When Did We Need to Force People and Business to Stay in America?

Companies are still doing business here, using American infrastructure, American workforce, American subsidies and tax breaks, etc...

They're just not paying Uncle Sam one fat red cent compared to American companies that are still headquartered here because Ireland or some podunk island nation is a lot cheaper.

The practice to pay less taxes is pretty common, which is why financial companies like to incorporate in Delaware over other states. Outside the lenient tax laws and efficient tax administration, there's nothing exceptional about Delaware. Not it's people, its business, nor it's customer base.

In this case, it's the issue of being a free rider rather than walling in our borders.

Interesting way to frame the debate...

 

Stopping tax inversions doesn't force businesses to stay in the US. They just close tax loopholes for restructuring.

 

If you want to start a thread about tax shelters, tax avoidance, and tax evasion, this is a pretty opaque and silly way of doing it.

If you want to go through life as a bottom to your betters, you picked an excellent way of doing it.

 

You want to eat my food, use my restroom, watch my tv and stay in my house? But you don't want to do any chores or pay rent?

 

It is. There's a reason we talk about the handful of companies looking at tax inversions - it's because it's a handful.

The US is already a haven for startups.

When does it end? Those incentives come out of the pockets of taxpayers, so how far are you willing to go? If other countries drop their corporate tax rates to 0% and subsidize corporations, should we also? If other countries start paying giving companies money to move there, should we also? A race to the bottom doesn't necessarily benefit the country as a whole. If we lower taxes, other countries will just lower them further. The only party that benefits is the company that's being recruited. It's no different than all the tax subsidies each state offers to get companies to move there - no one but the company ultimately benefits.

 

Those are some convenient numbers. What happens if you only attract 150 customers? Or if the restaurant across the street just lowers their prices also, meaning you both lose out?

 

1$ difference makes a 150% increase in sales?
If only it were that simple.
Profit Margins are rarely . . . that simple.

So since we keeping it simple let's logically say
The Meal cost 4$
-- This would include - Supplies [food, carton/paper, untensils, etc]/Labor/Utilities/Rent

So you cut the price by a 1$
150% increase in sales means 150% increase in Supplies/Labor/Utilities
Rent stays the same. . .
That increase in Supplies/Labor/Utilities comes out of you profit.
So Profit is not longer 250$

Rocket River

 

That said . . 150% more 'work' for a <25% increase in profit . . .
Capitalism at its best . . .

Rocket River

 

Classic RM1981, start a melodramatic trolling thread, get countertrolled, get angry and lose composure, repeat.

Do you even understand the point of trolling?

It's not to act like a bottom on your 2nd or 3rd post; you're doing it wrong, friend.

 

Wow, is this a real post? Jeez, for a 33 year old man you do a great job of sounding like an angsty adolescent.

Maybe reflect a bit on what's happening here; you attempted to make a vapid point about tax evasion/shelters/avoidance, unsuccessfully, and in an awkward manner - is this what you want to be doing right now? Is this the best response you could come up with? Will you be proud of it tomorrow?

I don't think the answer to any of these questions is affirmative.

 

Since when did America become about not having people pay their share?

I pay my taxes every year. I'd appreciate it if the companies that reap all of the benefits here pay their share.

I see that you disagree. I just don't understand why.

Nobody is being forced to stay here. They are just being asked to pay their share for using the infrastructure that the others tax dollars are paying for. Why should we tax payers for all of the stuff these companies use, and they don't chip in at all?

 

Except the profits made by investors do not correlate to the profit made by the company - they are two totally different concepts and, outside of dividends, the profits come from completely different sources. Unless you are proposing scrapping C-Corps and only having S-Corps, where the profits flow through to the individual owners?

Besides that, these investors get benefits for having the C-Corp structure. Do you think those benefits should be offered for free?