Facebook Finds Grass Greener In Ireland

theodp writes "Facebook announced it has chosen tax-haven Dublin for its international HQ, but not all are buying COO Sheryl Sandberg's line about local world-class talent being the motivation behind the move. The Irish Times recently reported that Irish subsidiaries owned by US multinationals are opting to convert to unlimited liability status, concealing the financial performance of their Irish operations from public view. They include Microsoft's incredibly profitable Irish subsidiaries Round Island One and Flat Island Company, Google Ireland Holdings, and a subsidiary of Apple Computer. The conversions have occurred as US tax authorities have increased their scrutiny of international mechanisms used by American multinationals to reduce their taxes at home."

Comments

the US tax code

[thrillseeker]

is a politician's wet dream of byzantine unfairness and vote buying

Re:the US tax code

[GlobalColding]

The whole tax and governing apparatus is rotten to the core. Money gets wasted without adequate oversight or explanation where it goes. We, the people, are getting shafted and gamed by the people who are supposedly on our payroll. This evolutionary path leads to people learning how to game the people in charge. You can no longer say that "the house always wins"...

Re:the US tax code

[Ron_Fitzgerald]

Have you ever tried taking a piece of turkey away from a kitten?

Re:the US tax code

[ubrgeek]

> You can no longer say that "the house always wins"...

You're right. Sometimes it's the Senate.

Re:the US tax code

[yincrash]

They aren't moving their palo alto headquarters, they are creating a new one for europe, middle east, and africa.

Facebookâ(TM)s Dublin headquarters will house the social networking websiteâ(TM)s technical, sales and operations staff. The move is expected to create about 70 jobs and will not affect the websiteâ(TM)s existing London base, which is a commercial, rather than operational, office. Staff in Dublin will cover Europe, the Middle East and Africa, while the rest of the world is covered from Facebookâ(TM)s global headquarters in Palo Alto, California.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article4870354.ece

Re:the US tax code

[0100010001010011]

And a place to hide "earnings".

Re:the US tax code

[philspear]

The whole tax and governing apparatus is rotten to the core. Money gets wasted without adequate oversight or explanation where it goes. We, the people, are getting shafted and gamed by the people who are supposedly on our payroll.

In all of history, has it EVER been different?

Re:the US tax code

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I hate the band U2 for their bullshit with copyrights and fair use, they stated one thing back in the 80's(when they were still cool) that made total sense: It's the puppets that pull the strings.

Re:the US tax code

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole tax and governing apparatus is rotten to the core. Money gets wasted without adequate oversight or explanation where it goes. We, the people, are getting shafted and gamed by the people who are supposedly on our payroll.

In all of history, has it EVER been different?

Yeah before the fall...in the Garden

Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[David Gerard]

The "talent" in question is that able to secure local subsidies and bribe^Wincentivise the local politicians.

There's a reason Microsoft, Dell and so on have their European bases in Ireland.

Thankfully they aren't big on local talent for the Facebook movie.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[Azghoul]

So, Ireland is smarter than us in how they go about attracting corporate dollars... ... and you fault THEM for it?

Maybe if we were a little more competitive companies wouldn't bother fleeing there. Just a thought.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[Anonymous Coward]

at least one guy showed up for the premier:

http://www.gubuwire.com/?p=1217

ireland's politicains are rotten to the core, they gave 500bn worth of natural gas away to shell for free, and this week socialised the lossess of 6 banks to the tune of 400bn, those combined ate more than the contravercal US bailout plan, pure corruption

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[Ash Vince]

It is not just about bribing the local politicians. It is also about Ireland being a damn decent place to run a business. You have lower levels of violent crime, a very stable currency and a well educated populace. Add to this a much lower cost of living than many other countries nearby and you also get a very happy workforce who are then more productive.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[David Gerard]

These are important points in its favour :-) It's a fabulously nice place.

(Hell, I live in London. Where's not nice by comparison?)

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[cetialphav]

Bingo! This is just competition. For most of our history, governments had very little competition (except for the occasional war here and there) and were economic monopolies. That is starting to change with globalization. When companies can easily do business all around the globe, what is the meaning of corporate headquarters? Most modern nations now are roughly equivalent in terms of available talent, language (English is the language of commerce in much of the world), infrastructure, and legal protections. So if you can pay less taxes in country A than country B, then why not relocate? This sort of thing has happened within the US for years as states and cities compete for headquarters and factories. Now it also happens globally.

Is Ireland smarter? I don't know. If the taxes are too low, they may not be able to adequately provide infrastructure and that would hurt them in the long term as they rack up debt and then have to pay for it as companies leave them. But if they are simply more efficient than the US and can support the lower tax base, then good for them. It will force us in the US to become more efficient to compete.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[jimicus]

Hell, I live in London. Where's not nice by comparison?

Coventry.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[DeepZenPill]

I'd say Ireland is smarter. They've come a long way in terms of standard of living and per capita income, directly attributable to their favorable tax structure. The country is attracting businesses and bright minds, all of which provide taxable income that was not there before.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[Carewolf]

A race to bottom! It is on!!!

P.S. I am going to let you win, and stay up here in the sunlight.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[Herkum01]

How about, if you don't pay taxes in the US, you don't the benefits and business deductions of a US business? Sounds like the free market to me!

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[Anonymous Coward]

"It will force us in the US to become more efficient to compete."

Nay. It will force them to "export democracy" more often to "create profitable competition" for the "greater good of all".

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[Peeteriz]

What benefits? What benefits does a US-headquartered multinational company gets from US that does not apply for foreign multinational companies that do a lot of business in US?

Especially, what is the difference between benefits received of company A that has a US subsidiary and Ireland subsidiary, and has most of it's profits (and thus, most of taxes) in the US branch; and company B with exact subsidiaries, but where all the profits somehow magically are in the Ireland subsidiary?

I see no difference there. Especially when all the "benefits" are really just infrastructure-related, it all comes out something like the tragedy of commons scenario.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[cortesoft]

Actually, the reason Ireland has come so far in terms of standard of living and per capita income is because of heavy investment by the EU during the late 90's. This investment was mostly funded from tax revenue in wealthier EU countries (like Germany). That investment of public money has certainly turned around the Irish economy, but to act as if it is because of their pro-business, free market policies is a bit misleading.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[NinjaCoder]

It's been a long time time since Ireland was a much cheaper place to live...

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[Muros]

I don't think its a case of Ireland being SMART, just short term pragmatic, thats how we work over here (I'm Irish). We got an enormous and much needed kickstart to our economy from the EU in large donations of cash, in return for billions upon billions more in fishing rights given to other EU nations (Ireland has the most expansive territorial waters in Europe, about 10 times the actual land size of the country). Our maritime industry was completely snuffed out by the English several centuries ago, because it was in direct competition with the whole "britannia rules the waves" thing, which could have been seriously threatened by what was once the largest seafaring industry, and pirating base, in Europe. So we gave Europe something they needed, for something we wanted. This will come under review eventually. For shorebound business, we simply charge people less tax. They cry foul but we dont care. We are a part of a single currency block comprised of about 400 million people. We make up 1% of that population, we are cut off from direct land shipping routes, we can't compete on equal terms, we are subject to the whims of the French and German governments and the interest rates they decide to set to keep their own economies in order, (completely screwing up ours), so, do we give a flying fuck if they don't like our tax policies? Nope. Screw em. Nicely of course, we're all friends in the Eu.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Ireland is not smarter. We are just desperate.

You must understand that Ireland, as a country, had nothing. The most common phrase I hear from older people about the past is: "This country had nothing". The sad fact is, beneath it all, Ireland still has nothing. We have no natural resources, a low population, poor infrastructure, no significant industrial base. We are an island, and communications with the continent have always been expensive, slow and prone to monopolies. Corruption is and always was a very serious problem. We have a weak judiciary, a rather inept legislature and an effective one-party system. None of these points is a crippling issue, but you must understand that Ireland was never traditionally an attractive place to invest.

The low corporation tax rate is the only, and I mean the only , thing that this country has to attract foreign investment. No one is very happy with this, least of all ordinary people who have to pay ~45% income tax rates to make up for the attractive 12.5% taxes paid by corporations and yet still have to put up with a substandard public service. Ireland is a leader in the race to the bottom, and it cannot be denied that this policy has paid off. Big fish like Microsoft, Pfizer, Dell, Intel, etc have contributed substantially to Ireland's transition from a second world country in 1990, to a ... well talk to me after the current crisis is over, but I'll say for now a first world one.

The low corporation tax had lead to some substantial anomalies. Former Taoiseach Garret Fitzgerald has argued for years that Ireland's official GDP figures are grossly misleading, with a very small amount of foreign companies contributing a sizeable fraction of GDP(If I remember correctly, Pfizer's Viagra operation in Cork alone was said to account for 3% of GDP). But because the tax rate is so low, these profits will largely be sent back to their home countries, and the country will not see the benefit(as much).

Make no mistake, Ireland has made a Faustian deal with multinational companies. If even one, just one, major american company decides to pack up and head elsewhere, this country will feel the impact for many years. The company might consider its presence relatively small in global terms, but in Irish terms Microsoft's Dublin office is akin to Ma Bell in its heyday. At this point, we literally cannot afford to ever increase the corporation tax rate to anywhere near the rate in England or the continent. If we do, one or more multinational companies will leave, and the country will go under.

Many of these same reasons lay behind the bail out of Irish banks this week by the government. Our banks are small in global terms, but if they go down, we go down with them. (And they were going down. Ireland's housing crisis is exactly the same as in the US only even more extreme). Before you mention it, I will say that yes, this country as a whole has been mismanaged. For many years. I and most people living here are chronically aware of this fact.

Ireland has changed substantially in the last ~15 years. But I must stress that our great national fear has never gone away. That fear is that the country will become utterly bankrupt, and everyone in it will be reduced to abject poverty. "This country was a disaster." I've been told this over and over ad nauseum since I was old enough to speak. Even the cubs of the Celtic Tiger, for all their confidence, are dimly aware of this fact. Despite all the mobile phones and iPods, green beer, SUV's, wine counters, foreign holidays, etc, etc, Irish people collectively have not and will never let go of this one, real and ever present terror that they will be, as a nation, pauperised. Again. It has happened over and over and over. In the 1930's, the 1950's and the 1980's, and that's just in the modern era.

Ireland still, to this day, has very little going for it, and people here will do everything they can to avoid going back to nothing. As such, I seriously doubt that they

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[Muros]

As I stated in a different post, the idea that Ireland has been given freebies by the European Union is complete rubbish, we have always been net contributers, just not in terms of hard cash. But that has changed now too. So we have gone from being a nation that was raped of resources for several centuries by England and in dire need of direct cash investment for infrastructural development, but still a net contributer to Europe, to being just a net contributer to Europe. As said in my other post, a review will be had but probably not within the next 10 years.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[old and new again]

undoing bad mod, wanted insightfull, slipped on overrated, which this post is not

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[drsquare]

They're not smarter, they just lower taxes in a race to the bottom. No different than India or China attracting business with low wages and poor working conditions. If we were more 'competitive' like Ireland, then we'd all have Ireland's crumbling infrastructure and backward religious theocracy.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[Anonymous Coward]

After the third line the rest of your comment was tainted by a very large mistake. Ireland is not a country without natural resources.

Lets start off by naming some of the more common ones on the Island, there is of course fishing, forestry, mining, livestock and peat. Then let us not forget natural gas, petroleum, peat, copper, lead, dolomite, barite, limestone, gypsum, silver and some zinc.

Yes we are an Island with no natural resources.

What our biggest problem is that we are an Island of moaners, that are never happy, but are unwilling to do anything about anything.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[Gaian-Orlanthii]

Ireland has had resources to draw on for years (oil and gas fields for example) but in my opinion, the real problem is the Irish themselves.

You say that the last 15 years have seen considerable changes in Ireland but those changes were only on the surface. Irish culture has hardly changed and that is the most serious problem the Irish have. Themselves.
From the days of Laughing Stock Of Europe through the Celtic Tiger/Rip-off Republic era to today's ignominy as the first country in Europe to declare a recession, the Irish have learned very little at all.
As a nation, they're famously venal and shortsighted with a strong streak of incompetence and procrastination.
Massive overspending on credit, status anxiety and explosive urban sprawl were the hallmarks of the Irish in the Celtic Tiger and let's not leave out the infamous Irish greed for property. For the price you'd pay for a castle in England http://www.propertyshowrooms.com/united%20kingdom/property/news/richard-hammond-buys-haunted-herefordshire-castle_19029.html/, you'd be lucky to afford a house on the Rathgar road.
Why would anyone want to pay that much to live in a country with low building standards, an incompetent and ineffectual judiciary and a culture of smirking corruption at the highest level? Hell, you could move to Italy or Bulgaria for that and get better weather.

No, the Irish have blown it - again. And they can't whine and blame the English this time. If anyone truly believes that the Irish are in this bind because they happen to live on an island with little resources, please STFU and go to Iceland.

And for the record, I'm Irish.

Re:Local world-class FINANCIAL talent

[harmlessdrudge]

Written like a true Irishman, bearing in mind Samuel Johnson's dictum: the Irish are a very fair people, they only speak ill of each other.

Still, it makes a refreshing change from the endless narcisissm of American blowhards who get all bent out of shape if you dare run for office without the flag pinned to your lapel.

As it happens, Ireland's greatest resource is its people. Evidently you've been educated in Ireland. Already you are among the best educated in the world. You have to travel to appreciate this and you couldn't have written this drivel if you'd traveled, so it's clear that you haven't.

For a true perspective on the "nothing going for it" comment, which is inane (sorry, but it's true), you need to spend some time in countries that don't work at all. You have NO IDEA how privileged the Irish are. I suggest you consult the UN Human Development Index (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/); the Economist Quality of Life Index (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.PDF) or visit places like the Philippines where Ireland features AHEAD of the US, Australia, Canada and the UK on the adverts for desirable desintations to work.

The Irish fear of pauperisation is nothing but a folk memory and a laughable one at that. The fact is that with a post-industrial economy the Irish have the highest per capita income in the EU except for Luxembourg. Luxembourg is ahead only by not counting workers who enter the country on a daily basis. It is the EU's little emirate and completely inconsequential non-entity.

(Name one famous person from Luxembourg)

Ireland's per capita income is well ahead of the UK and the US and the gap is increasing (check the World Bank statistics).

What would Ireland look like if it had something going for it?

You seem to forget that the Irish workforce adds value. Intel and many others came for cheap labour and stayed for the quality of the workforce and the quality of life.

