U.S. Firms Move Abroad to avoid taxes

[dmcowen674]

8-29-2012

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-firms-move-abroad-024200566.html

U.S. Firms Move Abroad to avoid taxes



More big U.S. companies are reincorporating abroad despite a 2004 federal law that sought to curb the practice. One big reason: Taxes.


Since 2009, at least 10 U.S. public companies have moved their incorporation address abroad or announced plans to do so, including six in the last year


The companies that have moved recently include manufacturer Eaton Corp., oil firms Ensco International Inc. and Rowan Cos., as well as a spinoff of Sara Lee Corp. called D.E. Master Blenders 1753.


Eaton, a 101-year-old Cleveland-based maker of components and electrical equipment, announced in May that it would acquire Cooper Industries PLC, another electrical-equipment maker that had moved to Bermuda in 2002 and then to Ireland in 2009.



It plans to maintain factories, offices and other operations in the U.S. while moving its place of incorporation—for now—to the office of an Irish law firm in downtown Dublin.

In his State of the Union speech in January, President Barack Obama said that "it's time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America."


For companies that leave the U.S., the appeal of lower taxes "is still there, but people now are also getting more concerned about where tax reform is going," says Bret Wells, a University of Houston law professor.


Still, several key lawmakers hope to rewrite the tax code to give companies an extra incentive to stay in the U.S.

 

[dmcowen674]

Tariffs

Hit them with a shit ton of costs to sell in the U.S. and watch how quick they stop this shit.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Tariffs

Hit them with a shit ton of costs to sell in the U.S. and watch how quick they stop this shit.

And then watch as the cost of goods and services shoot up into the sky and you'll be making a second thread about how "GREEDY" these businesses are for pushing off the added cost of manufacturing in the US (while attempting to compete globally) onto the US consumer.

 

[glenn1]

Tariffs

Hit them with a shit ton of costs to sell in the U.S. and watch how quick they stop this shit.

You keep on calling for the rich 1% to leave the country; now when they do you're still not happy. Something tells me you're just a hard man to please.

 

[Throckmorton]

You keep on calling for the rich 1% to leave the country; now when they do you're still not happy. Something tells me you're just a hard man to please.

No, these are corporations, not the rich 1%. The rich 1% are still living here. And the corporations are still making their profits from US consumers and passing them on to the 1% who are also still here and paying a 15% "capital gains" tax rate. Interesting how that works out for them...

 

[glenn1]

No, these are corporations, not the rich 1%. The rich 1% are still living here. And the corporations are still making their profits from US consumers and passing them on to the 1% who are also still here and paying a 15% "capital gains" tax rate. Interesting how that works out for them...

So maybe Dave can clarify. Is it just the greedy rich people you want to leave the country, or the greedy rich corporations also? It's hard to keep track of who's supposed to stay and who's supposed to go.

 

[Dannar26]

Clearly, the answer is "more taxes."

Duely blundered from my thunderdolt.

 

[blankslate]

Clearly, the answer is "more taxes."

Duely blundered from my thunderdolt.

No the answer was to never make the free trade agreements that we did...

Ross Perot for all of his craziness was right on that one issue.

 

[Smoblikat]

Tariffs

Hit them with a shit ton of costs to sell in the U.S. and watch how quick they stop this shit.

But.....but......the 1% DESERVE to be stolen from, right? Theyre the big bad meany heads that make more money, they need to pay their fair share./sarcasm Just more proof that liberal mindset is broken.

 

[Anarchist420]

Maybe the fact that the u.s. govt imposes the highest marginal corporate tax rate in the world has something to do with it. Neither Romney nor Obama want to change that. Romney's proposed rate cut is weak, and Obama thinks 35% is fine... so what happens is only the hospitals, a few other firms, and the people wind up getting fucked over while the corporations wealthy enough to evade can and do.

 

[dmcowen674]

And then watch as the cost of goods and services shoot up into the sky and you'll be making a second thread about how "GREEDY" these businesses are for pushing off the added cost of manufacturing in the US (while attempting to compete globally) onto the US consumer.

Fuck that competing globally shit.

Look where it has gotten us.

Of course you must profit personally since you are all for it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by glenn1
You keep on calling for the rich 1% to leave the country; now when they do you're still not happy. Something tells me you're just a hard man to please.

No, these are corporations, not the rich 1%. The rich 1% are still living here. And the corporations are still making their profits from US consumers and passing them on to the 1% who are also still here and paying a 15% "capital gains" tax rate. Interesting how that works out for them...

Thank you for putting the smack down on yet another disengenouis rich Republican poster :thumbsup:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by Dannar26
Clearly, the answer is "more taxes."

No the answer was to never make the free trade agreements that we did...

Ross Perot for all of his craziness was right on that one issue.

Exactly

 

[1prophet]

No the answer was to never make the free trade agreements that we did...

Ross Perot for all of his craziness was right on that one issue.

But, but he lost that debate on Larry King Live to Al Gore when Gore pointed out the protectionist Ross Perot was making him appear a fool on National TV.

Isn't that how it works, the person who can out debate you and make you look like a fool is always right?:whiste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhwhMXOxHTg

See the link to the chart for the results of trade with Mexico. The year NAFTA was ratified, America had a $1 billion trade surplus with Mexico. By 1995, America had a $16 billion trade deficit with Mexico. Today, America's trade deficit with Mexico is $74 billion. The facts in the chart make President Clinton, Vice President Gore and all the newspaper editors who wrote editorials supporting NAFTA look like complete idiots or worse. Ross Perot was absolutely right even though he was not effective in the debate. Again, no matter what your views are on NAFTA, the chart (link below) speaks for itself.

