I'm Touring The United States! Starting in June, I'm conducting private events in 23 American cities. Click here for full details.

Post Reply 
Corporate Tax Inversions
Author Message
JayMillz Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,483
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 24
Post: #1
Corporate Tax Inversions
Tax Inversions Must Be Stopped Now

http://online.wsj.com/articles/edward-d-...#printMode

EDWARD D. KLEINBARD, professor of law at the University of Southern California ∙ Wall Street Journal ∙ July 21, 2014 8:20 p.m.

On Friday the U.S. drug maker AbbVie announced a plan to buy the U.K.-based Shire in a $54 billion deal, from which AbbVie will emerge as a subsidiary of the U.K. firm. It is but the latest example in a flurry of acquisitions known as inversions. .... The deals are driven by planning to avoid paying the U.S. tax that applies when firms repatriate their low-taxed foreign earnings to the U.S. This has triggered demands—most recently, from Treasury Secretary Jack Lew —to close down inversions through the tax code, or to deprive inverted firms of government contracts or other benefits. .... Thus fundamental corporate tax reform is urgently needed, but the path forward has two prongs. First, Congress should enact a temporary law to preserve the status quo, and thereby the corporate tax base, by treating inversions according to their economic substance, and by foreclosing the "hopscotch" strategies described above. .... Then both parties need to get serious about substantive reform, lowering the rate to say, 25%, and imposing a stable international regime that works well with territorial systems in other countries.

Related: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/201...tax-flight
07-22-2014 09:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Dragonstone Offline
Sparrow

Posts: 72
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 0
Post: #2
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
Inversions are such a technically complex area of tax and government procurement laws that it's difficult to regulate, and with billions of dollars at stake, there are plenty of incentives involved.

Last time I checked, there are "anti-Inversion" rules on the books, one set prohibits companies that perform inversions from getting US Government contracts, and there are a set of rules denying tax benefits for some "transactions", neither set of rules seem to be having the effect the US Congress wanted.
07-22-2014 11:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dragonstone's post:
TravelerKai
Menace Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 4,074
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 56
Post: #3
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
How come U.S. citizens have to pay taxes on worldwide income, but U.S. corporations do not? Well I know the answer, but still.
07-22-2014 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 10 users Like Menace's post:
TravelerKai, JayMillz, Fighting888, Bad Hussar, TheWastelander, Roosh, silent_scope, Matt Forney, DJ-Matt, Slim Shady
ElBorrachoInfamoso Away
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 805
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 14
Post: #4
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
Good. The less money the US government steals the better.

I've got the dick so I make the rules.
-Project Pat
07-23-2014 04:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JayMillz Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,483
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 24
Post: #5
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
http://online.wsj.com/articles/congress-...#printMode

Congress Is Split on Taxing of Corporate Inversions Democrats Push for Short-Term Fixes, But Republicans Want Broader Overhaul of Tax System
KRISTINA PETERSON ∙ Wall Street Journal ∙ July 22, 2014 7:25 p.m.

Lawmakers widely concerned about the wave of companies reincorporating overseas to avoid U.S. taxes split along partisan lines Tuesday over whether any legislation should take aim at businesses that have already relocated. Charles Schumer It is far from clear that Congress will take any action in response to the wave of mergers between U.S. and foreign firms, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. But the increasing use of the practice, known as a corporate inversion, has triggered alarm on Capitol Hill.
07-23-2014 09:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Dragonstone Offline
Sparrow

Posts: 72
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 0
Post: #6
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
Judging from how well the last few US Corporate Income Tax "reforms" have worked, I wouldn't hold my breath on any particular reform. The US Treasury Department regularly takes years to put through regulations on new Corporate Income Tax statutes.

I also question what exact "reform" people want, and that won't be clear until language is put on a bill in Congress. The (US House Ways and Means Committee Chairperson) Camp proposals aren't expected out for several more months, probably early 2015.
07-23-2014 11:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JayMillz Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,483
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 24
Post: #7
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(07-23-2014 11:07 AM)Dragonstone Wrote:  I also question what exact "reform" people want

I think some people want a mechanism to spur more investment and job growth back home. Not saying this approach gets them there, but that would be one of the primary goals.
07-23-2014 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JayMillz Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,483
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 24
Post: #8
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
As much as I dislike CVS, I shop there because they don't sell tobacco products. This gives me another reason to avoid Walgreens in favor of CVS.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi.../13090921/

DIXON, Ill. — The Walgreens drugstore chain proudly touts itself as "the pharmacy America trusts."

