Can_I_just_be_Jo is offline Can_I_just_be_Jo Post #1  July 9,2010, 10:36am

blames self-help books

Power Poster

Joined: Oct 2009

STL

Posts: 4,879

See profile

Nope, not talking about people I am talking about US assets. Specifically earnings, ya know, cash. I don't know how much people understand international tax. I have taken a few courses and still have a lot to learn but still I will try to explain. Some earnings from US held subsidiaries can be earned tax free so long as the money is kept offshore. In other words the tax event is repatriating the earnings.

What this pretty much means is there are US companies that hold vast wealth offshore that they cannot invest in the United States without giving half of it to the government. What I am about to suggest may seem strange and perhaps some will say unfair still I feel compelled to type.

What I suggest is that our goverment allow these companies to repatriate these earnings tax free until the end of the year. This would allow these companies to use the money to build new factories, locations, offices and more important put our workers to work.

What seems to stop the government from doing this is instead of looking at it as billions of free stimulus they are looking at it as millions in lost tax revenue. I would argue that the tax revenue is already lost, trust me, it takes a lot to get these companies to bring back the money on their own. It isn't coming back, the tax revenue doesn't exist. Kinda like that $500 you shouldn't have leant you deadbeat cousin, you will never see it, you know it, he knows it, but you still count it as your asset.

Further if our government was to get over this loss they would see that more workers will be paying taxes, more earnings will be made here in the US where they will be taxed. Oh my gosh, there is their tax revenue realized.

So why aren't we hearing ideas like this batted around Congress?

Just thinking out loud.
 
  Reply With Quote
TheThinker is offline TheThinker Post #2  July 9,2010, 12:37pm
TheThinker's Avatar

And now for something completely different...

Power Poster

Joined: Aug 2009

The Island of Rhode

Posts: 5,660

See profile

Can_I_just_be_Jo wrote :

So why aren't we hearing ideas like this batted around Congress?

Just thinking out loud.
For basically the same reasons the gov't won't implement a flat tax...and every time it's brought up, it gets shot down.
The more money you make the more they want to grab.
10%...15%...whatever.. is the same percentage of income regardless of what your gross income is.

Basically...it makes tooo much sense....and we can't have that in the government...ya know.
 
  Reply With Quote
Can_I_just_be_Jo is offline Can_I_just_be_Jo Post #3  July 9,2010, 12:45pm

blames self-help books

Power Poster

Joined: Oct 2009

STL

Posts: 4,879

See profile

TheThinker wrote :
Basically...it makes tooo much sense....and we can't have that in the government...ya know.
Yeah I have always felt my common sense has held me back in politics. Good thing I like having a soul.

Okay it really does bug me though, we are letting other countries use our assets and getting nothing in return. Why!? After looking at the millions (yeah I exaggerate a lot) of tax treaties there is no way the government will ever compel this money to return. So welcome it back like the red headed step child and watch it grow.

I am really down on the government at the moment, can you tell?
 
  Reply With Quote
landstar59 is offline landstar59 Post #4  July 9,2010, 4:06pm
landstar59's Avatar

Wondering why I ever left this place. Came back and now I know why.

Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008

30.5 Lat / -90.45 Long

Posts: 1,922

See profile

I was reading a book recently and the author produced a U.S. government tax table that was from the 40's (if I remember correctly) and the income tax on $200,000 was 91%....you read correctly, 91% . If that happened today I think the government would have to hire mercenaries to collect their money. I know I wouldn't pay that willingly.
 
  Reply With Quote
Can_I_just_be_Jo is offline Can_I_just_be_Jo Post #5  July 9,2010, 4:19pm

blames self-help books

Power Poster

Joined: Oct 2009

STL

Posts: 4,879

See profile

landstar59 wrote :
I was reading a book recently and the author produced a U.S. government tax table that was from the 40's (if I remember correctly) and the income tax on $200,000 was 91%....you read correctly, 91% . If that happened today I think the government would have to hire mercenaries to collect their money. I know I wouldn't pay that willingly.
That sounds about right. There was a call to increase taxes just before the great depression that wasn't repealed for some time. It was effective for reducing the US debt but, well, ya know, there was that pesky depression. Regan brought us the first real relief from usury taxation.
 
  Reply With Quote
ThePriestess is offline ThePriestess Post #6  July 9,2010, 4:32pm
ThePriestess's Avatar

It's a glow-in-the-dark compass ring, so you don't get lost.