Incidentally, I voted with my feet the day Charles Haughey -- the greatest cretin ever to hold public office in Ireland -- was re-elected. And were I American I'd do the same if Ms.Palin got anywhere near the oval office. There are limits.

When I left Ireland there was no such thing as green beer. It was invention of Americans and despised in Ireland. If the Irish are now drinking green beer in Ireland the country really has gone to the dogs. Will you proclaim now that you are also eating corned beef and cabbage? (Every American thinks this)

Infrastructure: You're wet behind the ears kid. When I left Ireland the waiting in Dublin for a telpehone was 7 years. I went to the US and the waiting list was 3 days and people were hopping mad about it.

Can you spell Ryanair? Get off your backside and see a bit of the world and realize the size of the silver spoon in your overprivileged gob.

I guess they need to save money while they can

[Viol8]

Because IMO Facebook is just another fad and will go the same way as Friends Reunited when something new and shinier comes along or the novelty wears off. Very few trendy websites stay trendy for more than a few years - its only the interesting ones that survive and theres a limit to how much aquaintances boring lives and silly little games can keep you interested over a long period of time.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[sakdoctor]

Viol8, you've been bitten by a zombie!
Click here to transfer all your private information to a untrusted 3rd party.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[Bicx]

At the rate that Facebook is adding new features, games, and dozens of new ways to communicate, users will soon realize that there are simpler ways to communicate. You know, like dialing a phone number.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[Miamicanes]

Plus, Facebook has (at least) one fundamental flaw: it assumes you WANT everyone who you're "friends" with to indiscriminately know about everyone ELSE you're "friends" with. It ignores the fact that you don't necessarily WANT your kid brother (or coworkers, or parents) reading about your wild weekend (or at least not the full details you'd share with your best and closest friends).

What's needed is a social networking site with a concept of groups as containers for acquaintances and other groups, applying permissions in the order of default-deny, groups with permission, groups denied, individuals permitted, individuals denied. THEN, when you post something, you'd be able to specify its visibility scope across those groups... possibly, even creating fake or munged entries for some groups to see in lieu of "real" entries, and NO way for acquaintances to discern which group(s) they're in, or even which groups exist at all.

Then, you could create a safe, bland (semi-)public page for (almost) everyone to see, but let the appropriate acquaintances see things appropriate to their relationship with you... and possibly even maintain one or more "parallel universes" that completely override each other for people with two or more groups of friends that should (ideally) NEVER encounter each other (parents and drinking buddies being an obvious example). Ideally, you could even set up one or more "duress" passwords that logged you in as an admin for your profile with access to only a subset of your real one, in case someone like a girlfriend or family member coerced you into logging in with them present to "prove" something. By allowing an unlimited number of duress passwords with unlimited groups and parallel universes, you'd effectively achieve plausible deniability... nobody could ever force you to reveal things, because they could never know for sure whether you were logged in with a duress password or your real one.

The sad thing is, a feature like THIS would be the perfect way to monetize something like Facebook... keeping the current model free, but charging monthly or annual fees to add more sophisticated group management and/or depth.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[Abcd1234]

Plus, Facebook has (at least) one fundamental flaw: it assumes you WANT everyone who you're "friends" with to indiscriminately know about everyone ELSE you're "friends" with. It ignores the fact that you don't necessarily WANT your kid brother (or coworkers, or parents) reading about your wild weekend (or at least not the full details you'd share with your best and closest friends).

Also introduced to us by Seinfeld as the "worlds colliding" theory of social interaction.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[Kozz]

Or... you can keep your wild weekend stories off your Facebook page altogether.

Or you could not use Facebook.

What you're proposing would be a world of confusion for most users -- having to adjust permissions of each and every bit of information you post? Just try explaining Unix-ish file permissions to someone (even some IT types) and it's bad enough. Your suggestion would inevitably lead to showing the wrong thing to the wrong person right off the bat due to the learning curve.

It kind of sounds like you want to live the life of a double-agent, hiding information from certain people in your lives. You may have bigger problems.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[LordSnooty]

Friends Reutd had two things against it: 1. All you could do is the find friends thing, nothing akin to Scrabulous and its ilk, and b) they charged you five pounds to get full use of the service - inc. the ability to contact people, a bit of a deal-breaker on a social networking site (as it wasn't called then). The two are really not comparable.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on your view. If you're a stalker, that's not a flaw.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[Anonymous Coward]

Argh! Get off my lawn!

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[edmicman]

They already have something like this. It's called the Internet. I can have my group of Facebook friends, my self-hosted blog where people know it's me, my self-hosted blog at a different registered domain under a pseudonym where I can post my propaganda, my Flickr stream, my Google Groups persona, my Slashdot persona, and my personas at any number of other forums/communities.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[lysergic.acid]

Facebook is actually a well-designed/developed site, and a particularly useful one in its original niche. college students, especially incoming freshmen, gravitated to the site because it allowed them to stay in touch with all of their friends from high school who are now off to different universities, and it was also different from other social networks in that it had highly organized and usefully structured profiles which aren't cluttered by pictures, clashing colors, and annoying videos or music the way that Myspace profiles are.

facebook also organizes users by their schools, thus making the social network more useful as a practical networking tool. it's very useful for organizing student groups/events, or just making new friends (and not just online ones). out of all the social networking sites that have popped up in recent years, facebook is probably the least appropriate to use the word "trendy" on. and it's not likely to die any time soon, because it's actually a very ingeniously designed site.

MySpace, Xanga, Friendster, etc. were the trend-driven social networking sites. they weren't created around usefulness or original functionality. the fact that MySpace has not only remained, but grown into one of the most popular sites on the web shows that your prediction about "trendy" sites does not hold any water. Myspace is horribly designed, buggy, hideous, and filled with angst-ridden teenagers and illiterate retards, but its become such a cultural fixture that it's permanence is practically guaranteed.

all of the early social networking boom sites have died out so that the ones that remain will probably be here for a while. so your "* is just another fad" comment is about 4 years too late. saying it to demonstrate your non-conformity (or to show that you're above fads & fashions) is ignoring the reality staring you in the face.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[retchdog]

Unix file permissions would be a lot easier without "write" and "execute", neither of which are really relevant here, so we're down to read. Also there's nothing strange like "execute on a directory means you're able to enter that directory". Finally, we can leave users out of the permissions entirely, and it's down to groups, of which most people can do great with 3 ("personal", "family" and "work") and the implied "self" with full access. A folder-dropping analogy would work, and at the early stages of the learning curve, even if they make the worst mistakes possible, it'd be the same as facebook today.

I think the problem is that it will make your "work" people curious as hell about what's in the other folders and vice-versa. I don't know if that's a flaw though.

The problem with wild weekend stories, is that it only takes one person photographing you, and someone tagging that photo, to share your story. Even if you're not on facebook.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[DavidTC]

I think the problem is that it will make your "work" people curious as hell about what's in the other folders and vice-versa. I don't know if that's a flaw though.

Why would you let anyone know there's another group?

When you add someone, you should add them to one of more groups. (Incidentally, this already exists, you can already group friends, although it's just useful for finding your friends faster.) They should only see what they can see and have no concept of anything else.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[D Ninja]

What's needed is a social networking site with a concept of groups as containers for acquaintances and other groups, applying permissions in the order of default-deny, groups with permission, groups denied, individuals permitted, individuals denied. THEN, when you post something, you'd be able to specify its visibility scope across those groups... possibly, even creating fake or munged entries for some groups to see in lieu of "real" entries, and NO way for acquaintances to discern which group(s) they're in, or even which groups exist at all.

Ummm...Facebook has that. Actually. Well, admittedly, not to the level you're describing, but they are working that way. They do have groups which allows you to show/hide information on your page. And, as far as I can tell, people don't know their in a group (unless of course, they see your page on someone else's account). I figure it's only time before things posted in your profile can be limited on a per group basis as well.

And, then of course, if you don't want to share things...maybe you shouldn't be putting it up on Facebook in the first place.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[thisissilly]

What's needed is a social networking site with a concept of groups as containers for acquaintances and other groups, applying permissions in the order of default-deny, groups with permission, groups denied, individuals permitted, individuals denied. THEN, when you post something, you'd be able to specify its visibility scope across those groups... possibly, even creating fake or munged entries for some groups to see in lieu of "real" entries, and NO way for acquaintances to discern which group(s) they're in, or even which groups exist at all.

LiveJournal's pretty close to that. LJ lets you define arbitrary groups of people on your "friendslist", and make posts visible to only people in those groups. The people can't tell what groups you have or what groups they are in. The one thing that keeps this from being a complete match for your requirements is that anyone can still see the list of everyone who is on your friendslist. This means even if you have (say) separate groups set up, one of which is your co-workers, and one of which is your kinky sex friends, and you only make posts appropriately locked one way or the other, your co-worker can still see you are friends with these other folk, and my aren't some of *their* journals interesting!

Some people get around that by keeping multiple LJ accounts.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[0100010001010011]

Facebook has quite a bit of stuff like that already. Check out the privacy settings.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[ThousandStars]

What's needed is a social networking site with a concept of groups as containers for acquaintances and other groups, applying permissions in the order of default-deny, groups with permission, groups denied, individuals permitted, individuals denied.

Which will be far too complicated for your average beer-swilling 19-year-old, who is still Facebook's fundamental demographic. No one outside of *nix administrators will take the time to learn the grouping systems well enough to use them. The same applies to user fees. This is one of these ideas that sounds great on /., but /. isn't a representative sample of actual users.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[jimicus]

Ummm...Facebook has that. Actually. Well, admittedly, not to the level you're describing, but they are working that way. They do have groups which allows you to show/hide information on your page.

It does, and to a greater or lesser extent you can block which groups can see what things (depending on the application - the photo album supports it, for example).

However, it's hard to take seriously when it has been absolutely plagued with examples of it being possible to bypass the group security. Comes of facebook never really having been designed for it in the first place.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately they have a concept of friend lists which allows you to do just that.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[WebmasterNeal]

Facebook has an extensive privacy section, where you can create groups, place friends in those groups and then apply restrictions to those groups, i.e this group can't view any of my pictures. You can also, and should, turn off all access to your profile to people you are not friends with. I'm sure you have used facebook, perhaps you just haven't used it enough to find this out.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[retchdog]

Well, if those three are the default groups given to all incoming users, then anyone capable of induction will know that you have one (even if you aren't using it, but again they will induce that you probably are).

On the other hand, if you don't have a few groups by default, the feature will likely go unused, or be used poorly.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[cdwiegand]

It's called LiveJournal - supports groups, semi-private (protected with group ACLs) entries, it's all good.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[Viol8]

Theres a difference between something still being around (friends reunited is still around FFS) but thats rather different to it being a major attractor of the web. Give it another few years when something better has come along and Facebook will be another footnote in web history.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[King_TJ]

Honestly, I ignored Facebook for a long time (just like I have MySpace), because I figured as a guy in my late 30's, it wouldn't have that much to offer me. I'm not all that thrilled by the idea of seeing how many "friends" I can collect up on my account for "bragging rights", and some of the HTML disasters people create as pages are eye-sores.

But I finally gave in, after person after person told me to "check out their Facebook page" for this or that reason, and created my own account.

It was amazing how many people started contacting me who I haven't seen since as long ago as grade school! It really did put me back in touch with 5 or 6 good friends I'd totally lost track of.

So "fad" or not, I can vouch for Facebook serving a useful purpose, at least as long as it's "in vogue" for people to sign on and use it.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of these ideas that sounds great on /., but /. isn't a representative sample of actual users.

You're all negativity; next thing you'll be telling me that my proposal to design the facebook interface around a text-based Bash-style shell is a bad idea.

Yeah, I *know* that clueless 17-year-old girls are going to be using it... so although it grates, I compromised and introduced tab-completion. Just to help out the total computer illiterates.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[mr_stinky_britches]

+5 Insightful. Where are the mod points when I actually want to use them?

Anyways, thanks for clearing that up!

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[Anonymous Coward]

>shinier comes along or the novelty wears off

Or roughly every 10 yrs or so when the next consumer generation of 13-22 yr olds comes of age. You can be sure this will also coincide with the remixed / regurgitated / rereleased songs of yesteryear.

now everyone off my lawn

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[nonewmsgs]

i want this!

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're killing independent George!"

Um, seriously, maybe Facebook is working on this enhancement right now.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[blackest_k]

It doesn't need to keep you, your little brother, son , grandchild can all replace you.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[isorox]

Because IMO Facebook is just another fad and will go the same way as Friends Reunited

Just like slashdot...

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to check out http://www.inkampus.com/

By default, most items are deny and you have to enable it to open up. Too bad, its open to college students only.....

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[aaron alderman]

Statistics suggest it's growing.

Re:I guess they need to save money while they can

[4D6963]

Well here's one thing I noted about all you're pointing out. It seems that people don't care. People, for the moment, seem to value their privacy and more importantly the privacy of their inter-personal communications less than ever. People have entire conversations that can be seen by anyone they're friends with, and conversely anyone can become "friends" with them hence see it all. And people don't mind. Whether it's a bad thing or not, or whether it's a temporary trend or a transition I cannot tell, but one thing's for sure, people these days couldn't care less to have conversations with friends that can be eavesdropped by anyone else.

It's not the taxes or the talent

[reverseengineer]

It's the Guinness. Just tastes better the closer you are to St. James's Gate.

Re:It's not the taxes or the talent

[cavtroop]

Rated funny? This is one of the most serious posts I have ever read on /.

Re:It's not the taxes or the talent

[PetriBORG]

FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died.

It sounds pretty funny, but its exactly true - the FDA does worry about patients that are removed from a study because they died - if someone is enrolled into a drug/device study and those people die, the why they died is very important and is one way companies try to hide failure of their product. You'd be very upset if their failure rate was actually 10% instead of 5% which would have prevented them from becoming an approved device for use in hospitals and drug stores.

Re:It's not the taxes or the talent

[carambola5]

The Gate in question: http://flickr.com/photos/listrophy/534679390/in/set-72157600492895748/

Re:It's not the taxes or the talent

[SBacks]

Rated funny? This is one of the most serious posts I have ever read on /.

Funny != Silly

Re:It's not the taxes or the talent

[Anonymous Coward]

Far as I know it has to do with the ground water since they brew it with local water, but export it as syrup mostly.
So sadly outside of Ireland, it's just not the same unless it's bottled in Ireland too.

Re:It's not the taxes or the talent

[axehind]

Guinness = The good river Liffey. Have you seen the river Liffey? It looks like Guinness.

Re:It's not the taxes or the talent

[default luser]

Absolutely. The pint in Dublin was just better than anything I've found here on the US.