But many here in this small river town where the founder of the company got his start complain that the drugstore chain is on the precipice of turning its back on the USA.

Walgreens, the USA's largest drugstore chain, with more than 8,500 stores, soon will decide whether to take advantage of a loophole in U.S. tax law that would allow it to save billions of dollars by moving its headquarters to Europe, where it is on the verge of acquiring controlling interest in Alliance Boots, a Swiss-based company that operates drugstores in Britain.

From the shareholders' perspective, making the move is a no-brainer: It could save the company roughly $4 billion over the next five years.

But here in this town of 16,000 where just about everybody can tell you about company founder Charles Walgreen's impact on the community, such a move seems out of step with how the Walgreen family conducted business.

"I think he'd be rolling in his grave if he knew what was going on today," says Bill Jones, who runs the Northwest Territory Historic Center in Dixon and worked closely with the Walgreen family on building an exhibit at the museum honoring the founder.

The loophole is known as tax inversion, a controversial tactic that allows a company that does most of its business in the USA to cut its federal tax bill by merging or buying an overseas company in a lower-tax country and then nominally relocating its headquarters there.

Despite years of on-and-off efforts by lawmakers in Washington and the IRS to close the loophole, dozens of American companies have used it — several in recent months.

The first corporate inversion to capture attention occurred in 1982, when oil-and-gas company McDermott moved its headquarters to Panama. It wasn't until 1994, after cosmetics company Helen of Troy moved to Bermuda, that the IRS raised concerns that such restructurings were motivated by the desire to dodge taxes.

This year alone, eight major U.S. companies — including AbbVie, Medtronic and Mylan — have announced plans to shift their headquarters overseas in an effort to trim their corporate tax rate, which hovers around 35% in the U.S. and is among the highest in the world.

Earlier this week, President Obama called inversion an "unpatriotic tax loophole" and pressed Congress to pass legislation to stem the flow of corporations that are effectively renouncing their U.S. citizenship. Inversion could cost the Treasury nearly $19.5 billion over the next decade, according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation.

Analysts say perhaps no company with a Main Street profile that matches Walgreens' — the country's largest pharmaceutical chain, with $72 billion in annual sales — has used the loophole, and Walgreens' pending decision is bringing unprecedented attention to the issue.

"I don't know how this inversion doesn't happen," says Christopher Geier, of the Chicago-based investment banking firm Sikich. "They'll get some bad press, but I don't see a big enough reaction from consumers on this to change where this appears to be heading."

Here in Dixon, the talk of Walgreens moving to Switzerland resonates in a personal way.

Charles Walgreen moved to Dixon as a teenager and got his start in the business working at a pharmacy, a job he took after injuring himself working at a shoe factory in town. Residents here recall Walgreen taking Boy Scouts up on his Sikorsky S-38 amphibian aircraft, which he would fly back and forth from the Chicago area and land on the Rock River, near the family's estate here.

As a young man, he moved to Chicago to seek his fortunes and eventually started his drugstore chain. But he opened his second pharmacy here in his adopted hometown — where he became revered as the city's second-favorite son. (President Ronald Reagan, who grew up here and caddied for Walgreen at the Timber Creek Country Club, is Dixon's most celebrated hometown boy.)

Walgreen, who died in 1939, saved the Dixon National Bank from going out of business during the Great Depression. The family also led fundraising for a statute erected in 1930 along the Rock River depicting a young volunteer named Abraham Lincoln, who spent time here during the Black Hawk War.

Charles Walgreen Jr., the founder's son, won the bid during World War II to open a store at the newly built Pentagon by giving all store profits to the Pentagon Post Restaurant Council, which supervised food service in the complex.

"Walgreens' attitude was so patriotically generous that no competitor could possibly better it," declared a weekly publication from the War Department.

Myrtle Walgreen, the wife of the company's founder, also was a good friend of the people of Dixon. James Burke, Dixon's mayor, says legend has it that at one of the regular coffee klatches at Dixon's Walgreens, she offered an extraordinary stock tip to some of the city's most prominent citizens.

"She told them we are getting ready to introduce a new line of product that you might consider investing in," says Burke, who has called on Walgreens to ditch the tax inversion plan. "That product was the tampon."

