Seeing that that is exactly what happened last time, I would have to agree.
Funny how the mighty Damoclues runs away from me.
Last edited:
Apple's calls for repatriation tax holiday gain no traction with White House
- Thread starter RockX
- Start date
Seeing that that is exactly what happened last time, I would have to agree.
Funny how the mighty Damoclues runs away from me.
Nobody "runs" from you. Your questions were answered several times in the context of my posts here. Constant repetition is only necessary for idiots and I do not assume you to be stupid.
I think your ideas are stupid, and that ideologues are generally foolish and ever so willing to punish themselves to spite whatever imaginary 'enemy' their propagandists tell them is 'bad' today...
And again, which "past" is this and what time, at that time what direct incentive to invest in jobs did the legislation give or was it missing from the legislation?
And finally, it is flat stupid, directly and deliberately so, to say that it would not be better for us to have that money here circulating in our economy than there, circulating in another economy.
American Tax Laws are so stupid that it amazes me when I see we actually have ideologues arguing that the nation with the highest corporate taxes in the First World isn't taxing enough.
I'll repeat it, because apparently you wish for me to treat you like you are stupid.
1. I believe that the repatriated funds will be invested if we directly make it so that they cannot repatriate it except if they spend it by investing in the US.
Paid as dividends is investing here, it begins a process of circulation. The idea that giving people money that they otherwise would not is bad for the economy is just plain stupid.
The first answers actually answer your last question.
I should answer your questions the same way you pretended to answer mine, say something like, "You ask stupid questions, so I won't answer this one." But I won't, I refuse to treat you like an idiot even if you insist you need to act as one. Your ideas to ensure that the money never comes here and can never do any good, however, are the crippled mental exercise of a mental midget ideologue who can't think past "them is baaaad comp'nies"...
apple0154
MEOW
There's a reason they want to bring it here, otherwise, they wouldn't be trying. A reasonable guess would be there are better opportunities for investment here than elsewhere. Maybe other companies will take note and see what happens if/when they decide to move overseas.
The lesson to be learned is if you make money overseas don't expect to bring it here to invest without having paid taxes on it here.
Look at laundrying money. Why not let drug dealers and gamblers and other illegals bring all the money they want here? Just like companies they made money a way which is considered illegal here. The companies never paid taxes here which would be illegal for any company here that tried that and the drug dealers and gamblers and loan sharks made money selling or offering services that are illegal here. If the bottom line is the money then pimps who made money from prostitution in foreign countries didn't break any laws here. Why can't they bring they their millions and invest it here?
Like Damocles, you fail to see the big picture. It skews the playing field for companies that remained here and were good citizens employing US personel. It would encourage other companies to do the same thing and then pay lobbyists to persuade Congress to change laws.
The reality is, investment here would be good for both of us, but they are perfectly willing to just let the money stay where it is. It is stupid to cut off your nose to spite your face. You ignore the larger picture and insist that the only good thing that can happen is to "punish" these "bad companies" who didn't act as you want them to act.
The lesson to be learned is if you insist on punitive taxation money that would otherwise be invested here will not.
Laundering, the word is laundering.
They can, and will bring the money here if the level of taxation isn't punitive, even "pimps" will pay a tax so they can enjoy their gains without reservation.
There comes a time when the return on your investment is less than the cost of repatriation. When such a point is reached then it is better for the company to leave the money where it is than it is to repatriate it. If such is the case now, and the US has the highest corporate tax rates in the first world (definitely true) then any incentive to invest any of the funds here is lost in foolish laws that need to be changed, especially during a down economy.
The insistence that only the government can stimulate an economy is flat ideological nonsense.
The only people who fail to see the larger picture are the fools who think that it would be bad to have the money here in this economy.
apple0154
MEOW
The companies knew the consequences of moving/investing overseas. It appears you are the ideologue. You are the one with the "Government is Bad" ideology. After knowing the consequences of moving and making money overseas you want the laws changed so as it make the consequences disappear. Not only does that give the companies in question an unfair advantage but it will encourage other companies to do the same.
Why do you want to punish companies that remained in the US and employed US citizens? That's what changing the laws would accomplish.
From http://www.appleinsider.com/article...offshore_tax_holiday_to_bring_cash_to_us.html
An attempt to replay the 2004 tax break in 2009, as part of President Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus plan, was supported by a bipartisan group of senators led by California Democrat Barbara Boxer and Nevada Republican John Ensign, but it failed to get more than 42 votes.
At the time, opposition to the plan came from senators who were upset by how, as Boxer acknowledged in the report, companies had previously "abused the spirit of the requirements on how the money needed to be spent" under the previous tax holiday.
The "privately financed stimulus" plan is being looked at skeptically by both rural Democrats and by Tea Party-affiliated Republicans who see the measure as a handout to big corporations, while the new influx of relatively moderate Republicans in the House are likely to be more amicable. President Obama has shown little enthusiasm for the corporate tax holiday in the past, but is meeting with tech industry CEOs on a trip to Silicon Valley tomorrow in what the report referred to as "scouting for opportunities to burnish his relationship with big business."
This all happened before
The report noted that in a previous tax holiday, granted in 2004, companies had similarly argued that repatriating foreign funds at discounted tax rates would enable them to boost the economy through direct domestic investment.
However, even though the Treasury Department attempted to write rules at the time to ensure the money would be invested locally, most of the cash (60 to 92 percent, according to one study cited in the report) was simply returned to shareholders in the form of stock buybacks and dividends.
"A tax holiday would bring a substantial amount of cash back to the United States and paying that out to shareholders is good for the economy," said the study's co-author Kristin Forbes, who Forbes noted is an economics professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and was a member of President George W. Bush's council of economic advisers. "But if you're a politician claiming this will create a lot of jobs or new investment, it isn't supported by the data."
Apple hasn't given any indication of what exactly it might do with its vast cash reserves were the US to allow it to bring more of that money into the country with a tax break incentive. Some investors and analysts have pleaded with the company to distribute its holdings to shareholders in the form of dividends.
Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs has noted at previous shareholder meetings that such a move would be a shortsighted use of the company's buying power, and would remove a central pillar holding up the company's valuation. By holding onto the cash, Apple can be prepared to jump on new opportunities as they arise.
Gee Damo, it seems like my sentiments are shared by both dems and pubs alike.
An attempt to replay the 2004 tax break in 2009, as part of President Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus plan, was supported by a bipartisan group of senators led by California Democrat Barbara Boxer and Nevada Republican John Ensign, but it failed to get more than 42 votes.
At the time, opposition to the plan came from senators who were upset by how, as Boxer acknowledged in the report, companies had previously "abused the spirit of the requirements on how the money needed to be spent" under the previous tax holiday.
The "privately financed stimulus" plan is being looked at skeptically by both rural Democrats and by Tea Party-affiliated Republicans who see the measure as a handout to big corporations, while the new influx of relatively moderate Republicans in the House are likely to be more amicable. President Obama has shown little enthusiasm for the corporate tax holiday in the past, but is meeting with tech industry CEOs on a trip to Silicon Valley tomorrow in what the report referred to as "scouting for opportunities to burnish his relationship with big business."
This all happened before
The report noted that in a previous tax holiday, granted in 2004, companies had similarly argued that repatriating foreign funds at discounted tax rates would enable them to boost the economy through direct domestic investment.
However, even though the Treasury Department attempted to write rules at the time to ensure the money would be invested locally, most of the cash (60 to 92 percent, according to one study cited in the report) was simply returned to shareholders in the form of stock buybacks and dividends.
"A tax holiday would bring a substantial amount of cash back to the United States and paying that out to shareholders is good for the economy," said the study's co-author Kristin Forbes, who Forbes noted is an economics professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and was a member of President George W. Bush's council of economic advisers. "But if you're a politician claiming this will create a lot of jobs or new investment, it isn't supported by the data."
Apple hasn't given any indication of what exactly it might do with its vast cash reserves were the US to allow it to bring more of that money into the country with a tax break incentive. Some investors and analysts have pleaded with the company to distribute its holdings to shareholders in the form of dividends.
Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs has noted at previous shareholder meetings that such a move would be a shortsighted use of the company's buying power, and would remove a central pillar holding up the company's valuation. By holding onto the cash, Apple can be prepared to jump on new opportunities as they arise.
Gee Damo, it seems like my sentiments are shared by both dems and pubs alike.
1. Didn't happen the first time, even though Treasury tried to cause that.
2. Wrong. I asked if you had proof. You offered none. Yours is at best wishfull thinking.
Again with the lie. I am very disappointed, the truth would serve you better.
I NEVER said this or even implied it. This is your black or white only interpretation.
apple0154
MEOW
It would punish the companies that stayed here.
You wrote to Rune in msg. #64 , “Paid as dividends is investing here, it begins a process of circulation. The idea that giving people money that they otherwise would not is bad for the economy is just plain stupid.”
In that case let’s bring in all the money people made from illegal activities in foreign countries. Why care about laundering money? Let’s get that money circulating!
As for paying dividends it means people are receiving money that was not taxed here. What example are you trying to set? And as for investing companies are sitting on plenty of investment money right here. And people are sitting on savings due to the volatility of the market so let’s be real. Companies are actually paying banks to guard their money as they don’t want to invest it.
The bottom line is there is no shortage of money to invest and by paying dividends that money will not be invested. It’s just a scam to get the money here and distributed/used just as any other company would do.
Thank you for the correct spelling. It’s nice to see you get something right.
Once again, you’re not making any sense. If it’s prohibitive to invest here why are companies trying so hard to bring money here? It can’t be to invest because, according to you, “any incentive to invest any of the funds here is lost in foolish laws”. So, that settles that.
So, why are they interested in bringing the money here? Could it be so they can enjoy the funds without having to pay taxes on it? The CEOs can get bigger bonuses. The investors can get greater dividends. Tax-free money for the “in-crowd” and to hell with any social obligation.
The only fools who think corporations are concerned with helping are the same ones who believe the Republicans want to help people.
Surely one can see the obvious. If the US is such a bad place to invest why would any sane person/corporation bust their balls to be allowed to bring money here to invest? Regardless of whether they pay taxes on the original repatriated funds they will have to pay taxes on any future investment here. So, what’s their game plan? Why do they want to bring the money here?
Or have you not thought that far?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
there's another lesson to be learned.....when the money is invested somewhere else, it doesn't benefit us at all......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
of course they do.....it's the government that seems to be having trouble understanding it.......
It would punish the companies that stayed here.
You wrote to Rune in msg. #64 , “Paid as dividends is investing here, it begins a process of circulation. The idea that giving people money that they otherwise would not is bad for the economy is just plain stupid.”
In that case let’s bring in all the money people made from illegal activities in foreign countries. Why care about laundering money? Let’s get that money circulating!
As for paying dividends it means people are receiving money that was not taxed here. What example are you trying to set? And as for investing companies are sitting on plenty of investment money right here. And people are sitting on savings due to the volatility of the market so let’s be real. Companies are actually paying banks to guard their money as they don’t want to invest it.
The bottom line is there is no shortage of money to invest and by paying dividends that money will not be invested. It’s just a scam to get the money here and distributed/used just as any other company would do.
Thank you for the correct spelling. It’s nice to see you get something right.
Once again, you’re not making any sense. If it’s prohibitive to invest here why are companies trying so hard to bring money here? It can’t be to invest because, according to you, “any incentive to invest any of the funds here is lost in foolish laws”. So, that settles that.
So, why are they interested in bringing the money here? Could it be so they can enjoy the funds without having to pay taxes on it? The CEOs can get bigger bonuses. The investors can get greater dividends. Tax-free money for the “in-crowd” and to hell with any social obligation.
The only fools who think corporations are concerned with helping are the same ones who believe the Republicans want to help people.
Surely one can see the obvious. If the US is such a bad place to invest why would any sane person/corporation bust their balls to be allowed to bring money here to invest? Regardless of whether they pay taxes on the original repatriated funds they will have to pay taxes on any future investment here. So, what’s their game plan? Why do they want to bring the money here?
Or have you not thought that far?
Whether or not they are "concerned" about it, the money can do absolutely no good to the local economy where it is. Only a foolish ideologue is worried about the emotions of a company rather than the nature of economics and willing to punish everybody so they can make their ideological point.
I find conversations with you in almost every category to be akin to speaking to a childlike religious mentality. You have your insistence of faith, and regardless of any logical information you will stand by it. You begin arguing the emotions of companies, whether they are "concerned" about you, you insist that government policy that can take advantage of the company and ensure that, if repatriated, the funds are used to help our economy "irresponsible" because they don't punish that company who "doesn't care" enough.
Then you rinse and repeat.
It is very simple, and quite literally a no-brainer. The money never will do us any good where it is at, if it comes here there is a chance it will and if we work to ensure it that chance becomes nearly 100%.
Stop worrying about what companies "feel" or where their "concerns" lie and begin worrying about what is best for the US. Ideological black/white insistence that their "concerns" matter rather than the reality at hand is just nonsense.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you're right....we should eliminate their taxes too.....
apple0154
MEOW
The government understands it very well. You're free to invest where you want. You're also obliged to pay taxes on that money if you bring it into the country.
Quite simple, really.
apple0154
MEOW
Punish everyone? The emotions of a company? I want to know what the company plans to do with the money and why it deserves a special exemption. After all, if companies can make money overseas and bring it back here paying limited taxes let’s all get in on the deal. Why change the rules for companies that relocated overseas? Is that fair for the person who invested in companies here?
A law stipulates profits made overseas would be taxed when repatriated so an individual invests in a local company only to realize the law is changed and they missed out on an opportunity. Let’s just throw the investment laws in the garbage.
Childlike? You mean by my expecting laws to be enforced? You mean by my thinking things through rather than have laws change like the weather?
Yes, with almost every category we discuss it appears you either have not thought things through or have forgotten the past. Rune mentioned, in msg. #68, how exceptions failed in 2004 even after the Treasury Department attempted to write rules. We’ll call this the “financial category”.
Then we have the “medical category”. Not one country that implemented a government medical plan has reverted to a “pay or suffer” system and the vast majority of citizens in those countries insist on keeping their government plan. Of course, you insist such a plan would never work in the US regardless of the overwhelming evidence they work everywhere else, no exception.
Then we have the “abortion category”. Nonsense about protecting human life when all the facts point to a government that does little, if anything, to help single mothers. Or the nonsense about unwanted babies being adopted when history is replete with the neglect and abuse that occurred in orphanages.
Your arguments, whether financial, medical or concerning abortion, are devoid of readily available evidence to the contrary and as for logic that laws should be changed to reward companies that deliberately conducted their business so as to avoid paying taxes is just another example of your lack of understanding how real life works.
Companies that left the country to make money elsewhere didn’t give a damn about the US citizen facing job loss and home foreclosure just like the anti-abortionist advocates who didn’t give a damn about referring to children born out of wedlock as “little bastards” or the mother dying from a botched back street abortion or the anti-ObamaCare advocates who couldn’t care less if someone suffers or dies from a lack of medical attention.
And we encourage other companies to do the same. Fire the US employees, close the plant and move overseas. Great plan.
We’ve seen the reality. Rune posted the results of similar tax breaks.
This is a common problem of yours. We’ve seen where your ideas lead and the results. There’s nothing debatable about how companies twisted the 2004 agreement. There’s nothing debatable about how women were branded tramps and relegated to a life of poverty. There’s nothing debatable about how their children either suffered poverty along with them or, worse, mental and physical abuse at the hands of the staff at orphanages. There’s nothing debatable about the 45,000 people who die every year from a lack of medical insurance.
There’s a reason why Obama referred to Republican/Conservative arguments as being old, tired and worn-out. It’s because they’ve all been tried and shown to fail just like the arguments you put forward.
Review your arguments/posts and do a little research. The information is all there and, hopefully, you’ll see the naive, uninformed view you put forward in arguments.
apple0154
MEOW
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Tell us... when they use their money to enjoy it... do ya think they are buying products and services? Or are they just burning it for shits and giggles?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
It would punish the companies that stayed here.
You wrote to Rune in msg. #64 , “Paid as dividends is investing here, it begins a process of circulation. The idea that giving people money that they otherwise would not is bad for the economy is just plain stupid.”
In that case let’s bring in all the money people made from illegal activities in foreign countries. Why care about laundering money? Let’s get that money circulating!
As for paying dividends it means people are receiving money that was not taxed here. What example are you trying to set? And as for investing companies are sitting on plenty of investment money right here. And people are sitting on savings due to the volatility of the market so let’s be real. Companies are actually paying banks to guard their money as they don’t want to invest it.
The bottom line is there is no shortage of money to invest and by paying dividends that money will not be invested. It’s just a scam to get the money here and distributed/used just as any other company would do.
Thank you for the correct spelling. It’s nice to see you get something right.
Once again, you’re not making any sense. If it’s prohibitive to invest here why are companies trying so hard to bring money here? It can’t be to invest because, according to you, “any incentive to invest any of the funds here is lost in foolish laws”. So, that settles that.
So, why are they interested in bringing the money here? Could it be so they can enjoy the funds without having to pay taxes on it? The CEOs can get bigger bonuses. The investors can get greater dividends. Tax-free money for the “in-crowd” and to hell with any social obligation.
The only fools who think corporations are concerned with helping are the same ones who believe the Republicans want to help people.
Surely one can see the obvious. If the US is such a bad place to invest why would any sane person/corporation bust their balls to be allowed to bring money here to invest? Regardless of whether they pay taxes on the original repatriated funds they will have to pay taxes on any future investment here. So, what’s their game plan? Why do they want to bring the money here?
Or have you not thought that far?
If people receive the money here, it will either be in the form of dividends (which they will pay taxes on) or capital gains (assuming they sell stock to get at a portion of the money... which again will be taxed) So proclaiming the money won't be taxed here is blatantly false.