That, and they didn't carry ANY of the brewhouse releases here in the states. When I visited Dublin, I got totally hooked on Toucan Brew, and couldn't find it anywhere here. Guess I need to go back soon.

Re:It's not the taxes or the talent

[cmr-denver]

Just a damn shame I can't mod this one "+1 Brilliant!"

Re:It's not the taxes or the talent

[Paul Carver]

Your post seems to have been hit by an amusing Slashdot bug. You quoted as if you were responding to a comment having something to do with FDA testing, but Slashdot displays your post as a followup to a post about Guinness.

I'd love to hear more about the FDA approval status of Guinness and how many people died during the testing.

Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[HangingChad]

So our country goes farther in the hole every day and big companies skip out overseas to avoid paying taxes here. You don't have to be a financial expert to know that just ain't right.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[Chaos Incarnate]

The solution to the US going further in the hole every day isn't more taxes, it's to stop pissing away money like $700 billion is pocket change.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[hobbit]

Hey, you guys all but invented "letting the market decide", so if you're not the most attractive country in which to pay tax, surely you'll be redressing that through competition, not regulation?!

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[Anonymous Coward]

Our companies would stay in the United States if it weren't for the oppressive tax laws. It's getting so bad that we're bound to have another Boston Tea Party, remember that one? Think about who's raising taxes next time you vote, we can't afford to continue driving business out of the U.S.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[Ron_Fitzgerald]

In fairness, the $700 billion may be a cure for the billions that were pissed away before, but it is hard to tell these days.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[jcr]

You don't have to be a financial expert to know that just ain't right.

A corporation has a duty to its shareholders to increase their equity. If they can save money by relocating, it's entirely appropriate for them to do so.

You might want to ask why the USA has such high corporate tax rates.

-jcr

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[larry bagina]

People who are lucky should hold out a helping hand to people who are less lucky.

I think you mean: "The government should steal from people who are lucky and redistribute to people who are less lucky."

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[Russ Nelson]

Adam Smith was a Scot, not an Irishman.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, it's just good business for companies to set-up operations in more stable economies.

Why would a company willingly tie their future to a demonstrably unstable economy (and, arguably, ineffective government leadership), when they can opt to operate in a country that is more stable and friendly to their business?

These kinds of moves are byproducts of the situation in the US. Yes, they will precipitate further problems... but you reap what you sow.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[dattaway]

The way to fix this is customs duties and tariffs. Of course, trade is corrupt as hell and hidden deals are going to be made.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[larry bagina]

Don't you know, it's important for the economy to pass it as quickly as possible. Not because the economy would stop, but because a 2 day delay meant 400+ pages of unrelated pork and complications to the tax code.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[RiotingPacifist]

hey its you guys that are such big fans of the free market, It turns out that they're free to move to Ireland. The lower taxes you get in return must also be great for America as its such a big fan of small government too.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[Anonymous Coward]

I own a small US business (with payroll responsibilities). If you haven't set up and run a business in the US, you probably have little idea how onerous the taxes, laws and restrictions here are.

So before heaping blame on the corporations, please spend a little time examining just why there is an incentive for them to leave. Examine especially the laws regarding taxation on foreign income - and compare that with how other countries treat their corporations' foreign income.

And hard as it might be to believe, as an employee you see the pleasant side of the IRS.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[colganc]

It is their money. They earned it. Don't take it from them after they earned it. If you don't like how they earned it, change the rules for the next set of companies coming up. More likely your rules will prevent any new ones though.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[EraserMouseMan]

The middle-class need tax relief. So let's tax the big companies they all work for much more heavily.

This will surely help the middle-class employees of these large greedy companies. In order to remain competitive in this global economy these large companies must move out of the USA because the taxes are so burdensome here.

Thanks Obama! That really helped a lot!

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[JohnHegarty]

except the Irish government guaranteed the Irish banks for $550 billion on Monday

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[Anonymous Coward]

Then Congress should be working towards a "cleaning" of these multi-BILLION dollar companies.

The public has been living like a bunch of zombies while Congress and Businesses "steal" zillions of dollars from other countries, their own public, and a multitude of other places in the name of "capitalism". It is one thing to do business and make a profit, its another to make a bunch of deals which imbalances things, fubar the accounting papers, and/or steal outright from the company.

I bet if a full investigation were to be undertaken you'd find just about half of wall street is partaking in insider trading. Its near impossible to see who is doing it on the outside if they merely see something that comes across their desk that impacts a stock, especially if its during the good times. During downtimes you'd be able to see who is doing it as you'd see ppl jumping ship ahead of time.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[LWATCDR]

How do you tax the internet???
Please there isn't really a good way to fix this. If you make the rules looser then you will keep getting Enron. If you tighten them up you get companies moving.
The same thing happened to manufacturing. Do you know how hard it is to get a new plating plant built in the US? Yes plating is a nasty dirty process and it is good to have rules to keep them clean but...
Or a Steel Mill?
Most cities tried very hard to get heavy industry out. They all want light clean industry.
Same thing is going to happen with corporations now. It will be hard to find the right mix of regulations and freedoms.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[Kleen13]

At least it gives your Congress something to do....

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[hobbit]

You might want to ask why the USA has such high corporate tax rates.

Gotta tax someone to pay for the war effort!

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[oneTheory]

Probably because there are so many loopholes for the big businesses that know about them (or have paid legislators to pass special laws just for them). They can afford the armies of "creative" accountants and lawyers to properly exploit these loopholes while the the small businesses can't.

So now small businesses end up shouldering the increased tax burden that must be imposed since big businesses are getting out of so much of their fair share.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[couchslug]

"So our country goes farther in the hole every day and big companies skip out overseas to avoid paying taxes here. You don't have to be a financial expert to know that just ain't right."

So do what the companies that succeed do, and do what the countries that succeed do, and if it lowers unsupportably high living standards then find a way to cope with that.

Business is war, so instead of whining, learn to be better warriors.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG Facebook is opening a new corporate center in Europe! We must become a big-gov't socialist country to prevent these things from happening?

What?

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[BigMamaJoe]

So our country goes farther in the hole every day and big companies skip out overseas to avoid paying taxes here. You don't have to be a financial expert to know that just ain't right.

It doesn't have to be this way. Support the fairtax!

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[illumin8]

The middle-class need tax relief. So let's tax the big companies they all work for much more heavily.

No, let's not tax them any more. Let's instead give tax breaks to companies that don't outsource American jobs, thereby encouraging them to stay here.

Thanks Obama! That really helped a lot!

In case you haven't pulled your head out of your ass long enough to notice, Obama isn't president yet. How does Obama's future economic policy explain why companies are relocating over the past several years? Answer: It doesn't, it's the Bush failed economic policies of deregulation that are encouraging companies to dodge taxes overseas.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[WebCowboy]

You don't have to be a financial expert to know that just ain't right.

No, it ain't right at all, but I'm curious to know how you'd make it right. Would you somehow force big companies to hand over their obligatory pound of flesh (ie. treat the symptom/apply a bandage) or would you fix America? The US is full of people, companies and governments that spend far beyond their means. Why were people caught offguard with this credit crunch? It is any surprise at all when some loser fast food restaurant assistant manager could get a no-down, 40 our mortgage to buy a $500k by simply showing some banker their last paycheque stub? Do that enough and the bubble's going to pop, and millions of people will find themselves with negative equity.

If you (a company, or any person) has money, would YOU entrust it to the flaky US economy right now, where dodgy investment banks embedded all these bad loans into CDOs and other byzantine asset-backed paper to hide their tracks, got levereged at 100 to 1 or more, and fostered a sense of entitlement in the populace, where everyone deserved to own a home?

If you NEED money, would you be able to get it in the US, even if your credit rating is good and you have the income to easily make payments? In the US, Toyota's sales fell around 30% in the last quarter and in Canada they went UP a couple percent. Canada is right next door, inflation is similar, unemployment is similar, average salaries are slightly LOWER--cars are no less affordable in Canada and the economy is slowing there too, so what is the difference? There is no credit squeeze and the Canadian economy is still reasonably capitalised, and the banks are still profitable. There aren't 30 percent les people in the US suddenly unable to afford to have a new car--it's that the US banks are so messed up they cannot make loans (or are afraid to).

When companies like Facebook start setting up offshore offices to do business, avoiding tax expenses is merely one main factor--they are avoiding expenses for reasons beyond greed; sometimes they are freeing up money for reinvestment. If a company cannot borrow to expand (as is the case in the US right now) they will find any way to cut costs to free up that money. They will also set up corporate subsidiaries offshore to make it easier to raise capital in THOSE markets when they can't at home.

There is a similar situation in Canada's history too actually; Commodore was founded by a Canadian immigrant and headquartered in Toronto. In the 1970s, it moved from making and selling typewriters and filing cabinets to electronics, and most of its sales by then shifted to the US market. The economy if Canada--and the US--was struggling, and like now the US$ suffered devaluation against the CA$, and inflation was going up while the overall economy was near recession.

In the 1970s, Canada had a socialist government under Trudeau. It was very interventionist and treated economic symptoms directly; it introduced laws limiting how fast both retail prices AND worker's pay could be raised to control inflation, it spent like a drunken sailor on welfare/social programmes and created FIRA to restrict foreign ownership of Canadian operations.

Almost everything the government did chased Commodore out of Canada. Commodore was suffering because the CA$ was worth more than a US$, making its calculators more expensive in the US, and on top of that like other companies from MITS with its Altair to Coleco's Telstar, it was having supplier problems (shortage of chips). Commodore decided to address both problems by buying and merging with MOS technology, so that it could be "vertically integrated" (be its own supplier of chips). The acquisition of MOS and restructuring meant too much foreign ownership, and taxes were going up, and the business climate in Canada was too hostile.

As a result, Commodore set up corporate HQ in the Bahamas and moved its operational facilities into MOS' Pennsylvania campus, and not long after Commodore enter

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[manekineko2]

Ahh truthiness, the Word of the Year of 2005, but just as fitting the Word of the Year of 2008.

You don't have to be a financial expert to know that things just ain't right because we're running out of money and those big companies are going abroad to avoid paying high corporate taxes.

Of course, some financial experts might say that the problem is we have one of the highest rates of corporate taxation in the developed world. But your heart tells you that it's the fat cats on Wall St and running corporations who are at fault, and that's all that matters.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[manekineko2]

This not being a problem in foreign countries with much lower rates of corporate taxation why?

Those armies of creative accountant and lawyers can't be doing that good of a job either if the corporations are fleeing the country to avoid the US corporate taxes.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[matthewlw]

Perhaps the most insightful post ever, in a sea of ignorance about economics. Taxing SMB's heavily kills the jobs that the middle class needs to survive. My company would be at best half the size it is now, with half the employees if taxes had been over the last 5 years, as they plan to have them. So 75 less people would have jobs, but man oh man would the other 75 enjoy their slightly lower taxes.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you haven't pulled your head out of your ass long enough to notice. . .

Bush has only reduced taxes since he took office. Reductions for middle class and for businesses. Bush pushed through his $1.2 trillion tax cut almost as soon as he took office.

And in case you enjoy your head being stuck up your ass so much that you haven't even taken it out long enough to listen to one of Obama's main campaign promises, Obama wants a big tax increase for "the rich" AKA US businesses and a mini-tax cut for the middle-class.

That mini-tax cut will really help all of these now unemployed middle-class folks who's employers have moved out of the country.

On the flip side, Bush reduced taxes, but he proceeded to run America's debt through the ceiling. I am not a fan Bush's policies. Bush's plan has put the USA in the hole. Obama's plan will put the individual American citizens in the hole. And businesses will just move away. It won't even phase them.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[TerranFury]

Why are you conflating corporate taxes with personal income tax? Because that's what the discussion is about.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[ionix5891]

Im Irish

and our government is after guaranteeing the savings and debts of banks here up to 400 billion euro

now this is a country with ~4million people

if this banking shit goes belly up each taxpayer will be paying for the next 37 years the 250,000 euro :( each taxpayer ends up footing to BAIL out these croocks

yee across the pond dont have it as bad a government

oh and the corporate tax business is only good for corporations, im a small business owner and all the other taxes screw you here badly, i would not consider ireland a tax heaven! not after the tax return i completed last week :(

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[darkfire5252]

Don't you know, it's important for the economy to pass it as quickly as possible. Not because the economy would stop, but because a 2 day delay meant 400+ pages of unrelated pork and complications to the tax code.

Well, the original reason that it was important to pass ASAP right-this-very-moment is that the original bill text, as recommended to the legislative branch by the executive branch (treasury secretary and president), contained a clause that said "any actions taken by the secretary under this bill are not review-able by the legislative branch nor are they contestable in any court of law."

President Bush demands that the legislative branch provides him with un-checked power and authority to dispose of $700 billion in the last few months of his administration? Sounds like nothing but a power grab to me.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[liposuction]

The president setting economic policy? What country did this happen in?

*boggle*

"Bush failed econolic policies of deregulation" is hilarious when Bush was crying about getting more regulation set up for Fannie / Freddie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Oops. That's probably CGI though right? Failed Bush policy indeed.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[Anonymous Coward]

The economic policy most responsible for the current woes is likely the communities reinvestment act. It's not Obama's fault; it's the fault of everyone who thinks like him.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[LynnwoodRooster]

For around $1500 you can move your business overseas, too. And go to a tax-free location like Hong Kong or Singapore. A subsidiary here in the US is what you operate, but it pays management and support fees back to the main overseas corporation that essentially make the US income zero.

.
The little guy can do the same as the big guy... It exists, you just have to be willing to shuck out the initial investment and the ~$800 per year to maintain it. Considering the tax savings that can be realized, if you make more than $5,000 per year you're better off doing just this kind of move.

Re:Avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas

[drsquare]

I don't think you understand how important wooden arrows are to the US economy.

as if the US spends its tax money wisely

[Russ Nelson]

Ha! As if the US spends its tax money wisely! 900 billion here, 900 billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

I asked my Representative to vote against the failout.

I think that the tax law changes started way back

[MarkWatson]

I think that the tax law changes started way back in the Clinton administration. If I remember correctly that Congress passed legislation to make it very difficult for people to move to lower tax rate jurisdictions and keep their money and at the same time made it easy for corporations to do so. This process of giving more rights and flexibility to corporations than to individuals continued full speed ahead during W. Bush's term.

I don't think that there can be much doubt (especially after this corporate giveaway bailout being voted on today) that most governments (including mine, the USA) have been totally subverted to corporate interests. The question is, I think, given this environment, how can we as individuals thrive most effectively? I have been blogging a lot about this lately, but I won't bore anyone here with links to that :-)

I seriously hope the next president stops this

[Anonymous Coward]

They will need to end all these loopholes to pay down the insane deficit.

We're going to be in a full blown recession for at least a year, it's going to cost a fortune, yet the Fortune 500 are exporting all the jobs and now all the taxes.

Trickle down is now proven to not work, so get the taxes and redistribute what they refuse to do responsibly on their own.

Re:I seriously hope the next president stops this

[mpapet]

They will need to end all these loopholes to pay down the insane deficit.

Ahh, Ireland is a more recent example of what's been going on since the 70's. One of the totally legal tax scams no one cares to mention is when an American subsidiary of a conglomerate operates at a perpetual loss. American management uses the "operating loss" excuse to keep wage low. Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, Acer, etc. They get to reap the rewards of participating in the most vibrant economy in the world for rock-bottom dollar.

The problem with tightening these rules is that the average international corporation pays tax consultants to figure out the lowest operating cost method. If the U.S. doesn't provide the lowest operating costs, then they just re-organize to different parts of the world. Those clever corporations would, for example, issue bonds under one corporation then use them to fund another subsidiary. The bond-issuing corporation "fails" bondholders and equity participants lose everything and the other subsidiary that got the money lives on. The finance world is using that scam right now to "fail" everything over to the Treasury.

It's the equivalent of tightening your grip with a palm full of sand. I don't know a good way to fix it that won't be gamed in a couple of months after the legislation goes into effect.

Re:I seriously hope the next president stops this

[darkfire5252]

Another example of this same set of tactics: a company establishes an international branch in a low-tax area. The company then sells all of its intellectual property to the international 'holding' company. The domestic company then licenses the IP from the international company for a very large amount of money per month/quarter/year/etc. The domestic company gets to write off the licensing fees as tax-deductible operating expenses, and the international company is not taxed on the income. It's a great scam, because of course in reality the international company and the domestic company are controlled by the same parties. This is why so many of the copyright notices for an ad are in a different name than the company... "Copyright 2008 Bob's IP Holding corp.'

duh

[einer]

Corporations seek environments where they can generate the most profit. Get over it. America is quickly becoming a business unfriendly environment. Taxation, absurd regulations (for example, you CAN'T test 100% of your cattle for BSE no matter how much your customers want it, or how competative it will make you), insane legal exposure...

Welcome to the "service economy."

Re:duh

[Mr. Slippery]

Corporations seek environments where they can generate the most profit. Get over it.

Corporations are not a natural phenomenon; it's not like continental drift, something that we just have to accept. They are created by acts of government.

If the government is creating entities that engage in a "race to the bottom" in terms of exploitation of people and the environment, that's not something we need to "get over", that's something we need to change the government in order to prevent. Corporations should only be allowed to exist if and only if their existence is of long term benefit to the public, not just the short-term interest of the current stockholders.

Re:duh

[TubeSteak]

Corporations seek environments where they can generate the most profit. Get over it. America is quickly becoming a business unfriendly environment.

I don't really see how this relates to your previous sentence. Even if the USA had incredibly "friendly" tax laws, there would still be some small country/island who turned up and said "we'll do you one better! zero taxes!!"

An American company setting up its corporate structure overseas in order to dodge taxes is exactly the type of thing Biden was talking about in the debate yesterday.

Re:duh

[Moridineas]

One thing that I imagine can be agreed upon (?) is that despite Obama's protestations to the contrary, his plans will only increase this flow. Or do you think that corporations with business and arms around the world will want to stick around for higher tax rates and an administration that has relied on anti-corporate populism?

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

America is quickly becoming a business unfriendly environment.

America is the majority of the market for things like Facebook. Facebook needs America a whole lot more than America needs Facebook.

Re:duh

[blueg3]

It's much less interesting if you don't use hyperbole.

The FDA won't sell you the tests to test 100% of your cattle when they know the test is not effective on the cattle you're testing (as you are killing them before they are old enough for the test to work), as the only function of such a test is to gain a competitive advantage through false advertisement.

Re:duh

[rho]

There's a convenience factor as well. There aren't really that many big corporations who can afford all the overhead of an overseas incorporation. But if the difference between making a profit and not making a profit lies in incorporating overseas, you'll see more smaller corporations take advantage of it. You see this in Nevada/Delaware incorporations to a certain extent. Being incorporated in Delaware makes things a bit more complicated than if you incorporated in your State, but it's often worth it because some States have byzantine incorporation rules and requirements.

Make it simple, make it clear, make it reasonably complete. And then try hard to not get incensed when one or two big corporations make rapacious profits. The desire to fiddle in order to bring one or two companies back in line is one of the major reasons it's such a pain.

Re:duh

[spun]

So don't let the bastards do business here. There are plenty of smaller American companies that can't compete against the bigger, greedier, and better connected ones. Give a break to those companies willing to keep jobs here, tax the hell out of those that want to move overseas.

You move overseas, your products get taxed into oblivion. You stay here, you get benefits. The US is a huge market. More than enough companies will play ball. When they see that is how things are, and they can't bribe or whine their way out of it, they will do what we tell them to.

Re:duh

[hobbit]

Too late for that, I fear: corporations have too many rights to let that happen.

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is easy though. Tax them all before they export the money (or while they try to do it). Same solution worked in the days of the New Deal, and would work today.

With all that tax money, the government would have plenty to invest in education and small business insurance programs, and grants for new industries (like green energy) that could focus on the economic bracket that has always produced the revolutionary innovations (as apposed to the incremental optimization innovations that huge companies claim) that will power the next set of successful American companies.

I say tax these greedy corporate giants out of existence and let the next round of dispersed technological and wealth creation begin.

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad example, if you RTFA about cattle you would realize that was decided to prevent ignorance propagating - the test wasn't even useful for the cattle's ages that were slaughtered.

Re:duh

[DavidTC]

And, frankly, people need to stop acting like the WTO protesters are full of shit.

The WTO is the reason we can't do what you suggest. Tariff and taxes like you propose are a violation of the WTO, the sole purpose of is to allow multi-national companies to operate wherever is cheapest.

We need to leave the WTO, we need to require companies that operate here to either be based here, pay tariffs, or at least be in other first-world countries we've created trade agreements with.

And, no, that does not include Mexico, although it obviously should include Canada. Which is why the stupidity over the NAFTA/Canada thing this election cycle was inane. Yes, we might pull out of NAFTA, but, honestly, what we actually want to do is remove Mexico...no one has any problem with Canada being in it, and we'd quickly come up with a new trade agreement. Mexico needs our help to pull it up, but not via companies building factories and paying dirt-cheap wages...they need infrastructure and working government.

Yes, yes, I know Ireland is a first-world country we'd probably have such an agreement with in this specific case, but that's not the point. Facebook is not some large manufacturing concern that we need to keep the American jobs of, it is a microscopic company that is only relevant because we're nerds.

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

And, no, that does not include Mexico, although it obviously should include Canada.

Why the distinction? Is Mexico really that far from (finacially speaking) the poorer parts of Quebec?

Re:duh

[spun]

I hate how the WTO is simply a corporate tool, when it could be used to help the US. Don't have tough environmental laws? Why, that is restraint of trade, same as levying taxes on imports. Same goes for labor laws. You can't undercut the competition with unfair practices, that's how the WTO was touted. But of course, the WTO is controlled by corporations, unaccountable to any elected body, and the fat cats simply won't use it that way.

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how on slashdot CORPORATIONS cheating on their tax obligations is interpreted as a problem with the government.

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Do you all honestly believe that eliminating the government would somehow magically result in less corruption?

This place is so fucking naive.

Re:duh

[cdrguru]

Too bad that the US and lots of other nations belong to something called the WTO which severely limits the sort of actions that can be taken.

Sorry, applying tariffs against things made in foreign countries isn't allowed. I suspect any application of trade barriers which would affect a company's ability to operate from overseas (from a WTO member country) would be disallowed.

This is a Clinton-era thing that was supposed to help out the world.

Re:duh

[Moridineas]

So you're proposing that we tax any foreign company doing business in the US at an exorbitant rate to punish them for not being American? I don't think that's going to go over well, and will cost a heck of a lot of jobs!

What you're saying exactly misses the point of what I'm saying. The US is not the world anymore. We lack the ability to do what you want to do. If we do tax corporations that "outsource jobs" or create new centers in other countries, or even that want to move headquarters to us, do you not think that everybody else in the world is going to stop business coming to us as well? Why should foreign corporations stand by in such a situation? And the next time an American company is involved in an International merger, where do you think the combined entity will be based? You are proposing the exact kind of isolationism and protectionism that is no longer possible.

Re:duh

[Moridineas]

I'm not so sure people are going to be ready to pay the high price for many goods manufactured in American...seems unfair that it would disproportionately affect the poorer quarters of the economy?

What markets are you particularly interested in protecting?

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to lower taxes for and deregulate the financial industry before there's a crisis!

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno about the rest of it, but the argument that I heard about not allowing 100% BSE testing was that the test was useless if the cow was slaughtered before a certain age or something like that. In other words, the test was set up so as to always have a favorable result, thereby making the testing guarantee useless (and potentially misleading).

Re:duh

[TooMuchToDo]

As a business owner, I encourage my competitors to move to other markets where they feel they can generate more profit. I can still make a profit here and they waste their time trying to save 10%-20%.

Re:duh

[DavidTC]

Well, Canada has similar worker protection, and similar taxes, and similar standards of living, and similar or even stronger environmental protections, as far as I know.

Granted, they subside government health care, thus reducing company operating expenses, but they (In imaginary world.) have to pay more taxes to cover this, so it's equal. (1)

I am not aware of any part of Canada that is significantly worse off than the poorest parts of the US. We both have expensive and cheap places to live in roughly the same proportion, and obviously blue collar industry will build in poor places and white collar in cities.

Of course, I've never actually been to Canada, so could be completely wrong.

1) In the actual world, of course, US health insurance costs a good deal more than the government provided stuff in Canada, but thanks to the political unreality conservatives live in, they can't actually admit that to complain that companies here pay more, although companies themselves have started noticing this and locating in Canada to save this cost.

Re:duh

[DavidTC]

Yeah, don't even suggest that we could do what you say. That's how they managed to get that stupidity past everyone in the first place, by suggesting that 'human rights' would be a consideration.

They aren't.

And neither, more dangerously, is safety. Not for workers in the other country, but safety in manufactured products. Think China's going to be punished for any of the dangerous products it has let out? Hell no.

Heck, we get in trouble because of our refusal to import beef during mad cow scares, although, luckly, we're running the damn WTO and they can't do anything to us.

Don't try to change the system, or even suggest it could be changed. People will talk about 'reforms', some trivial things will happen, and then get undone.

And we'll be exactly where we started, it will be 2040, and there will be no manufacturing in the US at all, and companies will be demanding relaxation of safety and minimum wage laws so that US plants can be 'competitive', which they've already started to do.

Thus cleverly solving the problems they created in the first place. See, in their world the problem is that the US actually have a population that gets upset when corporations abuse it.

Re:duh

[DavidTC]

I don't give a shit about 'markets', or companies.

I'm interesting in protecting jobs.

And if people in 'poorer quarters' actually had more jobs available to them, driving up all wages, they wouldn't have to buy Made in China.

Re:duh

[Moridineas]

They wouldn't HAVE to buy a made in China?

My car is made in Japan because it's better. My computer is made in China because it's cheaper. My clothes are made in China because they are cheaper. No one is putting a gun to my--or anybody else's--head and forcing me to buy the best product for the least amount of money. Where American products are better, they do well. Your misguided attempts to control people's actions according to your standards and what you what want, how YOU think people should act, is in short, a disaster, and would completely doom our economy.

If you don't mind my asking, what kind of jobs have you held?

Re:duh

[DavidTC]

No one is putting a gun to my--or anybody else's--head and forcing me to buy the best product for the least amount of money

What are you talking about?

I want to raise the price of foreign goods so that jobs will be created here, which, in turn, will allow us to pay more for goods.

I don't know what in what crazy world this is 'misguided'. It's exactly the opposite of what's been happening the last decade and why wages have stagnated.

Re:duh

[Moridineas]

When gas prices went up, UPS and all other shipping firms raised their prices. Working in a business that ships a lot of good and receives a lot of shipments, this made our costs rise by a great deal. We are a small company and have been forced to raise some of our prices. This gets passed on to everybody. Now everybody has to pay higher gas prices for their cars, higher shipping costs to get our products, and higher prices for our products because they are more expensive. Thus consumers are impacted far more than you would expect by a cursory investigation--they pay the price for more expensive gas time and time again.

You said you wanted to raise the price of foreign goods. So now those cheap foreign tshirts are going to be gone, and I'm going to have to buy more expensive products. My japanese car is going to be more expensive, so I'll have less money to spend on anything else. That's the obvious part--you're obviously fine with that (and I'm sure you have the means to support yourself in a far more expensive society..), so, let's move on.

If Chinese steels becomes more expensive, who suffers? Business suffers, and everybody suffers through higher prices. Maybe some few jobs are briefly created, but a lot of other business are going to go out of business because they cn't afford to create their products without cheap steel.

Now, for someone like you, who refused to answer my question about what jobs you've worked, you not doubt work in a highly intellectual field--probably something like programming or computer related--IT? (given that we're on slashdot--and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)--you're probably entirely insulated from this world. You probably don't work in manufacturing or know anybody who does. It's a few more dollars out of your pocket, but you're making plenty anyway, so what does it matter. What you're doing is dooming entirely entire classes of business. You make it exponentially more expensive to do manufacturing here, and you're going to kill ALL manufacturing here as a result.

You would kill the economy in your misguided effort to control the economy as you see fit.

Re:duh

[DavidTC]

God, you're dumb, aren't you?

What will kill all manufacturing here is the fact that is cheaper to do it elsewhere regardless. It will never be as cheap to employ Americans as it will people in third-world countries until our standard of living drops to theirs, or until every single person in the world is raised to our standard of living.

This isn't some debatable point, it's not some obscure economic theory, it's something that is instantly and blatantly obvious. It's something that has happened for the last two decades. All jobs that can go elsewhere will, leaving us with only in-person services and construction and other jobs that can't be done remotely.

The only solution is to tax companies who sell in the US but do not manufacture here. Whether they're 'US companies' or foreign, although we need different methods for each.

You can sit and whine about cheap steel all you want. I suspect you wouldn't be whining the same way if you were in the American steel industry. Oh, wait. Cheap Chinese steel already destroyed that industry. I guess having slightly lower prices for your car was more important there, although, of course, less jobs on average means lower wages on average, so in the end most people came out the same.

As has been pointed out, under the free market, it is quite possible to pay people into destroying themself, and that's exactly what's been going on...America, as a whole, has been bribed with low prices into destroying all its industries, so no one has jobs, so it needs low prices, and so on and so on.

Re:duh

[Moridineas]

God, you're dumb, aren't you?

Ah, the point at which someone starts resorting to childish ad hominems and still refuses to answer my questions tells me that I'm usually right...

This isn't some debatable point, it's not some obscure economic theory, it's something that is instantly and blatantly obvious

This just shows--yet again, though you've still refused to answer--that you lack experience in any field that would be affected by your policies. Some areas can be offshored relatively easily and can save money. Others can't. At the company where I am currently working we partnered with an Indian company on one project as an experiment. The initial costs looked far lower, but due to QC, shipping overruns, time and communications delays, it turned out to be more expensive. The good ole American worker was cheaper. The DPA deduction doesn't hurt either!

You can sit and whine about cheap steel all you want

Cheap steel was one example. In reality the impact of your market controls would be systemic and across the board.

less jobs on average means lower wages on average, so in the end most people came out the same.

Your claim is that average wages have gone DOWN over the past 2 decades (your timeframe?)? Please verify.

Look, it's really simple. When you make it so expensive to do business in the US, you make manufactured goods from overseas all the cheaper. If an American car manufacturer has to pay for highly taxed steel, highly taxed computer parts, highly taxed engines, etc, the final result is going to be even MORE expensive than a car manufactured entirely outside of the country.

Furthermore, if we tax everyone else's products into oblivion, don't you think everyone else is going to do the same to our goods? You've just made it unappealing for foreign companies to build manufacturing plants in the US. You've made it far more expensive for EVERY consumer. You've also made every other country in the world far less likely to buy MORE expensive American goods, that they will also tax.

How is that a good thing?

The way to improve markets is to make it easier for companies to do business, and to lower the burden that the unproductive classes leech of of the productive.

Re:duh

[DavidTC]

Your claim is that average wages have gone DOWN over the past 2 decades (your timeframe?)?

Jesus Christ. If you aren't aware that we've either had rising unemployment or, at the most, steady wages (Which means dropping because of inflation.) pretty much all through the 90s and 00s, I don't know why I'm talking about the economy with you.

Look, it's really simple. When you make it so expensive to do business in the US, you make manufactured goods from overseas all the cheaper. If an American car manufacturer has to pay for highly taxed steel, highly taxed computer parts, highly taxed engines, etc, the final result is going to be even MORE expensive than a car manufactured entirely outside of the country.

Um, only if you're really stupid about how you tax things. At no point did I suggest having any sort of flat tax based on price like you appear to imagine. (Especially since, when companies import thinks for resell here, we can damn well ask to see their books and what they paid workers.)

What we're actually taxing is the work that went into the each product. Or, rather, the amount of work that didn't happen here, or the amount that they would have paid had the work happened vs. where it did happen. Which is, of course, impossible to tax directly, but is certainly possible to estimate.

Of course, we need to realize that sometimes there are legitimate reasons that price differ, For example, the example you're using isn't a very good one. Japan is making cheaper cars, but certainly doesn't have a lower standard of living. It's making cheaper cars because American car companies suck ass, and have for quite some time. I don't, in any way, propose we attempt to hinder Japanese car sales with tax. (And, ironically, a lot of 'Japanese' cars are manufactured here, and are, amazingly, just as cheap.)

Re:duh

[Moridineas]

Jesus Christ. If you aren't aware that we've either had rising unemployment or, at the most, steady wages (Which means dropping because of inflation.) pretty much all through the 90s and 00s, I don't know why I'm talking about the economy with you.

Actually you're wrong. During the 90s and most of the 00s we've had historically LOW unemployment. Much of the period we were running right at full employment rates. In fact, compared to the 70s and 80s, virtually the entirety of the last two decades have been lower than the preceding. If you had DATA that says otherwise, please share (and please swear more and swing about more ad hominems if you want--it's really helping your case). Likewise, wages rose during the 90s, and you're right have remained basically flat over the past decade. If you have information to the otherwise, please feel free to share it.

What we're actually taxing is the work that went into the each product. Or, rather, the amount of work that didn't happen here, or the amount that they would have paid had the work happened vs. where it did happen. Which is, of course, impossible to tax directly, but is certainly possible to estimate.

With the end result being...foreign goods are more expensive--and by extensions goods that everybody buys--while other countries whose products are suddenly taxed are going to in return tax OUR exports. Your rational for tax may be somehow ideological, but the end result is the exact same. American workers pay more for the basic necessities, and American companies export less. Either way, your policies hurt those at the bottom (the same people you're allegedly trying to help) far more than the people like you with cushy computer jobs.

I don't, in any way, propose we attempt to hinder Japanese car sales with tax

So what, it's only industries that you personally LIKE that get to be protected from foreign competition? I don't get it.

Corporate Haven

[Stanistani]

...and they say there are no snakes in Ireland?
Where's St. Patrick when you really need him?

Re:Corporate Haven

[Ron_Fitzgerald]

Wait...what!?! St. Patrick means more than a one day celebration to get stinking pissed with all your friends? Damn the misleading parade.

Re:Corporate Haven

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's St. Patrick when you really need him?

Need him to what? Chase all the jobs out of Ireland?

OK lets cut the crap.

[GlobalColding]

How do we, the citizens get in on this? Offshore banking isn't illegal, neither is having an offshore company. Where does one start researching this information? Considerations are lack of transparency, lowest fees, internet accessability, and no insane initial deposits like in Switzerland. Come on folks, dish!

Re:OK lets cut the crap.

[jcr]

Where does one start researching this information?

Pick up a copy of The Economist magazine, and check the small ads towards the back. Or, just google for "offshore banking".

-jcr

Re:OK lets cut the crap.

[scorp1us]

You can form a corporation, which only pays taxes on PROFIT, whereas people pay taxes on GROSS INCOME (though they might call it "net income" what is deductible for you as a person is far less than what a company can deduct.)

If you read the Rich Dad/Poor Dad books, this is a key point - Your corporation should own everything. You use the corporation as s tool to acquire things and pay for them. You only give yourself a modest amount of income. As owner of the company, you get to call the shots on what is bought and how it is used. (Company cars, etc)

That is step 1, that you can do domestically. A key part of that is WHERE you incorporate. Nevada doesn't have a state income tax, so you only have to pay federal taxes (again, only on profit) and has some very private arrangements in terms of hiding who all is in the company. Very rarely do you ant to incorporate in your own state. (Though you will still be liable for taxes in any state you are registered as operating in - so look a the definition of "operating". Generally it requires an address in that state.)

The next step I think would be going to another country. I have to experience in that. It may or may not be worth the hassle. Maybe having your own domestic company will be 90% of for 10% of the hassle.

Re:OK lets cut the crap.

[Kohath]

How do we, the citizens get in on this?

Because people who work at companies aren't citizens? They may know a lot more than you about finance, but that doesn't make them alien. They originated on Earth.

Here's an easy answer for you: buy stock in a company with overseas offices.

Re:OK lets cut the crap.

[Pollardito]

you mean the small ads in the back of The Economist aren't offers to talk live one-on-one to a real, fun, flirty economist from your area?

Re:OK lets cut the crap.

[manekineko2]

What are you talking about? Corporations and individuals all pay tax on taxable net income, not on profit or gross income.

Anything in particular you're thinking about that is deductible for corporations but not for persons? Because conversely, there is a lot that is deductible for persons and not for corporations.

Also, the idea of operating everything through a corporation is generally not a good idea, you are exposing yourself to two levels of tax. Contrary to your implication, you do not get to call the shots on what is bought and used either, i.e. you cannot buy yourself a house with your company and call it business expense without due evidence, otherwise you're liable to get slammed.

Re:OK lets cut the crap.

[scorp1us]

Your statements are uninformed. And I'm being polite.

When you are a person, you get a W-2. You pay taxes on the income reported on your W-2. If they are wages, then you also pay FICA and medicare, another 7.5 and 1.65%, respectively. That much is withheld from you pay. You THEN take WHAT IS LEFT and buy things. Example: $1000 income taxed at 20%=$800 left. You buy a computer at $500, you have $300 left.

When you are a company, your income comes in, you buy things, THEN you pay your taxes. Example: $1000 income. You buy a computer at $500, you have $500. You pay taxed of 20% (for illustration), you pay $100 in tax. You then have $400 left.

The problem is for individuals, you pay your taxes first.

The company can deduct anything (within reason) as an business expense. Then you get to pay taxes. The realm of what is deducible for corporation far exceeds what is deductible for a person. Can you as in individual write off your cellphone, internet, rent, or utility bills? NO. But the company can.

While you do expose yourself to two levels of tax, how much is being taxed. Your corporation gets to write off your salary as an expense. So that's not a problem. You then pay yourself a smaller amount (the company gets to own your toys.) so you can cover what the corporation does not. What you end up doing is minimizing your taxable income and paying a minimal amount on the justifiable expense. ****

**** This statement is a generalization. There are several type of legal entities to choose from. The simplest is a pass-through like a LLC or S-corp. In this case, ALL the income is assigned to the partners and is only taxed once. The example above is for a C-port. Consult a legal professional for advice.

If you want to buy a house for your company, buy it and rent it out. There is no good reason why you cannot be a customer of your own corporation's services.

*Consult a legal professional for advice.

Re:OK lets cut the crap.

[manekineko2]

Your statements are worse than uninformed, they're apparently advocating unethical activity, and loud enough to possibly mislead those who might be mistaken to think you know what you're talking about because you've apparently read a few books about this.

Also, bear in mind this is not legal advice, consult a legal professional for advice.

First off, you are conflating withholding with your deduction issue. The issue has nothing to do with who pays taxes first, and if you are over-withheld you can apply for a refund. Besides which, corporations are withheld in a sense in the form of estimated quarterly taxes.

The reason the corporation is entitled to deductions on computers and cell phone bills that individuals are not is because the corporation is presumably purchasing these for a business reason, unlike the individual who generally purchases these for fun. For better or worse, US tax policy has decided to incentivize investment in business, in order to encourage profit making activity that grows the economy. If the company is in fact purchasing these items simply for the personal entertainment of its sole shareholder, and that's what it sounds like you are suggesting, then what you are advocating is fraud, plain and simple.

Re:OK lets cut the crap.

[scorp1us]

It depends on what the definition of "is" is. :-)

The grandparent to this thread did not ask about ethics, only mechanics.

There is no limitation on what businesses can engage in as long as it is lawful. You can actually write on your articles of incorporation "anything a business and legally engage in" and get a corporation.

But yes, you are right in that you can't just create a legal fiction and do nothing with it. Most people can engage in business really easily. There is no reason why you can't take a hobby and turn it into a talent. For most slashdot readers, we all offer consulting services to friends, family and co workers. There is no reason that can't be a business, which easily justifies the tech gadgetry. Even Mary Kay, Amway (Quickstar), and other pseudo pyramid schemes are easy to get into and are viable independent businesses.

You can even charge your own corporation rent in your own house provided certain criteria are met. (I've heard that some people that get audited the IRS takes a tape measure to measure the square footage of the room to arrive at a appropriate rent charge)

Yes. The IRS does expect you to show a profit in 5 years. And you can get in trouble if you're found to not be operating a business. But the whole situation is ambiguous enough to be absurd. They can't tell you how to run your company, they can't set performance objectives.

The only issues for people are how to have enough business to pay for the time hassle and up-front costs of operating the business itself.

Finally, I am not conflating withholding with deductions. My point was to let you know that what you get to spend has already had taxes taken out from your GROSS. Maybe you've tuned your W-4 to accurately reflect your annual income. But the business only has to pay estimated quarterly payments on PROFIT, not gross. Given a human and a company, with the same numbers of income and expense, the company will be paying less tax. Period. You pay taxes on GROSS, minus allowed deductions. The company pays taxes on NET PROFIT.

Show me a situation where the company has to may more tax than a person given the same amounts of income and expense.

Re:OK lets cut the crap.

[manekineko2]

Okay, fair enough. You're right that corporations will generally have more deductions for the same amount of expenses, though that can be explained because of the different natures of the expenses (or at least the characterization of those expenses).

On the flip side, an easy example of a situation where a company pays more taxes than an individual is for people with (relatively) low income levels, when the benefits individuals get like the standard deduction make a big difference.

Re:OK lets cut the crap.

[manekineko2]

Finally, I am not conflating withholding with deductions. My point was to let you know that what you get to spend has already had taxes taken out from your GROSS. Maybe you've tuned your W-4 to accurately reflect your annual income. But the business only has to pay estimated quarterly payments on PROFIT, not gross. Given a human and a company, with the same numbers of income and expense, the company will be paying less tax. Period. You pay taxes on GROSS, minus allowed deductions. The company pays taxes on NET PROFIT.

I still don't like this characterization of the difference between individual and corporate taxes though. Both individual and corporate taxes are phrased in terms of taxable income, which is gross income net of deductions. Even if you haven't tuned your W4, you're eligible for a refund on overwithheld tax, because the tax is on net income, not gross.

Re:OK lets cut the crap.

[scorp1us]

Oh, really?
Corporate Income Tax Rates--2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003
Taxable income over     Not over      Tax rate

$         0        $    50,000        15%
     50,000             75,000        25%
     75,000            100,000        34%
    100,000            335,000        39%
    335,000         10,000,000        34%
10,000,000         15,000,000        35%
15,000,000         18,333,333        38%
18,333,333         ..........        35%

Remember the golden rule: those that have the gold makes the rules.

So where is this mythical population of people who are better off as individuals?

Rate     Single     Married Filing Jointly
10%     Not over $8,025     Not over $16,050
15%     $8,025 - $32,550     $16,050 - $65,100
25%     $32,550 - $78,850     $65,100 - $131,450
28%     $78,850 - $164,550     $131,450 - $200,300
33%     $164,550 - $357,700     $200,300 - $357,700
35%     Over $357,700     Over $357,700

Now, assume that the person has income in the form of qualifying wages. These wages are subject to an additional 9% tax - 7.5% FICA and 1.65% medicare. Making the table:

Rate     Single     Married Filing Jointly
19%     Not over $8,025     Not over $16,050
24%     $8,025 - $32,550     $16,050 - $65,100
34%*    $32,550 - $78,850     $65,100 - $131,450
37%*     $78,850 - $164,550     $131,450 -

* At this level FICA and medicare contributions max out.

But as you can see, there isn't a scenario where anyone is better off.

Re:OK lets cut the crap.

[manekineko2]

Now subtract the standard deduction, which gets an individual a minimum of $5350 off taxes. Subtract the personal exemption of $3500. How much tax does a person who makes $8850 a year in Idaho pay?

This is an extreme example, but there are other scenarios that can result in lower individual taxes than corporate, but I think this at least provides a basic counterexample.

Re:OK lets cut the crap.

[pbhj]

I can't really comment about the US situation but I can't see it being too different to the UK one, given the GP posts suggestions sound in line with what one might naively think would work here in the UK.

Here companies buy stuff, then pay tax. There's a general principle of not taxing the same thing twice. Assuming a company is VAT registered (we're not any more) then they pay no tax on materials, equipment etc., tax is paid on the goods when they're sold - this is a higher value as the company has added worth and VAT is a percentage.

Any gross profits (loosely for this purpose: goods minus materials minus overheads) are then used to pay for capital items rent, rates, utilities and of course wages. Wages of course incur employer and employee National Ins. Contributions (NICs) in the UK and employees pay income tax (taken at source as PAYE).

So how to get those final profits out of the company. If you pay them as more wages then you pay more NIC and Income Tax, no thanks. If you buy things for yourself (ie an employee) that's fine, but you receive a "benefit in kind" which has a currency equivalent value and you pay your taxes on that, no thanks. So we can just pay a dividend then? Well the company pays corporation tax on profits and then you pay a capital gains tax, no thanks.

So, for your house example - it doesn't matter what the company charges you, the exchequer (in the UK) will assess the benefit and give it a value and charge as if that value was pay to the employee. Pay generally is reduced more by tax than are company profits. So you pay a cash value to the company (which then gets assessed as part of their profits) and you pay tax as if you'd been paid cash rather than in accommodation. There are other issues - if the house is owned by the company and it fails then your creditors get your house, also if they're business premises they're subject to all the usual health and safety laws (no smoking!), etc. and require different planning permission. I'd guess insurance would be higher and your business rates may well dwarf your usual local taxes too.

Damn, still haven't worked out how to play it. I don't really know a lot about this, but I know enough to know that the US treasury isn't stupid enough to leave a loophole big enough to extract all taxable income of any business through. There will be loopholes but not this big.

Sure, there are better ways to steal money from your own company and they even get mentioned here occasionally.

As the saying goes...

[GlobalColding]

Its so popular, nobody goes there any more.

Hostile environment?

[Moridineas]

Why should corporations want to stay in an environment becoming increasingly hostile? Public perception of many corporations (and certainly "the corporation") is justifiably dismal. The next president will no doubt raise business taxes. Doesn't it make sense to move to somewhere like Ireland? People make this same kind of decision all the time when deciding where to live.

One of the interesting things in these discussions is that so many people betray how utterly insular they are. The economy is global and it's easier than ever to move around the world and communicate around the world. The difference between Ireland and the US (or the US and China, India, Slovakia, Russia, etc ad infinitum) ain't what it was 50 years ago. American exceptionalism is commonly laughed at as something for fools and demagogues, yet everyone who rants about how corporations should be taxed higher and how corporations shouldn't be allowed to go overseas are betraying their own beliefs.

Re:Hostile environment?

[Kohath]

American exceptionalism is commonly laughed at as something for fools and demagogues...

Because liking your country is bad when Americans do it but it's good for South Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Africans, Asians, Australians, and anyone else. But not Americans. Americans who like their country and are proud of American success are "fools". Right?

And is it completely irrational to suggest that since America's success has been exceptional, it might be because of some quality that's exceptional -- even if it's just exceptional luck? How foolish is it to draw an obvious conclusion from the available facts?

What is the non-exceptional thing that has led to America's exceptional success? Keep in mind the definition of exceptional: "exceeding: far beyond what is usual in magnitude or degree". If everything in the US is "usual" and the same as everywhere else, then how can the results be different here?

Re:Hostile environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think everyone is OK with corporations moving wherever they like; they should just have to pay import duties on all product and labor imported back into their "real" countries of origin.

For example, Microsoft should be paying import duties on every copy of Vista sold in the US, if most of their profits on said product are registered overseas..

Re:Hostile environment?

[Moridineas]

Because liking your country is bad when Americans do it but it's good for South Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Africans, Asians, Australians, and anyone else. But not Americans. Americans who like their country and are proud of American success are "fools". Right?

Woa there, I think you might have misunderstood me! *I* am a big fan of American exceptionalism, I think we're the best, and while there are plenty of places around the world I enjoy visiting and still want to visit, this is the only place where I want to live.

Re:Hostile environment?

[LynnwoodRooster]

And guess what - they do. Go to the US Customs website, download the harmonized tariff schedule. You'll see thousands and thousands of classifications and duty rates for anything you import into the US. And it's almost always lower cost to source from overseas...

They're not the only ones

[Rik Sweeney]

Half of the UK's choosing to move their finances over to Ireland because the government (up until this afternoon) was only guaranteeing to protect up to £35,000 of savings should their bank collapse whereas Ireland will guarantee 100%...

Re:They're not the only ones

[Anonymous Coward]

But they make foreigners who apply wear those stupid "Kiss Me I'm Irish" t-shirts for a day before they are eligible.

Re:They're not the only ones

[vigour]

Half of the UK's choosing to move their finances over to Ireland because the government (up until this afternoon) was only guaranteeing to protect up to £35,000 of savings should their bank collapse whereas Ireland will guarantee 100%...

It's not quite as simple as that, the government has increased the savings protection from €20,000 to €100,000 for the 6 wholly Irish owned banks. This happened only a few days ago, and it is planned to last for 2 years. The biggest influence is on the banks liabilities, i.e. all it's deposits, commercial, retail (you and me) etc. According to the bankers, and the central bank, the bank's problem is with liquidity, not solvency. This means the banks need to attract deposits so they have short term funding. It also means they can borrow cheaper, and the hope is that banks can starting giving loans to each other again.

The government here don't want any of our banks to crash like in the states, the economy is already in a recession with the crash in the housing market (which was the governments fault in the first place). If one of the banks were to become insolvent it would cause serious problems here (one out of the six banks might have been close to insolvency).

The risk taken on by the government is huge, our national debt is just under €40bn, and the six banks owe €440 billion (but have €520 billion in assets). It equates to ~ €100,000 being potentially spent per person in Ireland, compared to ~ $2,000 per person in the US.

While Sarkozy is trying to convince European governments to have a pan-EU rescue plan (especially the German gov who are against such a system), there is a possibility more banks may fail, and after the worst performance of Irish banks on the stock market in history (shares dropped by as much as 36% on Monday) it scared the government into action.

Admittedly, it's not very competition-friendly to look after only Irish-owned banks, but there are supposed to be some discussions with the UK, Dutch and Belgian owned banks operating in Ireland to equalise the playing-field.

On another note, it's about time governments moved in to shake up these parts of the banking sector, where there hasn't been enough regulation, and this last year has shown what happens when we let the mystical, magical "market forces" to run rampant, governments have to step in to fix other peoples mistakes.

Disclaimer: I am not a supporter of the current Irish government, a lot of the current economic problems can be directly attributed to their pumping of the property and construction sector, along with the usual dose of mis-management and wastage, but I do agree with their move to support the Irish banking system in part.

Re:They're not the only ones

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I don't think that will be a problem for most Americans.

Re:They're not the only ones

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the bankers, and the central bank, the bank's problem is with liquidity, not solvency.

And you believe them? It's all bullshit. They saw a golden opportunity to rob the man on the street with the excuse of economic disaster, and they and their cronies in irish government did so. Witness that Irish Nationwide email- that's what it was really about. Nicking Irish taxpayer money so powerful International B^HWankers can profit. Shoot them, I say - ultimately, it's the Irish way. They're skating on thin ice.

Ummm I think I am missing the analogy...

[GlobalColding]

Sorry, thats what you get from a mind polluted by LOLCATS.

Re:Ummm I think I am missing the analogy...

[Ron_Fitzgerald]

growling, scratching....ahh fuggedaboutit.

No Patriotic duty

[scorp1us]

In Gregory v. Helvering Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand was quoted as saying:

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935).

The fact is tax avoidance is a key part of keeping taxation in check. If it gets oppressive, you move. In this way, governments compete for taxpayers.

Re:No Patriotic duty

[Udigs]

Wonderful citation. However, I don't see anything in there about moving to Ireland. And guess what? Back from when you cite that quote *no one* had the mobility to do such. People couldn't just hop on a plane and be in Ireland in 8 hours, so clearly that's not what they are talking about.

Guess what: When you live in a democracy you DO have a patriotic duty to not be a fair weather citizen. It's easy to run away. It's much harder to make things work.

Re:No Patriotic duty

[Anonymous Coward]

nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands

A couple of years ago I saw statistics for the number of UK tax payers who voluntarily payed more tax than they were required to, presumably because they thought the government was spending it so wisely.

There were 2.

Re:No Patriotic duty

[scorp1us]

Well my family arrived here at Ellis Island in 1920. Another part of my family got here from Lithuania, prior to the Russian invasion. It seems the "land of opportunity" isn't #defined as USA, rather it is a variable. It was equal to USA for some time, then recently, it seems to have changed. Why is that? Its people people like you say "we're building something great, just endure for a while". I don't want what you're building, and I shall not be made to suffer you agenda. However, what you are building violates several constitutional principals. Since I'm here for the constitutional principals, I say you take your agenda to a place more amenable to your agenda.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C. S. Lewis

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
-Thomas Jefferson

Re:No Patriotic duty

[Udigs]

Great. Then go back to Russia. I hear things are really nice over there right now.

Re:No Patriotic duty

[Anonymous Coward]

Learned Hand was never a Supreme Court justice. He is considered one of the best jurists to have never sat on that court.

Re:No Patriotic duty

[ZorbaTHut]

How about Ireland instead?

Re:No Patriotic duty

[CodeBuster]

The parent was modded funny but in fact he is quite correct. Governments DO compete for taxpayers and the next administration here in the United States, whomever that may be, would be wise to consider that before they effectively raise taxes. Now you can argue all you want about "closing loopholes" and such, but ask yourself this, what does the taxpayer care about? If the tax rate is 35% but loopholes allow you to effectively pay 8% then the effective tax rate is really 8% because that is what you pay. It does not matter if taxes increase because of closed loopholes or new taxes, an increase is an increase (the mechanism is irrelevant to the taxpayer) and attempting to distinguish between "closing loopholes" and raising taxes is disingenuous and insults the intelligence of the taxpayers. Very few politicians anymore (even Mr. straight-talk McCain) actually tell the blunt truth (Ron Paul is one of the few current politicians that I can think of who doesn't mince words) when sophistry, half-truths, and lies of omission will do. The presidential debates, for example, are really not advancing the discussion at all since both sides are variously engaged in setting up the straw man, argumentum ad nauseum, and the ever popular loaded question instead of actually finding the root of actually making progress on accurately framing and solving the real problems that we are facing in the economy, with health care, and foreign policy (among other things).

Re:No Patriotic duty

[Udigs]

Sure, so long as you can't come back. :)

Funny though, I once worked for a Fortune 500 where they had a "secret" HR policy I found out about. Basically, if you left the company voluntarily (for another job, or whatever) they would never hire you back. It was just a rule they had that wasn't written down, or documented anywhere. Mind you, this company was just named one of the best companies to work for in America. I won't mention names, but you know who they are.

Re:No Patriotic duty

[scorp1us]

The point is people go where they cab be in harmony. You can pay a high tax and like it, as long as what you get in return is of par value for the taxes paid, people won't move. If they get less than par value, they will eventually move.

Here's the paradox of socialism: If you provide more social services for free or below cost, more people without the ability to pay full cost will move in, further burdening the system. The money comes from some where, and that is the taxpayers. Eventually you face collapse, as the system attracts those that's can't provide for themselves. You raise taxes, and some of those who can over-pay into the system decide to move. because there's better deal else where. Then you really have collapse.

The conservative approach is to say you are responsible for everything yourself. Everyone except the under performers thrive. The under performers move to places where they can get a free ride - to your socialist states. Eventually your socialist states collapse

I firmly believe California would be only a stop on the illegal immigration railroad if they didn't provide such excellent social services.

Lithuania is still not Russia.

Re:No Patriotic duty

[Udigs]

My point was that you took a quote out of context and presented it to mean something else. Your interpretation of the quote is just plain wrong and I was merely pointing out that your conclusion was illogical, given the circumstances and time period in which it was given.

I said nothing about Socialism, which I don't particularly care for, either.

This idea of "governments competing for taxpayers" is absurd. Life isn't eBay. In real life you, "ask not what your country can do for you" but rather "ask what you can do for your country." And that includes caring enough to help mold things to your liking. And in terms of the Facebook issue, running offshore is hardly something to that end.

Re:No Patriotic duty

[scorp1us]

I guess it is how you define "country" and what is to be done for your country.

See, what I can do best for my country is be industrious and not F it up. In return, expect my country to let me be industrious and not F me up.

Remember republics are instituted among men to protect our rights of life, liberty, and property. Not take them away. We gave the government power so that it could protect our rights, not take them away to build a Utopian society. Government doesn't determine society. Society determines the government.

Re:No Patriotic duty

[monktus]

The fact is tax avoidance is a key part of keeping taxation in check.

Shouldn't that be tax avoision?

I was thinking more in terms of LOLCATS

[GlobalColding]

Joo Wantz Mah Turkee? Joo am teh fuxx0red!

Re:I was thinking more in terms of LOLCATS

[Ron_Fitzgerald]

Off parent topic... This was just terrible.

What the left ISN'T asking...

[Notquitecajun]

All I'm seeing is the "unpatriotic" banner being waved by the left in America, when they AREN'T asking, "Why are companies leaving America, and why do they have hard-to-touch bank accounts offshore?" Somewhere there's a BAD disconnect - that we could minimize what many banks are going through by doing something that would ENCOURAGE people keeping their money there rather than seeing large companies as something to tax and take from because they somehow "owe" it.

The left NEVER asks what is wrong with their system - they just ask what is wrong with everyone else. We need to ask, "what would it take for you to keep your money in America," rather than proclaiming from the rooftops that they're leaving and should be punished for it.

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[scorp1us]

The problem is the left is well meaning and sincere. They want to create this However for me anyone to buy into it, they have to admit that the government knows best. This is a hard pill to swallow, since history has shown that the government doesn't know best. The government has been influenced by special interests, meaning now you have to trust the special interest groups. However the special interest groups only look out for themselves. So now you're leaving "what is best" to people who don't care what is best for you, they only care for themselves. In turn, this leads to you being manipulated by special interests so that they can extract every dollar they can from you.