Larry Dunphy, who owns an independent bookstore in Dixon, says he takes pride in buying stocks in Illinois companies such as McDonald's, John Deere and Walgreens. But he says he's told his financial adviser to dump his stock in Walgreens and buy CVS if the company goes through with the inversion.

In the end, Dunphy says the public outcry may not have an impact on Walgreens' decision, but it could have a long-term effect on how companies approach inversion in the future and spur Congress to change laws to give companies an incentive to stay put.

"Will there be enough people who go to CVS or the local pharmacy that will offset the $4 billion that Walgreens will make by moving?" Dunphy says. "Maybe not. But I hope the damage this is doing to Walgreens' image is something that companies in the future will consider before moving to cut their share of taxes."

Walgreens CEO Gregory Wasson, who, along with his board, has come under intense pressure from shareholders to move the headquarters to Switzerland, says the company will decide soon whether to move its headquarters.

Early in 2014, Wasson said publicly that an inversion wasn't under consideration. The Deerfield, Ill., company bought 45% of Switzerland-based Alliance Boots in 2012 and has an option to buy the rest of the company next year, which would create the opportunity to make the move.

But after a private meeting in France with a shareholder group — including Goldman Sachs Investment Partners and hedge funds Jana Partners, Corvex and Och-Ziff — Wasson began to change his tune.

He made clear in a call with Wall Street analysts last month that an inversion was very much a possibility as Walgreens restructures the company ahead of completing the Alliance Boots deal.

Michael Polzin, a company spokesman, says Walgreens will do "what is in the best long-term interests of our customers, employees and shareholders."

Polzin won't comment about the impact a tax inversion would have on the company's image. The company also declined to make Kevin Walgreen, the great-grandson of the company's founder and the only member Walgreen family currently involved in day-to-day operations, available for an interview.

"Whether we do an inversion or not, we're still going to pay over $2 billion a year in federal, state, employer and property taxes," Polzin says. "We will still be one of the top job providers in America, with roughly 250,000 employees. We're going to continue to make capital investments in the U.S. and expand our business here for decades to come."

That argument hasn't assuaged some Illinois lawmakers.

In a letter to Walgreens' board of directors this week, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., warned that the company was in danger of sullying its reputation as a community-minded corporation. She also sought to remind the Walgreens board that roughly a quarter of its $2.5 billion in profits last year were directly connected to federal programs — such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

"Everywhere you look, the success of Walgreens is tied to the opportunities it has been afforded by this country," she wrote. "To benefit from those resources and then to refuse to pay your fair share of taxes needed to fund them is inexcusable."

In a separate letter, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., took a shot at Walgreens' folksy motto. "Is 'the corner of happy and healthy' somewhere in the Swiss Alps?" Durbin wrote. He added, "I believe you will find that your customers are deeply patriotic and will not support Walgreens' decision to turn its back on the United States."

Burke, the Dixon mayor, says he hopes Walgreens will stay put. But if it pushes ahead with the inversion, Burke notes there are three other drugstores in his town.

"I think Walgreens will see that a lot of Americans will take their business elsewhere," Burke says. "At some point, how much profit is enough?"
07-27-2014 08:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JayMillz Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,483
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 24
Post: #9
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/opinio...c=rss&_r=0

.... The federal government still gets a tenth of its revenue from corporate profits taxation. But it used to get a lot more — a third of revenue came from profits taxes in the early 1950s, a quarter or more well into the 1960s. Part of the decline since then reflects a fall in the tax rate, but mainly it reflects ever-more-aggressive corporate tax avoidance — avoidance that politicians have done little to prevent.
07-28-2014 09:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JayMillz Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,483
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 24
Post: #10
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/se...z38yztwA5K

Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing

Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 54-42 to end debate on S. 2569, the Bring Jobs Home Act — 60 votes were needed to advance the measure.

Sens. John Walsh (D-Mont.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced the bill, which would give companies incentives to bring jobs back to the United States, including a tax write-off for the relocating costs and an additional 20 percent credit.

Currently, U.S. companies can deduct from their corporate taxes some expenses of moving facilities overseas. Democrats said 2.4 million jobs have been outsourced in the past 10 years.

“It is wrong that American workers subsidize a corporate decision to pack up American jobs and ship them overseas,” Walsh said Wednesday. “That’s bologna.”

