how-to block ads
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: business is business said by lesopp  :
Regarding tax breaks, I know for a fact that Verizon off-shores to India which means they are playing in a global economy. Since they and any others involved in off-shoring are benefitting at the expense of American tax payers any and all tax breaks should stop immediately. Furthermore they should receive equal treatment as foreign companies seeking to expand into American.
About infrastructure sharing, the law is what it is until congress changes it or the courts declare it unconstitutional.
So you now admit they broke their promises?
So your position is that any company that has any offshore interests should receive no tax breaks?
As far as infrastructure sharing goes, your point is correct. The set out process for following legislation is and always has been followed. That means that companies will ALWAYS go to court to clarify and re-negotiate the terms of how laws are interpreted. It's those that bitch about this process that need the education.
Boogie | |
|  lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Re: business is business Interests could mean monetary only investments, no problem there.
My position is that if a company has moved operations and is making payroll to either permanent or contract off-shore employees, that company should not be allowed to benefit from incentives or tax breaks. Whether domestic job creation is intentional or merely a byproduct of these tax incentives, the benefit should go to America and no other country. | |
| |
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: business is business said by lesopp :
Interests could mean monetary only investments, no problem there.
My position is that if a company has moved operations and is making payroll to either permanent or contract off-shore employees, that company should not be allowed to benefit from incentives or tax breaks. Whether domestic job creation is intentional or merely a byproduct of these tax incentives, the benefit should go to America and no other country.
Unfortunately, unless you have a reasonable way of having regulatory oversight over exact accounting and payrolls for every US company, there is no way whatsoever to say that the exact amount of tax incentives can be applied ONLY to paying for US jobs.
There is absolutely no way to trace this. One might as well argue that parents should only get a tax write off for each child if they can prove that they spend the amount in tax savings for that child and nothing else. How does one insure this at all? Perhaps the tax savings for mortgage interest should be required to be accounted for and proven to go toward home improvement expenses only? Again- not possible- not even reasonable.
Further, to try to apply such a rule to a company so as to require that all employment (whether direct or to the "nth degree"- meaning any vendor that has overseas contracts, etc) be only in the US if any tax incentives are to be received at all would be impossible. There is just no way to do this. In a global economy, you'd have no companies (US or otherwise) getting ANY tax incentives to do anything! That includes food distribution from the US.
One must realize that companies are at an advantage (that we WANT in the US) when they go global- even if it means shipping some jobs overseas. This is a trade-off. We agree to create jobs in other countries if they agree to purchase our products at higher tariffed prices. It's all business. This is no attempt to screw over the "Average Joe" (which btw, wasn't the best tv show in the land).
Boogie | |
| | | |
|
