this is the thread to not talk about canidates at all. this is the thread to discuss the most important issues at hand. before anyone can even consider to vote, they must be able to understand what is actually the problems that need to be fixed. so go ahead and discuss away
do that and they will give up thaier ABI membership and close their company on the usa stock market moving both to 1 in a other country whit a lower tax rate
It's all relative. The US could easily tax the rich substantially more without coming close to forcing them out of the states for greener pastures, since US tax rates on the rich are so low, and tax rates elsewhere are so much higher. Not to mention the massive self incurred cost a business would take in moving countries.
It's all relative. The US could easily tax the rich substantially more without coming close to forcing them out of the states for greener pastures, since US tax rates on the rich are so low, and tax rates elsewhere are so much higher.
now you talk about the people not the companys =)
tax the rich people more, yes tax the big companys more, no
Not to mention the massive self incurred cost a business would take in moving countries.
if the costs are cheaper then 10 year of tax then it's cheaper to move. or temporarly setup a 2nd company in a other country and then moving the biggest part of the country. that will lower the moving costs alot =)
My original argument was that you should tax the rich more, not companies more. You then said that if that were the case the companies would leave the US. I then disagreed, and here we are. It's all about taxing rich people for me, not necessarily raising corporation tax.
if the costs are cheaper then 10 year of tax then it's cheaper to move.
This is all conjecture, and the difficulty is not just in cost, but in time. It could take years to find enough labourers in a different country qualified to do the same job Americans were doing at home. Since you can't really move the company to Europe since tax rates are higher than the US. The only other option is the Middle East and Asia, and as the financial crisis and tobin tax 'threats' showed, no one really wants to move there.
for example if coca-cola became a dutch company the it loses the letters inc. behind the name and will add the letters BV. thats all that has to change realy.
It's economically irrational to invest in USA for most of them. Though recently I read an article, I can't remember TIME or Newsweek whereby it said more and more are shifting back as the overseas market gets less attractive.
Perhaps I've misinterpreted this, however, when someone says it's economically irrational to invest in the USA I often have to ask "why?".
Statistically speaking the USA is one of the least taxed countries in the entire world. In fact when you compare America to a European market, it's laughable. European nations are heavily taxed, because many have extensive social services. Of course these services are often superior to America's private sector...but I'm not opening that particular debate right now.
the company itself, doesn't have to move, to move where the company is registered. and to wich country they pay their taxes.
Often it's not that simple. Most governments wouldn't tolerate having a massive corporation de facto based in their country without them paying their fair share. Governments may not always be the most intelligent, but they are always present and correct when it comes to squeezing out as much tax as they can get.
Perhaps I've misinterpreted this, however, when someone says it's economically irrational to invest in the USA I often have to ask "why?".
Labour costs are higher, since Americans have to pay for all those services you mentioned out of their own pocket, rather than being collectively paid for at a more efficient cost. Companies in the US shell out loads that Europeans simply don't have to for all kinds of insurance. Not to mention the fact that Americans generally have stricter job security. So whilst it's hard to fire people, it's also hard to create jobs and growth if you have to make long term promises as an employer.
Often it's not that simple. Most governments wouldn't tolerate having a massive corporation de facto based in their country
in most countrys the government has nothing to say about who can and can't register their company in their country. also wold most governments like to get a mayor company added to their stock market. it will attrects more people that are going to invest in their stock market. also do they get a fair share of the company because it's registered in their country.
it's indeed not THAT simple. but all the rest is mostly administration. all behind the scene. the company itself does not have to move.
Labour costs are higher, since Americans have to pay for all those services you mentioned out of their own pocket, rather than being collectively paid for at a more efficient cost. Companies in the US shell out loads that Europeans simply don't have to for all kinds of insurance. Not to mention the fact that Americans generally have stricter job security. So whilst it's hard to fire people, it's also hard to create jobs and growth if you have to make long term promises as an employer.
you talk about europe as it is all the same. evry country in europe has it's own laws etc. it surly doesn't work like that in all of europe. it kinda seems like you get the best things of all european countrys and say they all are like that.
Labour costs are higher, since Americans have to pay for all those services you mentioned out of their own pocket, rather than being collectively paid for at a more efficient cost. Companies in the US shell out loads that Europeans simply don't have to for all kinds of insurance. Not to mention the fact that Americans generally have stricter job security. So whilst it's hard to fire people, it's also hard to create jobs and growth if you have to make long term promises as an employer.
That's what I meant. Manufacturing most of the time. If you wanted to invest in technology, of course America is one of the top choices still.
in most countrys the government has nothing to say about who can and can't register their company in their country.
I'm not arguing that. I'm saying a company would have to pay tax if it had 'X' amount of assets in that country. In which case a whole company would have to move, not merely register in another country.
the company itself does not have to move.
If it wants to avoid the brunt of the tax burden, then yes it does.
you talk about europe as it is all the same. evry country in europe has it's own laws etc. it surly doesn't work like that in all of europe.
In all of Europe (or the EU shall we say) that I can think of, citizens either get UHC or heavily subsidised health care. If you can find an example showing otherwise please share it.
it kinda seems like you get the best things of all european countrys and say they all are like that.
True there are differences. Generally Brits tend to pay a bit less tax than continental Europeans, and Scandanavian countries pay loads of tax but do get pretty much everything provided for by the government. Neverhteless government services in the EU are infinitely superior to those in the US.
That's what I meant. Manufacturing most of the time. If you wanted to invest in technology, of course America is one of the top choices still.
True, but when you look at the majority of big American companies, you'll find they either provide low end services or produce consumer goods. Both of which can be done cheaper if outsourced.
True, but when you look at the majority of big American companies, you'll find they either provide low end services or produce consumer goods. Both of which can be done cheaper if outsourced.
Yup....which went to my original point of outsourcing. The manufactoring point was just a rebuttal to wolf.