Republicans argue that if Democrats truly wanted to keep companies in the United States, they would work with Republicans to overhaul the tax code and reduce corporate tax rates.
07-31-2014 09:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ElBorrachoInfamoso Away
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 805
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 14
Post: #11
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(07-28-2014 09:03 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  ... it reflects ever-more-aggressive corporate tax avoidance — avoidance that politicians have done little to prevent.

Good. The more money that stays in the hands of the people who actually earned it, the better off we all are.

I've got the dick so I make the rules.
-Project Pat
08-01-2014 04:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JayMillz Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,483
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 24
Post: #12
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(08-01-2014 04:33 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  Good. The more money that stays in the hands of the people who actually earned it, the better off we all are.

^ Sounds like a pretty simplistic narrative. Would you care to elaborate?
08-01-2014 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ElBorrachoInfamoso Away
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 805
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 14
Post: #13
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(08-01-2014 07:38 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 04:33 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  Good. The more money that stays in the hands of the people who actually earned it, the better off we all are.

^ Sounds like a pretty simplistic narrative. Would you care to elaborate?

It's a very simple ethic. Stealing is wrong. We as a society are better off when less things are stolen from people.

Why are you defending unethical government policies that rob society of a large fraction of its wealth?

I've got the dick so I make the rules.
-Project Pat
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2014 08:04 AM by ElBorrachoInfamoso.)
08-02-2014 07:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes ElBorrachoInfamoso's post:
The Father
The Father Offline
Banned

Posts: 1,329
Joined: Mar 2014
Post: #14
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(07-22-2014 12:46 PM)Menace Wrote:  How come U.S. citizens have to pay taxes on worldwide income, but U.S. corporations do not? Well I know the answer, but still.

Uh, they do, if they ever want to see that cash come back to the U.S. i.e. to their shareholders via dividend.

A more relevant question would be: Why does the UK tax corporate income at 21% and the US at 35%?? Can we be ANY more uncompetitive? We have, by far, the highest corp tax rate in the industrial world? Why?
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2014 09:45 AM by The Father.)
08-02-2014 08:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes The Father's post:
Richiavelli
JayMillz Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,483
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 24
Post: #15
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(08-02-2014 07:44 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 07:38 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 04:33 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  Good. The more money that stays in the hands of the people who actually earned it, the better off we all are.

^ Sounds like a pretty simplistic narrative. Would you care to elaborate?

It's a very simple ethic. Stealing is wrong. We as a society are better off when less things are stolen from people.

Why are you defending unethical government policies that rob society of a large fraction of its wealth?

I agree that stealing is wrong, and it is also against the law. However, I'm not sure what that has to do with corporate inversions.
08-02-2014 09:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Samseau Offline
Owl
******
Gold Member

Posts: 14,530
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 293
Post: #16
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(08-02-2014 07:44 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 07:38 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 04:33 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  Good. The more money that stays in the hands of the people who actually earned it, the better off we all are.

^ Sounds like a pretty simplistic narrative. Would you care to elaborate?

It's a very simple ethic. Stealing is wrong. We as a society are better off when less things are stolen from people.

Why are you defending unethical government policies that rob society of a large fraction of its wealth?

How is it not stealing when we have to pay for taxes corporations do not?

Contributor at Return of Kings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
08-02-2014 04:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ElBorrachoInfamoso Away
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 805
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 14
Post: #17
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(08-02-2014 09:41 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  
(08-02-2014 07:44 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 07:38 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 04:33 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  Good. The more money that stays in the hands of the people who actually earned it, the better off we all are.

^ Sounds like a pretty simplistic narrative. Would you care to elaborate?

It's a very simple ethic. Stealing is wrong. We as a society are better off when less things are stolen from people.

Why are you defending unethical government policies that rob society of a large fraction of its wealth?

I agree that stealing is wrong, and it is also against the law. However, I'm not sure what that has to do with corporate inversions.

Tax inversions are merely a strategy that corporations use to get less of their money stolen. That's the link between tax inversions and stealing.

Just as I support people who fight off muggers, I support corporations that figure out how to avoid thieving governments. It's the right thing to do.

As a shareholder in many of these corporations, I am better off when they have less of their profits stolen. As an ethical person, I am better off when muggers/governments/thieves are less successful in stealing.

Stealing is not against the law when the government does it.

Just think about it for a second. If I took money out of your paycheck without your permission and used it to buy a bunch of shit you didn't want, what would you call that? Stealing. Why would it be any different if I did the same thing as an employee of the IRS?