Also, this video is significant because it documents how NAFTA was sold to America by its elected leaders. In hindsight, some of the most ridiculous statements I heard from the debate was from Vice President Al Gore:

1) "They [GM] have started to move jobs back from Mexico to the United States."
2) "If he [Ross Perot] is right, then you give six months notice and you're out of it [NAFTA]."

Lessons learned: Any time your government tries to sell you on a free trade deal with another country that has disparate living and environmental standards, don't believe it. President Bill Clinton also made similar claims about free trade with Communist China when he signed a free trade agreement with that country in 1999. Today, the US has lost countless jobs to Communist China and suffers a staggering and unsustainable $250 billion annual trade deficit with that country.

 

[EagleKeeper]

No, these are corporations, not the rich 1%. The rich 1% are still living here. And the corporations are still making their profits from US consumers and passing them on to the 1% who are also still here and paying a 15% "capital gains" tax rate. Interesting how that works out for them...

If the income is from capital gains - why should they not pay the capital gains rate?

The purpose of a lower rate is to invest in potential growth and compensate for the risk involved.

 

[Exterous]

Since 2009, at least 10 U.S. public companies have moved their incorporation address abroad or announced plans to do so, including six in the last year

Wow - so like 10 whole companies? That's like less than half a percent less or than 5 hundredths of a percent depending on their definition of 'publicly traded'!

I'd be very curious to know market cap. I suspect its really tiny

And what kind of shitty reporting is this:

That's up from just a handful from 2004 through 2008

How many companies are a handful? How the fuck do you fit a company in a hand? When talking about less than 10 can you really not just give a hard number? (Or would that diminish the impact of your article?)

 

[Jhhnn]

If the income is from capital gains - why should they not pay the capital gains rate?

The purpose of a lower rate is to invest in potential growth and compensate for the risk involved.

The purpose of a lower rate is to allow the wealthy to escape taxation, given that the investment in this country is simply not occurring, and hasn't been for decades.

Theory sounds peachy, but when it fails to accurately describe reality, it's faulty.

I think the real answer is to reduce corporate tax rates to near zero, and to tax all income at current earned income rates, also to incorporate withholding wrt corporate disbursements.

It'd be great for business, with corporate entities flocking to America, even though stockholders & bondholders would pay higher personal rates.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No the answer was to never make the free trade agreements that we did...

Ross Perot for all of his craziness was right on that one issue.

^This. However, many liberals want to blame Reaganomics instead...even though the problem started well before he took office. The effects of our trade imbalance on our economy has been profound. It all started in the mid-70s and hasn't abated since. When people talk about wealth disparity, they need to understand this.

 

[wirednuts]

sigh... i dont believe everything mark cuban says, but he claims the tax rate could be 45% on his businesses and it wouldnt hurt them one bit. he said on bill mahr just the other day that taxes are NEVER an excuse for a failing business, and anyone who says they need lower taxes is just greedy.

 

[cybrsage]

If we vastly reduced out corp tax rate, we would find a lot of companies moving their headquarters into the US. If the far lower tax rates are the reason businesses are moving to other countries, then the fix is simple.

 

[wirednuts]

The purpose of a lower rate is to allow the wealthy to escape taxation, given that the investment in this country is simply not occurring, and hasn't been for decades.

Theory sounds peachy, but when it fails to accurately describe reality, it's faulty.

I think the real answer is to reduce corporate tax rates to near zero, and to tax all income at current earned income rates, also to incorporate withholding wrt corporate disbursements.

It'd be great for business, with corporate entities flocking to America, even though stockholders & bondholders would pay higher personal rates.

i think a better answer is to tax corporations 30% either directly or through import tarriffs if they try to avoid the tax. then abolish earned income taxes. THOSE are whats really hurting people.

 

[wirednuts]

If we vastly reduced out corp tax rate, we would find a lot of companies moving their headquarters into the US. If the far lower tax rates are the reason businesses are moving to other countries, then the fix is simple.

if we closed the loopholes so that ALL american companies must pay their fair taxes then you wouldnt see businesses move overseas because everyone would be on the same playing field.

its not like these companies cant afford the taxes... its just that their competitors dont have to pay the taxes because they moved over the boarder. so why wouldnt you do the same?

 

[cybrsage]

if we closed the loopholes so that ALL american companies must pay their fair taxes then you wouldnt see businesses move overseas because everyone would be on the same playing field.

Once their corp. headquarters is incorporated in a different nation, they stop being an American company (still run by Americans, but legally no longer an American company).

its not like these companies cant afford the taxes... its just that their competitors dont have to pay the taxes because they moved over the boarder. so why wouldnt you do the same?

Correct. The two solutions I can see are to either reduce our corporate taxes to even the playing field or put a tax on foreign corporations to raise their costs and again even the playing field. The former would be preferable for a few reasons. One is that many companies would move their headquarters here to be closer to their primary consumers. Another is that if we raise taxes on foreign companies (via taxes on their goods), other countries will do it back to us in revenge. Not a good thing.

 

[wirednuts]

im not saying i know what we should do.. but i do know as a single man over 30% of my income goes away every year into taxes for various crap, and i can not really afford it. yet these corporations with ungodly amounts of money act like its their doom if they too have to pay taxes

 

[crownjules]

If the income is from capital gains - why should they not pay the capital gains rate?

The purpose of a lower rate is to invest in potential growth and compensate for the risk involved.

The potential growth (aka passive income) is incentive enough. The risk is mitigated by the fact you can write off losses come tax time. The so called need for capital gains to be taxed at a lower rate for them to be worthwhile is a lie. There is no reason at all they shouldn't be taxed at normal income tax rates.

On topic, I'd say we should drop the corporate tax rate. We need to become more competitive with the world in that regard. But to balance it out, some of these things like higher cap gains rates and closing of tax loopholes needs to occur.