Democrats want to ban government contracts for companies that leave the U.S. to avoid taxes

[BigRedBuster]

I guess I'm not going to get my panties in a wad about this particular idea because relatively speaking, very few companies are government contractors/suppliers. Because of that, I agree that this seems like an election year.."let's raise a big stink about this while really doing nothing" stunt.

 

I roll my eyes about two things in the article.

 

First sentence.....

 

Lawmakers are growing tired of corporate America's persistent efforts to dodge U.S. taxes.

 

Ummm....that will never change. Corporations are persistent in their efforts to dodge US taxes? Really??? And, the average American isn't persistent in their efforts to pay lower taxes?

This sentence just pukes political statement of..."oh those evil big corporations..."

 

The other one is the name.

 

No Federal Contracts for Corporate Deserters Act

 

Really???? Again....what name can we put on it to enrage our base more?

 

Now, like I said, I'm not necessarily against the idea. As much as possible I do think our government dollars should be spent at businesses here in the US.

I just don't think this bill ( as much as it will be debated and discussed to the Nth degree) will actually do much. If you really care about lower income people and want to bring jobs back to the US, make companies WANT to be here.

[carlfense]

How exactly is discriminating against companies who follow the existing law in a way that Democrats don't like a fix to the current law?

The laws as they currently exist result in a certain number of companies adopting creative strategies to avoid taxation. The proposed law reduces that incentive for some companies.

 

It's not too complicated.

[TGHusker]

change tax laws to create incentives to bring capital, operations back to the USA. Create positive incentives instead of the negative ones that encourage companies to set up shop outside of the USA. If our laws create what we deem to be 'bad behavior' evaluate the laws. Corps are in business to create a profit and they do that in a number of ways, and one way is to lower their tax burden. Lower the corp tax rate as many countries have and watch capital flow back into the USA - creating more jobs for the poor and middle class and expanding tax revenue accordingly as collected through new and expanding wages. Corps pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to the consumer - it is a cost of doing business. Economics 101 - but sometimes I think our govt forgets this. I would love to see the day when there is a greater inflow INTO the USA of manufacturing jobs due to new incentives given by govt.

[LukeinNE]

 

How exactly is discriminating against companies who follow the existing law in a way that Democrats don't like a fix to the current law?

The laws as they currently exist result in a certain number of companies adopting creative strategies to avoid taxation. The proposed law reduces that incentive for some companies.

 

It's not too complicated.

 

 

Or they could just change the offending law instead of punishing corporations for working within the crappy one that Congress passed in the first place. But no, there are slumbering liberals to wake up and get to the polls in November, so truth (Congress is inept/corrupt) has to take a backseat to the usual corporations are evil nonsense.

[carlfense]

 

 

How exactly is discriminating against companies who follow the existing law in a way that Democrats don't like a fix to the current law?

The laws as they currently exist result in a certain number of companies adopting creative strategies to avoid taxation. The proposed law reduces that incentive for some companies.

 

It's not too complicated.

 

 

Or they could just change the offending law instead of punishing corporations for working within the crappy one that Congress passed in the first place. But no, there are slumbering liberals to wake up and get to the polls in November, so truth (Congress is inept/corrupt) has to take a backseat to the usual corporations are evil nonsense.

 

Honest question, which of those two options do you think is an easier/more likely task?

 

For someone who seems offended by the labeling within the title you sure seem enamored with framing such as "punishment" or "discrimination" when the actual description is more akin to a choice between doing business with the US government or choosing to hide your profits overseas.

[LukeinNE]

Honest question, which of those two options do you think is an easier/more likely task?

 

 

 

For someone who seems offended by the labeling within the title you sure seem enamored with framing such as "punishment" or "discrimination" when the actual description is more akin to a choice between doing business with the US government or choosing to hide your profits overseas.

 

 

Frankly, had the Democrats proposed actual tax reform aimed at bringing Republicans to the table they probably would've had roughly winning the Powerball jackpot odds of getting something passed by the midterms. This proposal? No chance whatsoever. It's political theater and nothing more. In terms of actual governance, it's about as useful as a the 436th House vote to repeal Obamacare.