I've got the dick so I make the rules.
-Project Pat
08-04-2014 05:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JayMillz Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,483
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 24
Post: #18
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(08-04-2014 05:59 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  Stealing is not against the law when the government does it.

Just think about it for a second. If I took money out of your paycheck without your permission and used it to buy a bunch of shit you didn't want, what would you call that? Stealing. Why would it be any different if I did the same thing as an employee of the IRS?

El Borracho, everyone has to pay for things like infrastructure, national security, etc. Which specific company are you referring to that you think should not have to pay taxes? Let's take a closer look at that company.
08-04-2014 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Bad Hussar Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,536
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 21
Post: #19
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
A basic tenant of taxation is that income should be taxed at source. If the income of these companies is genuinely from foreign operations then the USA should have no claim on them. The loophole that really needs to be closed is the one that allows companies to claim particular income was generated in a certain low-tax jurisdiction, and be right from a tax-law point of view, when even a 9 year old would be able to conclude that the origin of the income is in another higher tax jurisdiction. Google and Starbucks have been in the news recently for pulling this trick in Europe, but all the multinationals do the same.

I mean if you were a CEO and you had to decide where to have your legal headquarters why would you decide to have it in a country that taxed income not earned in that country? And at a high rate at that. Unless you were in the defense industry ("Deep State"), or reliant on government contracts otherwise, you'd be crazy to.

The solution for governments is to go back to basics by taxing income at source, and making sure source is correctly determined. And by correctly I mean by a process of common sense, not a legalistic sense designed from the outset to obfuscate. The states predicament is their own doing because they have allowed lobbyists to carve out exceptions and special treatments that are now used by far more companies than originally paid the bribes...I mean political donations.
08-04-2014 10:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
worldwidetraveler Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,658
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 35
Post: #20
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(08-04-2014 10:31 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  A basic tenant of taxation is that income should be taxed at source. If the income of these companies is genuinely from foreign operations then the USA should have no claim on them. The loophole that really needs to be closed is the one that allows companies to claim particular income was generated in a certain low-tax jurisdiction, and be right from a tax-law point of view, when even a 9 year old would be able to conclude that the origin of the income is in another higher tax jurisdiction. Google and Starbucks have been in the news recently for pulling this trick in Europe, but all the multinationals do the same.

I mean if you were a CEO and you had to decide where to have your legal headquarters why would you decide to have it in a country that taxed income not earned in that country? And at a high rate at that. Unless you were in the defense industry ("Deep State"), or reliant on government contracts otherwise, you'd be crazy to.

The solution for governments is to go back to basics by taxing income at source, and making sure source is correctly determined. And by correctly I mean by a process of common sense, not a legalistic sense designed from the outset to obfuscate. The states predicament is their own doing because they have allowed lobbyists to carve out exceptions and special treatments that are now used by far more companies than originally paid the bribes...I mean political donations.

I don't think that would ever happen while the US is on top. I agree, though, and it would make the US a competitor when it comes to businesses.

The US seems to think it has no competition. It can just legislate and make companies pay them. Obama wants to stop companies from merging and relocating overseas.

The more the US tries to bully corporations the more they will end up losing in the long run.

We are in a global economy and location isn't as important as it once was. Countries are competing for businesses to startup or relocate. The US has been way behind which is typical.

I remember reading an article talking about startups in the US and overseas. It's basically came down to ease at this point and the US is going to kill that with more legislation. Sooner or later, it will be easier and more beneficial for people to startup overseas.
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2014 10:45 AM by worldwidetraveler.)
08-04-2014 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Bad Hussar Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,536
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 21
Post: #21
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(08-04-2014 10:44 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  ...

I remember reading an article talking about startups in the US and overseas. It's basically came down to ease at this point and the US is going to kill that with more legislation. Sooner or later, it will be easier and more beneficial for people to startup overseas.

Been thinking about this quite a lot recently, since it may affect me, but I think the true benefit the US has over other countries in terms of startups is not the usual things listed like national acceptance of personal failure, the existence of top universities or immigration/multiculturalism. It is mostly the capital markets. It's not my speciality but I have been told that the capital structures allowed in terms of US laws allow a lot of flexibility (such as the ability of a company to buy back its own shares), that is often bot allowed when incorporating in other countries. Also, there is a bigger pool of money available for early stage investment in the US than anywhere else.