Sage

Joined: Apr 2008

Canadian POW held in Florida

Posts: 15,919

See profile

Can_I_just_be_Jo wrote :
What seems to stop the government from doing this is instead of looking at it as billions of free stimulus they are looking at it as millions in lost tax revenue. I would argue that the tax revenue is already lost, trust me, it takes a lot to get these companies to bring back the money on their own. It isn't coming back, the tax revenue doesn't exist.
Either situation represents a loss to the nation. The differential between the two would be whether the benefit of these companies potentially (not a certainty) investing the revenue outweighs the potential of even greater lost revenue as more companies seek to avoid taxation outright.

Personally, I find both cases equally uninspired and detrimental to the nation.
 
  Reply With Quote
ThePriestess is offline ThePriestess Post #7  July 9,2010, 4:37pm
ThePriestess's Avatar

It's a glow-in-the-dark compass ring, so you don't get lost.

Sage

Joined: Apr 2008

Canadian POW held in Florida

Posts: 15,919

See profile

Can_I_just_be_Jo wrote :
Reagan brought us the first real relief from usury taxation.
Reagan's administration was also the period when the national debt began to increase steeply, tripling between the beginning and ending of his consecutive terms.
 
  Reply With Quote
Can_I_just_be_Jo is offline Can_I_just_be_Jo Post #8  July 9,2010, 5:05pm

blames self-help books

Power Poster

Joined: Oct 2009

STL

Posts: 4,879

See profile

ThePriestess wrote :
Reagan's administration was also the period when the national debt began to increase steeply, tripling between the beginning and ending of his consecutive terms.
Debt or deficit? Shame I left my machine at home with my wonsderful databases. if you decide to look that up could you fetch me the debt and deficit to GDP while you are at it. Oh just for point of reference US household savings rate, fed fund rate, thanks.
 
  Reply With Quote
Can_I_just_be_Jo is offline Can_I_just_be_Jo Post #9  July 9,2010, 5:12pm

blames self-help books

Power Poster

Joined: Oct 2009

STL

Posts: 4,879

See profile

ThePriestess wrote :
Either situation represents a loss to the nation. The differential between the two would be whether the benefit of these companies potentially (not a certainty) investing the revenue outweighs the potential of even greater lost revenue as more companies seek to avoid taxation outright.

Personally, I find both cases equally uninspired and detrimental to the nation.
The revenue is already lost, it isn't coming back, it is a sunk cost. Ignoring the money is allowing it to be used for growth overseas. I am not saying I am right but it seems the only way we can make any tax revenue off it is bring the assets back under US control. Since we can't compel them we bribe them.
 
  Reply With Quote
ThePriestess is offline ThePriestess Post #10  July 9,2010, 5:23pm
ThePriestess's Avatar

It's a glow-in-the-dark compass ring, so you don't get lost.

Sage

Joined: Apr 2008

Canadian POW held in Florida

Posts: 15,919

See profile

Can_I_just_be_Jo wrote :
Debt or deficit?
Debt.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply
  • Page 1 of 3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


« Economic Reality | Politics | What's more important? »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“The tennis ball story is a good analogy, RD, and that's how I interpret "gut feeling" -- a conclusion/sense of something that's a thought, not a feeling; though it will have feelings associated with ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “Is Your Gut Leading - or Misleading You?” discussion

“Agree. Given where you are emotionally, I would cease all communication with Mr. Trade Show. You're vulnerable. He's up for a challenge. It's playing with fire. You'll be in a bad place in the ... ” –  emma_hazards

Join the “Received lovely email from former poofer” discussion

“How about phone calls, then?” –  barbarella_42

Join the “Advice on Response time” discussion

“I have never spoken to a woman like he has. Yeah, I have never spoken to a woman like that either. It is a hard call to whether he is just as jerk, or whether he is a player. Both are feasible ... ” –  ScottK

Join the “So, men. Explain this to me, please!” discussion

“I have come to this same conclusion. Thank you.” –  bibittyboo

Join the “Confused about date #2” discussion

“Harmonygirl, I do not usually make up my mind on blanket situations but instead would examine each one on it's own merits, so I cannot answer your question. However, just in the going about of daily ... ” –  Ephemera

Join the “Atheism, Religion and Tolerance” discussion

“I was ok until the kiss on the cheek part....That doesn't sound like your defenses were up at all... It's one thing for a guy to walk up and start with the cheesy lines....But as soon as I say, "no ... ” –  Ingytravel

Join the “So this guy walks into a bar . . .” discussion

“ No. It is not wise. You have to throw all your eggs into one basket for love to work at all. Relationships are inherently riskier than careers. You can't use the same rules. You might lose ... ” –  harnomygirl

Join the “Becoming Exclusive” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:31am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0