House Republicans Block "Bring Jobs Home Act"

Does the tax code send U.S. jobs offshore?

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."

One of the biggest proponents in outsourcing has been the "US Chamber of Commerce" - (which is not a real United States government organization), they have pushed and pushed hard to increase the tax incentives and write-offs allowed for outsourcing jobs.

reply to post by marg6043

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

Please link to the actual code you are referring to. Or at least give the Title and Section number so we can look it up.

The "outsourcing" tax break was added in 1986, with the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

The Brookings Institution has written about offshoring, it's causes and effects:
Services Offshoring, American Jobs, and the Global Economy (brookings.edu)
You can download the PDF from that link.

Outsourcing (or offshoring) is from relocating an existing company from the US to another country, and transferring those jobs there. This is not the same as an American company expanding to another country, which happens a lot. The "Bring Jobs Home" act does not impede companies from expanding to other countries. It only ends giving them a tax break for relocation their jobs offshore.

reply to post by Valhall

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.

Talking about hyperbole. How did we get to this from talking about tax brackets?

Shades of socialism does not a fascist dictatorship make. Just the same as degrees of capitalism doesn't make a Republic (look at China). Perhaps you need to re-read what I've wrote. Maybe then we can attempt to debate a single well-defined point, rather than generalizing that you're either for one system or against it. Because I'm all for simplification of the tax code. However I'm against simplification to the point of having a single flat tax bracket. It would probably work much better, as a three or four tier system with less ways for people to perform "questionable deductions." That's a sane reform. Actually I think it would be kind of interesting to do a single trial run (just for a year) to see how something like this would work in practice.

The government should not be trying to TAX companies back into America.

Just the same as we shouldn't provide subsidies to companies that want to leave the States. Cutting off the gravy train for people who want to have their pie and eat it too should be a no brainer, especially for someone who cares about "America's Got Product." From what I've read in S.3364 the whole point of the insourcing expense is to make it tax deductible.

‘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).

The eligible insourcing expenses are sufficiently broad to cover all of Internal Revenue Code section 162, up to and including permits, license fees, and other associated local governmental costs. That's pretty generous! And it comes at a cost to the American taxpayer. However I think if we want more jobs locally, this is a great way to help bolster the US economy. Though I'm sure it would still require a slight increase in costs for the average consumer due to competition with cheaper foreign exports.

If they want to legislatively force the situation, the penalizing movement should be toward imports.

I think this would provide more incentive. So I'm inclined to agree. Though this might be like using a jack hammer when only a hammer is necessary. S.3364 seems like a possible middle ground. I'm not sure to be honest.

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.

Absolutely no disagreement there.

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.

I don't shop at WalMart. Never have. Never will. So while this may be applicable for a large segment of the population. I'm in no way feeding the beast. Most of my money already goes into the local economy. When I was in WA, working at Microsoft, funny as it may seem, the higher up the food chain you went the more likely a person was to spend out of state. There were a couple of times I remember a manager talking about how he and the family made a trip to Oregon to skip paying the state sales tax for a couple of big ticket items. I think to purchase a vehicle. I suppose, people will be people. Everyone's going to look out for their own self interests. Which is why we can't always s### on the little guy who's helpless and at the mercy of the system because those of us who can often do. And you know what this is called? It's called being a bully. A basic social net for those who are the most vulnerable is "a good thing."(tm)

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


You missed the link two pages ago. Along with the history of outsourcing, tax codes, reforms and give aways.

www.usatoday.com...

reply to post by marg6043


You are referring to the "deferral clause" as cited in the article, but this is not about deferring taxes on profits earned overseas (which is another issue that should be addressed), this is about ending the tax break companies receive for relocating to another country. The "Bring Jobs Home" act would specifically end giving that one time tax-break for relocation offshore and instead replace it with a tax break for relocating TO the US.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Blackmarketeer, I have to applaud you. All of ATS should applaud you.

Why?

You are still able to deal with the nutjob conservatives on this website. And all the SOB's will vote for Romney even though most of them claim to hate him.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Does the tax code send U.S. jobs offshore?

Absolutely. Not only does our low tariffs promote the loss of jobs to slave labor countries, we actually give tax breaks for companies moving equipment overseas.

It's BS.

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.

All the bills should be that short. Not piled on with crap so that everyone canl have a reason to vote for or against it. That is the out that both sides use. Each bill should be very short and to the point.

In any case, this one WAS short and sweet. There is no wriggle room that the Republicans have to be against it. Their loyalties lie with the Corporate Global elite!! That is where they get their money from. Who EXACTLY were the idiots that filibustered this?

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)

Did you READ it? I'm no Democrat or Union lover. But this is clear cut. I'm trying to hold back name calling here, but geez. Don't get all frothy in the mouth and call it some Union give away when you haven't even read it. Man that is the problem with America, you talk without even researching it yourself. Where did you hear that about it being Union driven? Fox News? That is why I can't watch it, except maybe Judge Napolitano, but I hear they took away his show.

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:

1. Lower wages (slight reward)
   
2. No matching income taxes to pay (big reward)
   
3. No matching Social Security to pay (Massive reward)
   
4. No FICA to pay (Insane reward)
   
5. No mandatory insurance policies that you have to split costs for (biggest reward of all)
   

Ok so your contention is that American corporations that have grown into multi national global corporations with American labor and ingenuity (there are engineers that made things faster, more efficient) and American consumers who bought their products and made these corporations incredibly wealthy and huge, so that they now can exert their influence through out the world. Those corporations can now dismantle their production here in the United States, not because they are not profitable, but so they can increase their profits. Continue to make fabulous profits from the American consumer.
That the government of the people, for the people and by the people does not have a right to give incentives for corporations to bring jobs back to America and have disincentives for corporations who continue to decimate the social fabric of our country. Because THAT would be a tax increase? While I agree with a flat tax rate, I don't agree with giving incentives to corporations that ship jobs overseas.
I don't know about you, but I'm an American and I care what happens to the people of America. I guess if you are a CEO or a billionaire investor, maybe it doesn't matter to you what happens to Americans. But it makes no sense to me.

reply to post by BravoBull


maybe that was the problem it was too short, they didn't give the republicans the opportunity to load it full of crap!!
and, maybe there were a few dems that were offended by this also, and were happy to see the fillibuster, who knows. I bet the bill comes back, filled with the crap, and everyone will go along with it, and well, we will be spending a million dollars for each job that comes back somehow...

The reason the Republicans blocked this act: They would not be permitted to add amendments to it and fill it with pork.

Classic.

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.”

From GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill

“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.