But I think if I had to start a company from scratch it's legal HQ would be in a friendly Swiss canton, grunt work spread around the world, and perhaps most of the operational management in the US. The cost of living in Switzerland is just insanely high, so having an operational HQ there would be prohibitively expensive.
08-04-2014 11:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bad Hussar's post:
ElBorrachoInfamoso
ElBorrachoInfamoso Away
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 805
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 14
Post: #22
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(08-04-2014 07:33 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  
(08-04-2014 05:59 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  Stealing is not against the law when the government does it.

Just think about it for a second. If I took money out of your paycheck without your permission and used it to buy a bunch of shit you didn't want, what would you call that? Stealing. Why would it be any different if I did the same thing as an employee of the IRS?

El Borracho, everyone has to pay for things like infrastructure, national security, etc. Which specific company are you referring to that you think should not have to pay taxes? Let's take a closer look at that company.

Let's stick to the real issue. What fraction of the wealth that government confiscates does it spend on things that actually produce value for taxpayers? Let's take a closer look at government spending. If the government isn't doing a good job spending what it already steals, why would we want it to steal even more?

Infrastructure spending is a tiny fraction of the budget, we could double it and the increase would be a rounding error. National defense is a fraction of military spending. Where is the rest of the money going? Bombs to kill brown people that haven't done me any wrong. Social security that has a worse return than taking all my social security taxes and betting them on red at the end of the month. Medicare that is run by a government agency - CMS - that has done tremendous damage to the healthcare market in this country, working to both raise prices and lower quality.

I've got the dick so I make the rules.
-Project Pat
(This post was last modified: 08-05-2014 06:05 AM by ElBorrachoInfamoso.)
08-05-2014 06:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JayMillz Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,483
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 24
Post: #23
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(08-05-2014 06:02 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  Let's stick to the real issue.

El Borracho, you didn't answer the question. Instead of speaking about the hypothetical, which company or companies is the government stealing money from? Let's discuss the merits of this argument with real life examples.

Obviously, just about everyone thinks they are over taxed and has issues about how some tax dollars are spent. This is a circular discussion.
08-05-2014 11:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ElBorrachoInfamoso Away
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 805
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 14
Post: #24
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(08-05-2014 11:14 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 06:02 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  Let's stick to the real issue.

El Borracho, you didn't answer the question. Instead of speaking about the hypothetical, which company or companies is the government stealing money from? Let's discuss the merits of this argument with real life examples.

Obviously, just about everyone thinks they are over taxed and has issues about how some tax dollars are spent. This is a circular discussion.

You know your argument is a loser so you tried to divert the argument to another subject. Government expenditures are a real life example of what the US government would do if it managed to thwart tax avoidance. Let's discuss the merits of those expenditures.

It is both stupid and unethical to support the government stealing more money if we cannot be confident that it will spend the money in a way that produces value for taxpayers. There is no need to discuss the situation of specific taxpayers if we can't show that the government deserves more money from any taxpayers.

I've got the dick so I make the rules.
-Project Pat
08-06-2014 04:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JayMillz Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,483
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 24
Post: #25
RE: Corporate Tax Inversions
(08-06-2014 04:05 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 11:14 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 06:02 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  Let's stick to the real issue.

El Borracho, you didn't answer the question. Instead of speaking about the hypothetical, which company or companies is the government stealing money from? Let's discuss the merits of this argument with real life examples.

Obviously, just about everyone thinks they are over taxed and has issues about how some tax dollars are spent. This is a circular discussion.

You know your argument is a loser so you tried to divert the argument to another subject. Government expenditures are a real life example of what the US government would do if it managed to thwart tax avoidance. Let's discuss the merits of those expenditures.

It is both stupid and unethical to support the government stealing more money if we cannot be confident that it will spend the money in a way that produces value for taxpayers. There is no need to discuss the situation of specific taxpayers if we can't show that the government deserves more money from any taxpayers.

El Borracho, I'm not going to get into an immature discussion that involves name calling. The topic is corporate inversions. I understand that you don't like how some tax dollars are spent and you feel the government steals money.
08-06-2014 05:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Avoiding Deep State-Corporate Data Harvesting Datasheet gework 18 3,942 12-05-2018 04:56 PM
Last Post: 05nelsonm
  Corporate Men: What Is Your Plan If You're Fired Tomrrow? TheBulldozer 84 45,248 01-23-2017 10:43 PM
Last Post: John Michael Kane
  Feminist (Corporate) Fight Club redpillage 12 6,169 09-14-2016 07:16 AM
Last Post: redpillage

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication