US, that is outsourcing, and that is the sort of thing this bill would stop rewarding with our tax dollars.
The real rewards for moving jobs overseas are as follows:
- Lower wages (slight reward)
- No matching income taxes to pay (big reward)
- No matching Social Security to pay (Massive reward)
- No FICA to pay (Insane reward)
- No mandatory insurance policies that you have to split costs for (biggest reward of all)
Republicans were considering supporting the insourcing bill until Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he wouldn't include any GOP amendments.
“At a time when millions of Americans are looking for work, I’m not sure what could be more serious than protecting good-paying, middle-class jobs,” Reid said. “This obstruction tactic is unfortunate, but it’s not surprising. After all, Republicans’ nominee for president made a fortune working for a company that shipped jobs overseas.”
“On the surface this might sound reasonable ... but as far as tax policy goes this is a joke,” said ranking member of the Finance Committee Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). “It’s devoid of serious content because it is product of political rather than economic priorities.”
Reid said the bill was very serious to those losing their jobs.
“To 21 million Americans whose jobs could be the next ones sent to China or India, it’s a very serious proposal,” Reid said. “And to the 2.5 million Americans who jobs have already been offshored, it doesn’t get any more serious than this. The only ones who aren’t taking this legislation seriously are Republicans in Congress.”
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced the bill as a jobs measure.
"It's time to stop rewarding companies that send jobs to other countries and instead support businesses creating jobs here at home," she said.