 

As for the language of the bill, I don't care what they call it, as it isn't a serious proposal. Insulting voters' intelligence is what offends me.

 

That said, such a bill could pass, if coupled with a carrot for the GOP. Say....ban federal contracts with inverted companies and....unionized companies? There's something I could get behind.

[carlfense]

 

Honest question, which of those two options do you think is an easier/more likely task?

 

 

 

For someone who seems offended by the labeling within the title you sure seem enamored with framing such as "punishment" or "discrimination" when the actual description is more akin to a choice between doing business with the US government or choosing to hide your profits overseas.

 

 

Frankly, had the Democrats proposed actual tax reform aimed at bringing Republicans to the table they probably would've had roughly winning the Powerball jackpot odds of getting something passed by the midterms. This proposal? No chance whatsoever. It's political theater and nothing more. In terms of actual governance, it's about as useful as a the 436th House vote to repeal Obamacare.

 

As for the language of the bill, I don't care what they call it, as it isn't a serious proposal. Insulting voters' intelligence is what offends me.

 

That said, such a bill could pass, if coupled with a carrot for the GOP. Say....ban federal contracts with inverted companies and....unionized companies? There's something I could get behind.

 

. . . yep.

[tschu]

change tax laws to create incentives to bring capital, operations back to the USA. Create positive incentives instead of the negative ones that encourage companies to set up shop outside of the USA. If our laws create what we deem to be 'bad behavior' evaluate the laws. Corps are in business to create a profit and they do that in a number of ways, and one way is to lower their tax burden. Lower the corp tax rate as many countries have and watch capital flow back into the USA - creating more jobs for the poor and middle class and expanding tax revenue accordingly as collected through new and expanding wages. Corps pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to the consumer - it is a cost of doing business. Economics 101 - but sometimes I think our govt forgets this. I would love to see the day when there is a greater inflow INTO the USA of manufacturing jobs due to new incentives given by govt.

 

The Reagan is strong in this one

[TGHusker]

 

change tax laws to create incentives to bring capital, operations back to the USA. Create positive incentives instead of the negative ones that encourage companies to set up shop outside of the USA. If our laws create what we deem to be 'bad behavior' evaluate the laws. Corps are in business to create a profit and they do that in a number of ways, and one way is to lower their tax burden. Lower the corp tax rate as many countries have and watch capital flow back into the USA - creating more jobs for the poor and middle class and expanding tax revenue accordingly as collected through new and expanding wages. Corps pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to the consumer - it is a cost of doing business. Economics 101 - but sometimes I think our govt forgets this. I would love to see the day when there is a greater inflow INTO the USA of manufacturing jobs due to new incentives given by govt.

 

The Reagan is strong in this one

 

Reagan or not - I think whenever you can create incentives for companies to stay in the USA and create jobs here - that is a good thing. I've also said govt has a role in the incubation of industries/new technologies that are beneficial for the economy and community long term. We have different tax enterprise zone in cities with encourages businesses to move into those areas, we have tax credits for alternative energy industries and I believe the same concept should be at the center of our tax policy in regards to existing industries - move jobs to the USA, move operations, headquarters, direct foreign investment from companies headquartered in other countries to the USA - govt should foster business development and expansion with the purpose of expanding jobs here verses creating dis-incentives that tends towards the outsourcing jobs or moving operations overseas. I don't mean by crony capitalism in which govt picks winners and losers - one business over another - but across the board tax incentives available to all business willing to create jobs in our economy.

I know in the day of arguing about the 99%ers vs the 1%ers, and wall street greed, that all businesses are painted with a broad brush as being against the middle class, etc, it is business that provides our jobs that allow most of us to sustain a good quality of living and the hope to improve that quality of living. Most of us won't own our own business or be independently wealthy, so we are reliant on those businesses, small or large, to be successful so that we too can be successful financially. Thus any thing the govt can do on the positive side to help businesses to grow jobs here in the USA will benefit us individually as well.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

The new base in Canada could allow Burger King (BKW) to reduce its U.S. tax bill -- a recent report by KPMG found that total tax costs in Canada are about 46% lower than in the U.S.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/08/26/burger-king-tim-hortons-merge/14608907/