Big companies are decieiving us and the media won't report it.
Birds of a feather, flock together. Could it be their all effing ripping America off, main stream media and all? Thought so. Tune-in to college, or university radio stations, tons to choose from, on your computer, or radio. Non-commercial is non- corporate, just saying.
In the majority of other advanced economy, profits are taxed only in the country in which they are earned. If the US had a similar policy, there would be no incentive to park income overseas.
As for stock buybacks, its a democratic use of capital - anyone who wants to get out of the stock can sell it back to the company. Anyone who wants to keep the stock can continue to hold it. If the company doesn’t see a more productive use for the money, why not return it to those shareholders who want to sell?
What you say is true in practice; but it does absolutely nothing for jobs or a productive use of money. The US economy is based on war, read the killing of others, and a casino - like gambling freenzy.
Alan Greenspan recently said that we’re in for stagflation. No s#!% Sherlock! Its new name is Citizens United. You know, that rock you’ve huddled under … for how many years now?
There seems to be a strong correlation between STOCKHOLDER demands for profit without EVER facing the consequences of ethical business practices and competition. “Trickle down” is another name for making capitalism into unalloyed kleptocracy.
Elite? Not in your wildest dreams, not in a million years - regardless of chest stuck out at you with that label pinned to it. What is the real name?
EFFETE : 1620s, “functionless as a result of age or exhaustion,” from Latin effetus (usually in fem. effeta) “exhausted, unproductive, worn out (with bearing offspring), past bearing,” literally “that has given birth,” from a lost verb, *efferi, from assimilated form of ex “out” (see ex-) + fetus “childbearing, offspring” (see fetus). Figurative use is earliest in English; literal use is rare. Sense of “intellectually or morally exhausted” (1790) led to that of “decadent, effeminate” (by 1850s).
I’d drop the gender references and go with:
burnt out corrupt debased decadent decayed declining decrepit degenerate
dissipated dissolute drained enervated enfeebled far-gone feeble immoral obsolete overrefined overripe played out spent vitiated washed-out wasted weak worn out
If I remember correctly, several years ago there were a whole bunch of GOP Congressmembers who were irate that there were no sales tax on transactions made over the internet. How 'bout that?
Greenspan knows nothing.
These crooks need to be taxed on their gross not net income. That is the only way you can get a factual number. Net is a fiction created by lobbyists and CPA’s. Also we need to reform copyright and patent laws. Individuals not corps can own them, why should a corporation which is a piece of paper with words on it own anything? Copyrights for 25 years or the live of the author whichever is shorter and patents for 3-5 years depending on the industry.
There was once a time in the US when corporations were forbidden by law to own any other corporation. Those days are long gone, and are probably not coming back. So now that corporations are “persons,” doesn’t the ownership of one by another constitute chattel slavery? (and poof! goes the Trump Organization, among others).
Unalloyed kleptocracy – greed is good. Professor Wm. Lazonick shows that 91% of corporate profits of 450 corporations in the S&P 500, over 10 years, went to buy back stock or to send out as dividends, and noted “not much left over” for R & D, or wage increases. He says this is a path to destruction for American corporations. A U.S. Census report says that 50% of workers work in corporations with more than 500 employees, 66% in corps. with more than 100, 83% in corps, establishments or firms with more than 50 employees. And they don’t pay taxes, often. I checked out the ratio between individual income taxes and corporate taxes to federal budget, two periods – first one from 1946 to 1960 – average ratio corp. tax to individual: 63%. Second period, 2000 to 2015, rate 23%. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/source-revenue-share-gdp – We should raise the corporate tax, not lower it. I think Robert Reich wrote a recent article with that idea. An “unalloyed kleptocracy”.
You do realize that “profits” are what are left AFTER R&D expenses and wages (including increases), not before.
They love sales taxes, the most regressive form of taxation.
Hey nighthawk, Above I mentioned college radio, love it; but forgot (streema.com). Streema, free streaming of global radio stations i.e. I check in on the many African radio stations to hear what-up, fantastic. Any where there is a radio station streema’s just about gots it, to include free TV, too. Bye for now.
Thank you! I learned something new, which sounds worth trying.
You’re stated supposition that the US is different since in “…the majority of other advanced economy(ies), profits are taxed only in the country in which they are earned. If the US had a similar policy, there would be no incentive to park income overseas.”
You frame the situation as if it’s a burden to US corporations. Yet the political power to chance that has existed for a long time but it hasn’t happened. It’s not hard to imagine why. The present conditions are more profitable. Those enterprises that hold so much US taxable revenue out of country will quite commonly have the ratios of their in country to out of country investments having an inverse relationship to their in country to out of country profits. Which exposes it for what it is. Make sure the book losses come from the US based operations and thus lowering their US taxes. Sometimes lowering them to ‘zero’. While the profits come from out of country operations, where cost of doing business is very much lower, eg: Mexico and Indonesia. It’s why China is the ‘manufacturing center of the world’. The western countries flock there, helping to make China the biggest polluter in the world. US taxes for those out of country profits get deferred. Deferred, that is, until some really business friendly tax forgiveness repatriation legislation passes, allowing them to square things for pennies on the dollar. It’s called gaming the system. It’s a game that’s not limited to the US and its tax laws.
Now we realize that you’re obliged to do damage control when articles on tax dodging appear, but you’re really grasping at straws with your comment to BL8 that “…“profits” are what are left AFTER R&D expenses and wages (including increases), not before. When profits for year X are not reinvested for year X +1, or year X + 2, etc, but are lavishly distributed to the upper most echelons of an organization’s hierarchy, to very much include stock buybacks which are wedded to the total salary of the elites, then R&D along with remunerations for the working class employees will be affected. It’s also understandable why shareholders would sell their holdings, especially if they read such articles as was linked in the Common Dreams piece of a July 24, 2017 story by Forbes titled: “Stock Buybacks: The Greatest Deceptions”. It reinforces what any investor would rationally suspect. You can use public relation euphemisms as you did “… a democratic use of capital”, but it’s obvious to anyone with at least one eye opened, these buybacks are a suicidal use of capital. Except for the tiny number who benefit big time from that racket.
I “frame” it as the reason that US companies don’t repatriate earnings. For most foreign companies, once they pay local tax where the product is sold, they’re done with taxes. There’s not a second layer of tax when the money comes back to the parent country.
The US has had this unitary tax structure since the income tax was first enacted. All the wonders of off-shore subsidiaries and transfer pricing have evolved in response to that unitary structure.
It IS gaming the system, but it is what any intelligent person would do - minimize their taxes. For example, here in MA, we have an optional higher tax rate that people can voluntarily pay. Of roughly 6 million people, 1,000 choose to pay it (NOT including Elizabeth Warren of course).
As for stock buybacks being a “suicidal use of capital”, please elaborate. Once the company has paid its expenses (including compensation, R&D, interest, etc.) and it has profits left over, it can:
a) distribute them to shareholders - either as dividends or by buying back stock;
b) find someone else to buy - (but note, of course, that statistics show that the majority of acquisitions ultimately destroy more value than they create);
c) let the money sit unproductively.
If they can reinvest the money in the business such that the company’s going to grow more efficiently, they’ve already done so. But, say the business has a return on investment of 10%, and investors can get 12% somewhere else - it’s better for investors to get their money out of the company and put it somewhere else.