Democrats and Republicans Quietly Planning Corporate Giveaway

[Anung Un Rama]

Mo' Money In Politics.


"The bad news is that key leaders of the Democratic Party — including the president — are getting on board with Republicans, despite some talk about confronting income inequality. Influential Democrats intend to negotiate with Republican counterparts on the size and terms of post-facto tax “forgiveness” for America’s globalized companies. This is real money they’re talking about — a giveaway of hundreds of billions."

"To put it plainly, this trade-off is certain to worsen income inequality, because the money goes to the very people — shareholders and corporate execs — who have already done fabulously well at the expense of other Americans.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, as she often does, found the right words to describe this transaction. She called it “a giant wet kiss for the tax dodgers.” Warren and Senator Sanders have repeatedly charged that the system is rigged. What’s particularly outrageous about this new rigging of the tax code is that even though the politicians are engineering it in the midst of a presidential election, most voters don’t have a clue."
http://www.thenation.com/article/de...orporate-giveaway-to-the-tune-of-400-billion/

 

[PolishHeadlock]

These are profits made on foreign earnings that companies don't repatriate.

The US is thinking of lowering the rate on repatriated earnings so it's easier to bring the money home and invest in the US.

If this doesn't happen this money will just stay overseas for the most part

 

[Anung Un Rama]

"The politicians are actually plotting a repeat plundering. Back in 2004, when President George W. Bush was running for re-election and John Kerry was his opponent, they agreed upon a similar proposition. Both were snookered, but it was ordinary citizens who were really screwed. The measure was called the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, and companies repatriated $362 billion at a reduced tax rate of 5.25 percent."

"Then they walked away from the jobs promise. In fact, the largest companies killed jobs after they got the money—some 60,000 jobs—moving them overseas to low-wage, low-tax countries. They used their windfall to boost stock prices and thereby enrich investors and CEOs. Now the same crowd is planning a rerun, counting on the wayward press to maintain public ignorance."

 

[VivaRevolution]

These are profits made on foreign earnings that companies don't repatriate.

The US is thinking of lowering the rate on repatriated earnings so it's easier to bring the money home and invest in the US.

If this doesn't happen this money will just stay overseas for the most part

Good. The reason we used to have a 90% tax rate(Don't care what the effective tax rate was, no different today that corporate tax rates, and effective tax rates are 2 different things), was not to pay for things, but was to limit concentrations of wealth, so that wealth couldn't be used to corrupt systems.

As long as our government is for sale to the highest bidder, keeping corporate money overseas is a good thing.

 

[Graves The Elder]

lol at 'wayward press'.
really? who would have imagined that?

american politics is a circus of the absurd,
with the venal press hawking rotten peanuts and soggy
popcorn on the sidelines to a tired, hungry and gullible citizenry.

same as it ever was.

 

[platypus44]

It's not a giveaway - it's a one time tax reduction to bring the money back into the USA. Not a bad idea. A better idea would be to replace the corporate tax structure with a VAT.

 

[Jack V Savage]

These are profits made on foreign earnings that companies don't repatriate.

The US is thinking of lowering the rate on repatriated earnings so it's easier to bring the money home and invest in the US.

If this doesn't happen this money will just stay overseas for the most part

"Giveaway" seems to be an inappropriate term here. I think that implies that corporations are getting something that they previously didn't have. It can be appropriate for some tax breaks. If there were a tax cut on all businesses that employ more than 1,000 people, for example, that would effectively be the gov't borrowing money to give to those businesses (or if there were offsetting spending cuts, it would be the gov't taking money from whoever would have received that spending and giving it to the businesses). But this is a case where the companies weren't paying any taxes and now they're paying some. Can't agree with the writer.

On the other hand, it would encourage companies to do the same in the future in hopes of a similar break again (as has happened in the past). I would think that this should come with some mechanism for preventing it from being an issue that keeps popping up. If it doesn't, I think there is a legitimate objection to the action, but not on the grounds that it's a "corporate giveaway."

 

[Anung Un Rama]

"Giveaway" seems to be an inappropriate term here. I think that implies that corporations are getting something that they previously didn't have. It can be appropriate for some tax breaks. If there were a tax cut on all businesses that employ more than 1,000 people, for example, that would effectively be the gov't borrowing money to give to those businesses (or if there were offsetting spending cuts, it would be the gov't taking money from whoever would have received that spending and giving it to the businesses). But this is a case where the companies weren't paying any taxes and now they're paying some. Can't agree with the writer.

Its the second time this is being done, and part of the negotiations this time are some absurd and permanent tax-cuts for these mnc's.
Its a giveaway. For the DNC/GOP to behave as if this is the only option is farcical. Its not a tear in the fabric of space-time, its a tax loophole; close it.

On the other hand, it would encourage companies to do the same in the future in hopes of a similar break again (as has happened in the past). I would think that this should come with some mechanism for preventing it from being an issue that keeps popping up. If it doesn't, I think there is a legitimate objection to the action, but not on the grounds that it's a "corporate giveaway."

I would argue that is already has. This would be the second time our elected officials are compromising over on these taxes.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

It's not a giveaway - it's a one time tax reduction to bring the money back into the USA. Not a bad idea. A better idea would be to replace the corporate tax structure with a VAT.

Except its the second time....