American Dairy Association, American Dental Association... even AARP, all these "Associations" are special interest groups trying to sell you something.

The only thing you'll get out of trusting the government is how to be a good consumer. Unfortunately, that is neither providing security or true happiness. You have the responsibility to look out for yourself and your loved ones. Because no one other than yourself and your loved ones cares about you. Unless you're part of a statistic they can use.

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[daigu]

What the neoconservative right ISN'T asking is who bears the burden for paying the taxes and paying off the debt for wars like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., maintaining the military in hundreds of bases around the world (the DoD is the world's largest single consumer of oil), and paying the higher costs associated with producing everything elsewhere and shipping it to the United States - otherwise known as the trade deficit.

Unfortunately, if you don't have sound fiscal policies and a sane foreign policy, there is nothing you can do attract people to stay because it leaves people with smaller and smaller pieces of pie and more people to share it with. It's the Law of the Jungle in action, and most conservatives don't understand the connection - despite all their talk of "free markets".

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[Toll_Free]

Sure, and all the countries that our companies are fleeing to (both for tax and cheap labor) are considered world leaders, with powerful economies, militaries, etc., etc., etc.

Fleeing to a third or second world country for tax breaks is what they do. Having a strong ecomony that doesn't require others to buy into it (like we are in now) doesn't come free.

Economy 101 dictates you need taxes. Something for nothing has been proven to pretty much, not work.

--Toll_Free

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[BlueStrat]

All I'm seeing is the "unpatriotic" banner being waved by the left in America, when they AREN'T asking, "Why are companies leaving America, and why do they have hard-to-touch bank accounts offshore?" Somewhere there's a BAD disconnect - that we could minimize what many banks are going through by doing something that would ENCOURAGE people keeping their money there rather than seeing large companies as something to tax and take from because they somehow "owe" it.

The left NEVER asks what is wrong with their system - they just ask what is wrong with everyone else. We need to ask, "what would it take for you to keep your money in America," rather than proclaiming from the rooftops that they're leaving and should be punished for it.

You can see their thinking concerning a solution to the problem of businesses fleeing punishing taxation and regulation in the US when you look to the recent actions taken and being proposed in the area of pressuring foreign governments to adopt US-friendly laws and "harmonizing" policies concerning copyright and software/business method patents and the enforcement of same.

Don't let those who can achieve and prosper by their ingenuity and labor do so, thereby enriching others and providing examples of how to excel, but beat everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Make the people dependent on governmental largess, where they can maintain their power by being the party to offer to return the largest crumbs back to the ones that baked the loaves which they confiscated in the first place.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[brkello]

You are joking, right? After years of being labeled unpatriotic since I thought the Iraq war was wrong from the start (oops, guess I was right), now you are pretending like we came up with it. Why aren't Republicans asking, "Why do we spend more than Democrats, yet try to tax less?" So some companies are leaving the US. We would have to tax them almost nothing in a global market for us to compete with every other country out there. How do we pay for everything...tax the poor? No, what we have been doing is borrowing money from China. So being owned by China is something that you are behind?

If you want to be stupid partisan, I can do it right back. The Right never asks "Why is it that under Republican leadership the country loses jobs and grows national deficits?" Or..."Why is it a bad idea to attack countries that have nothing to do with terrorism and are not an immediate threat?" Or..."Why is it a bad idea to force our religion on other people?" Or..."Why is it ok to deregulate the market to such a point that there is no consumer protection allowing catastrophic meltdowns?"

You are claiming the left is responsible which is just the dumbest thing you can say since the last 6 years have been a complete sweep of Republican power. How can you continue blaming the left when they have no way of overriding a Bush veto?

Here is a tip, try watching shows other than Fox News and stop believing everything that comes out of Limbaugh's mouth. There is some fierce stupidity going on in this country and it needs to stop. This partisan bs has to be reduced. Neither party is perfect. But after watching this administration drive the country in to the ground and then reading fluff brains like yourself crying about the left...god, what more do Republicans have to do before you wake up and see that the root of all evil isn't the left?

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ireland's corporation tax rate is 12.5%. Lots of corporations have set-up holding companies so that they can report their profits in Irelands juristiction. They often don't have much if any operations there, i.e. largely empty offices with very few employees.

The US would have to drop its corporation tax rates to compete. Of course then Ireland could drop its rates to 10% and so on until there is zero corporation tax rates everywhere, eventually countries would have to provide other "incentives" (aka bribes) in order to attract corporations.

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[brkello]

And what we have learned now? That maybe corporations and the free market left unchecked doesn't actually know best either. There is a balance that is delicate and hard to find, but the old cliche that government doesn't know best is becoming naive. Unreasonable regulations that stifle growth are bad. Complete deregulation that allows for unchecked greed and predatory practices is a disaster. Surely there is a middle ground in there.

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did the US have a "left"?

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[cetialphav]

And what we have learned now? That maybe corporations and the free market left unchecked doesn't actually know best either.

Is that really what we are learning now? It seems to me that the market is working great. The people that have been making stupid financial decisions for years (both the borrowers and the lenders) are getting hosed. That is what is supposed to happen. Many banks were not stupid and now they get to buy up the failing banks for pennies on the dollar. They get rewarded for managing their risks properly. Many people who have kept their finances in order will be able to buy houses that they couldn't afford a few years ago because the prices will drop to reasonable levels. This is what the market is supposed to do and it is certainly doing it. The downside is that there is a lot of collateral damage. People that have done things right suffer because it is hard to borrow money right now. No one claims that the market is always friendly; it is a rough world out there, but it does push the global economy towards maximum efficiency.

You are right that complete deregulation is harmful. It can make the swings in the free market way too severe and undermine the market by allowing fraud. But the heart of the current financial crisis is that lots and lots of people made startlingly bad decisions. I don't see how the government can ever enforce anti-stupidity.

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but the only way that your argument makes any sense is if you believe that companies should not have to pay any tax. Otherwise, even if the US is only taxing businesses 1%, companies will still have an incentive to move or hide their income in such a way as to avoid paying the tax. So it does not matter what the actual tax rate is, people are always going to be greedy and try to avoid paying them.

I'm going to ignore your inflammatory use of "the left."

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[scorp1us]

The market is working, we just don't want it to work like it should.

There is only one factor that has conspired against the free market, and that is all the big players did the same ting in a short period of time. Now what should be happening is the smaller banks buy out the larger ones, with combined powers. (These smaller banks never engaged in these practices.) This would give rise to a new set of major banks. However the owners of the major banks don't want their companies divided up and sold at auction, which is what the market would do. They have convinced us to "bail them out" so they can hold on to their dominant positions, a move against the free market principals.

Unfortunately, what we have is where the actions of a few thousand people now affect 350 million people.

 

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[Sean0michael]

What the left ISN'T answering is the question of "who bears teh burden for paying the taxes and paying off the debt...". The answer may surprise you: the rich do.

As far as personal income tax goes, the top 1% of income earners, the very rich, paid nearly 40% of all the income tax collected in 2006, whereas the bottom 50% (making less than $32,000 annually) paid only 3%. I believe the current threshold for paying no taxes is the bottom 38%. The top 25%, who made $64,702 or more, paid 86% of the income tax collected. In short, the people who are going to pay for all of the debt incurred will be the rich, unless things change dramatically.

But how much of what the government takes in comes from the tax payer? According to Wikipedia, $1.25 trillion dollars of the total $2.66 trillion came from income taxes. Another $927.2 billion came from Social Security and other payroll taxes, which we could split half and half between people and their employer. People also paid the $25.7 billion in estate and gift taxes. Corporations paid only $314.9 billion. Taxes on the people, then, would make up 65% of the federal budget. So when those debts come due, the people are going to pay for it. But since the lower 75% of all tax payers make up 13.7% of all taxes paid, they won't see the big hit -- the rich will.

The left can certainly see what the government can do when given tons of money and power, as based on the current approval ratings of Congress and the President, almost no one is happy about their actions. So why would they insist on giving the government more of our money and more power when they can't be responsible with what they already take? If you want them to be more responsible (or you want to take away some of their power to wage those wars and drive up the debt) vote for lower taxes and less spending.

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[scot4875]

No, the 'left' is fully aware of this problem. What you, and many others, seem to ignore is that these corporations want to do business in the US, while not having to contribute their fair share to the economy.

The middle class pays an enormous percentage of taxes relative to their income. That provides things like schools, roads, police and military forces, a legal system, and other niceties of a western civilization. Corporate interests, and the wealthy in general, try very, very hard to pay as little as possible into the system, while still reaping all of the benefits.

Now, I understand that life isn't fair. I don't expect that everyone will ever pay a 100% equitable share. However, the system that we have may not be *sustainable*, because people on the top have copped out on their share (in both taxes and simple things like acting responsibly) to the point that the whole thing is teetering on the brink of collapse (or so the news tells me).

So, sure, let Facebook and all the others dodge taxes for as long as they want, and siphon as many dollars out of peoples' pockets as they can to offshore locations. Eventually the system will collapse because so many jobs and dollars leave for Ireland, and you can say "I told you so" forever. My question to you, that *you* don't seem to consider, is that if we lower taxes (how low? 10%? 8%? 0%?) to the point that businesses are willing to stay here, but the system *still* collapses because they aren't ultimately paying enough back, how is that functionally any different? At that point do I get to say "I told you so", or do you just keep coming back with "but with lower taxes, everything would have magically worked out!"?

Personally, I'd rather just attack the root of the problem, which is that some people seem to have no problem with taking and taking and taking, living like kings all the while, and then bitch and moan when asked to contribute a bit back to the system that made them so rich in the first place.

--Jeremy

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[jaymzter]

"Korea, Vietnam", and ..."maintaining the military in hundreds of bases around the world" all began under Democratic presidents, not neo-conservatives. The bases thing came mostly after the second World War and as a result of Truman's containment policy. Perhaps a little history would help YOU make the connection.

Now put the Kool-Aid down and back away from the keyboard...

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[daigu]

Truman? Please. Perhaps a little history is precisely the problem YOU have when making these rather terrible arguments. I'd recommend taking a look at the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary, and Wilson's presidency as redefining Manifest Destiny as promoting freedom around the world - as an obvious demonstration that your Truman thesis is false.

Not that beginning means much. If you are talking about debt, all you have to do is look at the historic tables of how debt has grown under different Presidents, and you'll find that all have been terrible - but Reagan and both Bushes especially so.

I also find it interesting that you want to talk about beginnings and want to pretend Nixon's escalation in Vietnam, Reagan "Star Wars" and proxy wars, and Bush I & II in Iraq didn't add significantly to the debt. I suppose if you just ignore it, then it will go away right? Perhaps taking a look at the facts without filtering through your personal political ideology might be a good first step to improve your flabby argumentation.

And if you think the Democratic party represents "the left", it is you that needs to put down the Kool-Aid. Try taking a trip to West Bengal, a state with the longest democratically elected Communist government, and you'll come away with an idea of what "the left" looks like - and it isn't much prettier than looking at the neocon rule and the rightist politics of both Republican and Democratic parties in our country.

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[daigu]

Given the fact that I pay a six-figure tax bill, I can't say I find it surprising at all. Nor do I consider it necessarily unfair. People that make more money have a responsibility to the society that enables them to do what they do.

The point I was making, if you read the parent, is that you can't give incentives to people to keep their money, business and so forth here if you are racking up trillions in military debt that ultimately everyone - but primarily the rich - will have to pay for. So, your comment actually supports my point.

I'm left libertarian. I don't think the problem is spending, and you can't go the lower taxes and left spending route until you've killed the debt and the President's (and Congress's for that matter) proclivity for military intervention. That's the bottom line.

Re:What the left ISN'T asking...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Many countries have zero taxes for foreign companies. Most of the Caribbean nations (Bahamas, Caymans, Dominica, Nevis, etc) and even Hong Kong and Singapore (hardly considered tiny, insignificant locales).

.
Many countries have figured out that taxation of companies really stifles growth, and companies pass the taxes on in the form of higher prices anyway, so why tax companies at all - tax the population directly. And keep the companies to keep the economy growing.

What do you expect?

[Kohath]

What do you expect them to do? The taxes they pay outweigh the benefits that they receive. Taxes are simply a bad deal for them.

Did you notice when the gas price went up? The response from about 49% of the politicians was "we should punish the oil companies by raising their taxes". How does raising taxes on oil companies reduce the price of gas? Obviously, it does the opposite: raises the cost of producing gas, and raising the price the producers need to charge to make a profit. Did the media point this out? No.

Hatred and envy and greed are the motivating factor for tax policy (and a lot of other policies) for much or the electorate and their chosen representatives.

Why wouldn't a company want to move their operations out of the US? It's cheaper and it's further away from the people who hate them and want to punish them (and have the power to do it).

If half of the people at my office hated me, and if I could get a better job somewhere else, I'd leave. Companies decide similarly.

Re:I think that the tax law changes started way ba

[poetmatt]

Sorry, but I need to correct you.

This round of change problems came around with Nixon, not with Clinton. Similar sounding name, but diff. When corporations began to be unaccountable and stop having to report things, a number of almost immediate changes took place. Not over months, but days. Noerr Pennington doctrine in 1972 is where they decided "it's legal to use money to influence political power". It's where "felony interference of a business model" came around. After that Reagan, Bush Sr, they all kept it going even worse.

FairTax.org

[jemminger]

I'm sounding like a broken record. Once again, passing of the Fair Tax ( http://www.fairtax.org/ ) would fix this. Our current tax code punishes us as individuals and businesses for making money. The FairTax would turn the U.S. into the world's biggest tax haven, and businesses would be seeking to make the U.S. their home rather than fleeing it.

Re:FairTax.org

[ckaminski]

No broken record, you converted me... I even wrote a paper for my english class on it (scored a D, but that's because I can't write research papers, not that of the FairTax).

See, what everyone seems to forget about the FairTax is that the purpose of money is to be spent. So what if BillG hordes his billions. Sooner or later his kids will inherit that and go on a spending spree. Implementing it will cause short-term pain, but if rolled into service over a period or 3 or 4 years, the impact should be A) measurable, and B) manageable.

And since we're in pain now, why not start?

Re:I think that the tax law changes started way ba

[MarkWatson]

Thanks for the correction Matt! My memory is updated :-)

not spending

[Kohath]

Borrowing money and then moving the money from one account to another and then buying investments with it is not "spending". Investments either go up or down or they mature and pay out in full or they're defaulted on. That leaves either more or less money in the account.

It's not "spending". It's not "pissed away" either unless all the investments are defaulted on and assume a zero value.

This is just a clarification from the rational world. Feel free to ignore it. People who are "outraged" and have bumper-sticker wisdom don't need facts or rationality. It just slows them down.

Re:not spending

[Chaos Incarnate]

Money is leaving the government and entering the private sector. How is that not spending?

Re:not spending

[Kohath]

Money is leaving the government and entering the private sector. How is that not spending?

#1 it's borrowed from the private sector to start with
#2 lending is not spending. If I put money in a bank, I have lent that money to a bank. It has "left" me and the bank has it now. Is it "spent"? No. Buying investment securities is simply a more complicated version of this.

The people get the government they deserve

[squarooticus]

When you want a government that regulates and taxes everything into submission, is it any surprise that business moves to places with fewer regulations and taxes? Good on Facebook: I hope more business moves away from the US, as that appears to be the only remaining hope for US citizens to demand smaller government.

Re:The people get the government they deserve

[SdnSeraphim]

Good on Facebook: I hope more business moves away from the US...

Although I don't particularly want businesses to move from the USA, I wouldn't mind if they moved to Ireland, since I am a dual-national with Irish citizenship!

It will yet become a center of top-notch talent.

[adonoman]

If all of these corporations keep setting up in Ireland, it will start attracting the needed talent. When the economy can no longer support all the tech companies in Seattle and California, those employees aren't just going to sit around. They'll go looking for new tech centers.
Ireland has the advantage that Guinness is locally made, so who wouldn't want to move there.

unfair taxes

[vijayiyer]

The US tax code double taxes companies by taxing them on income earned in other countries. We create an business unfriendly system and are surprised when companies leave?

Re:unfair taxes

[manekineko2]

There is no double tax, the companies get a credit for foreign taxes paid. The overall aim of the law is that the US tries to ensure there is one global level of tax that is roughly equal wherever a US citizen company is. Thus decisions on where to invest should (in theory) be mostly tax neutral, with capital flowing to where it can be used most productively.

No, It's Greed and Ethics

[Udigs]

The first one they have a lot of, and the second one they have none of.

Sure, a company is going to look for the best way to make the most profit. It's one thing to say that, but it's another thing to live in a world where everyone acts that way. I don't think it's a good thing for Americans if companies use our brain trust as a breeding ground and then ship jobs overseas. It's stupid, regardless of the taxes. So the taxes are too high? So what? Deal with it. Guess what? Those taxes pay for the peaceful conditions under which your company flourished and the more than 60 million American users who you monetize your site on.

Seeing a company BLEED the American taxbase like this makes me sick.

Re:No, It's Greed and Ethics

[cdrguru]

Peaceful? I guess you haven't been watching the news. Lots of people in the US are upset that their tax dollars are supporting the war in Iraq. They will soon be upset about the war in Darfur as well, according to Mr. Biden should he become vice president.

The Americans really don't care where the company is as long as they take credit cards.

Re:No, It's Greed and Ethics

[manekineko2]

Why should corporations be ethically constrained to stay in a place where most of the populace seems to be caught in a wave of populism where they think that corporations are evil and that we should get revenge on them and up corporate taxes?

Re:No, It's Greed and Ethics

[Udigs]

Because it's not good to make long-term plans based on short-sighted thinking.

We've had 8 years of a so-called "good" environment for business to thrive. Guess what: the economy is worse off for it. We've just had one of the WORST bank failures, ever, and just had to pay 700 BILLION dollars to bail out the financial industry.

Perhaps you should read the Wealth of Nations, which is essentially what you are talking about here:

Wikipedia explains my point better than I have time to:

"There are two important features of Smith's concept of the "invisible hand". First, Smith was not advocating a social policy (that people should act in their own self interest), but rather was describing an observed economic reality (that people do act in their own interest). Second, Smith was not claiming that all self-interest has beneficial effects on the community. He did not argue that self-interest is always good; he merely argued against the view that self-interest is necessarily bad. It is worth noting that, upon his death, Smith left much of his personal wealth to charity."

Truth is, most people don't understand the subtle point here. They take his arguments out of context to support arguments that help very few people---and will eventually dismantle any nation.

Note to Potential American Emigrants to Ireland:

[aquatone282]

Shillelaghs, tweed caps, and green t-shirts with orange "I <heart> Ireland" printing are NOT cool.

Privacy/Safe harbor

[Anonymous Coward]

If facebook is moving its operations to Ireland, doesn't this mean that it is no longer compliant (as if it ever was) under EU privacy laws?

Anonymous coward has no further details, so I suspect that this thread will fall the wayside of score 0.

Re:Privacy/Safe harbor

[Arabwel]

.... I ewould tink that since Ireland is a memeber o the E, as most o EU probably regrets since the Lisbon treaty was shot down, yes they would be compliant with the EU privacy laws. Or is there anotehr angle you were shooring for?

Balancing act

[halcyon1234]

This should just about balance out the tax lost when Bono "I'm all about supporting the little guy" NoLastName moved all of U2's holdings out of Ireland

OK, so what do you do?

[Toll_Free]

Tax the FUCK out of them for doing business in our country.

Seriously, it's time to stop sucking the collective cocks of our own corporations that run to tax sheltered countries or territories.

Facebook. Based in Ireland, based in the US.

Tax the FUCK out of them, and anything from China as well. Wanna do bidneth here? I suggest you pay the proper taxes as well.

note, I am NOT one who normally advocates raising taxes (small business owner myself), but having major corporations that SHOULD be paying literally tens of thousands to millions in taxes being able to run out of country, but yet, still maintain their base here in the US, and have other smaller corporations (like mine) that CAN'T leave the country due to other regulations, is bullshit.

--Toll_Free

Re:OK, so what do you do?

[cdrguru]

First off, that may violate WTO rules, to which the US signed on to. This was an extremely short-sighted move that literally prevents the US from taking unilateral action in terms of trade with other WTO members. It absolutely prevents the US from introducing tariffs on things like China-produced goods, which is why we are in the current pickle with China.

Secondly, do you really think that would solve anything at all? Simple solution for any company is to just cease having any US presence whatsoever. That does not prevent them from doing business in the US - it just means the US has no control, oversight or anything else. I suppose it might be attempted to prevent credit card payments to non-US companies but I doubt that would actually be feasible and might not be possible.

It is a global economy and the lowest tax, lowest labor cost, lowest price wins! And there is almost nothing that can be done about it now. Anywhere where there are labor regulations is going to lose jobs. Anywhere with a high minimum wage is going to lose jobs. Anywhere without a permanent underclass that gets paid a pittance is going to lose jobs. Because there will always be somewhere where costs are lower. And unless you are building a large building, just about anything can be done anywhere today.

Re:OK, so what do you do?

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

It absolutely prevents the US from introducing tariffs on things like China-produced goods, which is why we are in the current pickle with China.

Surely that's because people in the US chose to buy goods from China rather than made in the US? No-one was forcing people to buy from overseas; they just got better value that way. Why should it be the job of government to tell people what they're allowed to buy and what not?

Re:OK, so what do you do?

[Toll_Free]

WTF are you talking about?

Under my scenario above, anyone that brings a product into this country is tariffed to the point of it still being on par with domestically produced products.

That takes away the entire "It is a global economy and the lowest tax, lowest labor cost, lowest price wins" type problem. Our economy (read, the amount of consumers we have) won't be ignored. We still have too many dollars for the rest of the world to ignore us.

This also accomplishes two other things. One, it creates a level playing field, thusly creating local jobs. People will again, proudly, purchase "Made in America", if "Made with Melamine in China" is the same cost. Secondly, our dollar would be worth a hell of a lot more, securing our economy once again.

I know it's hard to fathom, but it, historically, works. Look at "Made in America" from the 50s.

--Toll_Free

Modded flamebait by those that just have no understanding. Funny, though.

Re:OK, so what do you do?

[drsquare]

You do realise that all US exports would then be tariffed in retaliation? Say goodbye to your entire IT and entertainment industries.

Re:OK, so what do you do?

[Toll_Free]

Entertainment wouldn't cease to exist, as most movies are done, get this, BY US BASED COMPANIES.

When did WB, Fox, or any of the other big movie houses move out of country?

US products can be tariffed in retaliation. Creating a level playing field is good for all involved. It means Joan SoccerMom and Johnnie Baseball Bat can't afford to drive to Wal Mart in their H2 or Escalade or Insert_SUV_Here, but it also means that when they DO go to the store, they are supporting the economy here, rather than somewhere else. Basic econ, again.

Completely understand where you are coming from, but the bottom line is: We DID operate under this methodology for DECADES, then when the US expanded / customers decided they wanted cheap / throwaway merchandise (none of my amateur equipment built in the last 20 years can hold a candle to the electronics purchased previous... Wonder why? Some of my old Collins tubed equipment STILL has better spec's than my Kenwood of today?????? And we are talking 30 to 50 years of difference in age!!!).

Gee, a level playing field, rather than having to have our people who demand 20 to 200 dollars an hour having to compete with someone else making 2 to 5 dollars a day.

Gee, wonder why the economy is so in the dumps. We can't support our own growth, can't support our own companies, and the consumer confidence is in the toilet to the point of where they CAN'T afford to purchase things BUILT here.

Great.

--Toll_Free

McCain called it?

[natedubbya]

Some of you may remember the Presidential debate only 6 days ago. As soon as I saw this story, I recalled McCain's argument for lowering business taxes. He used a very specific example...Ireland.

You can see the video here with the Ireland remark highlighted.

I took the liberty of transcribing McCain's words. Not to go totally partisan up in here....but you gotta give him props for calling this one:

The business tax. Right now, United States of America business pays the second highest business taxes in the world, 35%. Ireland pays 11%. Now, if you're a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then obviously if you go to the country where it's 11% tax versus 35, you'll be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, etc. I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses remain in America and create jobs.

Re:McCain called it?

[Colonel Korn]

Some of you may remember the Presidential debate only 6 days ago. As soon as I saw this story, I recalled McCain's argument for lowering business taxes. He used a very specific example...Ireland.

You can see the video here with the Ireland remark highlighted.

I took the liberty of transcribing McCain's words. Not to go totally partisan up in here....but you gotta give him props for calling this one:

The business tax. Right now, United States of America business pays the second highest business taxes in the world, 35%. Ireland pays 11%. Now, if you're a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then obviously if you go to the country where it's 11% tax versus 35, you'll be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, etc. I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses remain in America and create jobs.

It's not like he made an impressive prediction. As even the summary points out, businesses moving to Ireland is (very) old hat, and well known.

There does seem to be a bipartisan blindness to actually solving this problem. In addition to taxes sending businesses out of the US, low wages do as well. A good PhD scientist in China I know makes $7000/year and so do his peers. How do we compete with that? I'm open to suggestions, but all I see from major parties in the US is a whole lot of nothing.

Re:McCain called it?

[Overzeetop]

He didn't call it (which would presume he anticipated a future event), he observed it. He is correct. The problem isn't how to lower our corporate taxes, necessarily, but to more evenly spread the taxes amongst those benefiting from the US system and to guarantee that those who should be paying taxes do.

Simply reducing them for reductions sake won't work. Unless the government happens to stop spending money, in which case you can lower them right down to what we spend.

Hell, I'd like to see congress send a bill to every household in the US for $2000 per person for the Iraq war and $3000 per person for the bailout. For my family that's be $15,000. But it might just shock some folks into how much the congress is spending above and beyond the "normal" budget.

Re:McCain called it?

[quacking duck]

I took the liberty of transcribing McCain's words. Not to go totally partisan up in here....but you gotta give him props for calling this one:

The business tax. Right now, United States of America business pays the second highest business taxes in the world, 35%. Ireland pays 11%. Now, if you're a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then obviously if you go to the country where it's 11% tax versus 35, you'll be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, etc. I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses remain in America and create jobs.

Okay, that sounds good. So, what kind of jobs are we talking about creating? In Facebook's case it's programmers. Oops, they're cheaper in India than in the US.

How about manufacturing? Darn, cheaper labour and more lax oversight in China, so they'll set up shop there or contract with existing Chinese manufacturers.

So, for certain types of companies they get their HQs to remain on home soil, while *still* not creating local jobs... though I suppose the cleaning and maintenance workers will have another building to work on.

It's unreasonable to assume a blanket business tax cut will work as claimed with all businesses. Cutting them for multinationals is as ineffective, long term, as handing them money to entice them to stay in an area. And it's not all the company's fault either; labour laws, unions and just plain economics may also contribute to to a company relocating.

Re:McCain called it?

[cetialphav]

It is particularly annoying that Obama is beating McCain over the head with this. Of course, Obama phrases this a little differently and calls it a huge tax break for the oil companies. Well, yeah, it is a huge tax break for all corporations. But without that tax break, we will bleed tax revenue for years to come because corporations will make the logical decision to move to a lower tax rate. The US has to drop its price to compete or else we will lose jobs that the middle class (who Obama claims to fight for) needs.

Re:McCain called it?

[illumin8]

Some of you may remember the Presidential debate only 6 days ago. As soon as I saw this story, I recalled McCain's argument for lowering business taxes. He used a very specific example...Ireland.

McCain may have called it, but it's his party's philosophy of deregulation and making it easier for companies to move assets outside the country that caused this.

What Obama wants to do to solve this is to give tax breaks to companies that decide to keep operations and jobs in the US. That way there is a tax incentive for them to not relocate overseas. Right now there are so many loopholes for corporations to have a P.O. Box in the Cayman Islands and rarely ever pay a dime of taxes. Look at how Haliburton relocated to the Middle East. That has to be one of the most blatant tax dodges I've ever seen, yet we're still giving them $billions in contracts.

In any case, the tax code needs to be cleaned up. You don't want to just increase corporate taxes because that will encourage an even greater amount of companies to leave. You need to close the loopholes allowing companies to transfer assets outside the country without paying taxes, and you need to give tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the US. That will get things back on track and that is what Obama is planning on doing.

Re:McCain called it?

[Luyseyal]

There does seem to be a bipartisan blindness to actually solving this problem. In addition to taxes sending businesses out of the US, low wages do as well. A good PhD scientist in China I know makes $7000/year and so do his peers. How do we compete with that? I'm open to suggestions, but all I see from major parties in the US is a whole lot of nothing.

Nigh unbridled immigration (reject criminals, accept everyone else). There is no other fair way to do it. Labor supply screams upward, wages go down, followed by prices.

$0.02USD,
-l

P.s., IANA economist.

Re:McCain called it?

[Stalyn]

Yeah but what does it really mean? Do lower corporate taxes really result in a better economy? Well let's take a look. Ireland has a 12.5% corporate tax rate and is ranked 7th in GDP per capita throughout the world. Hrm looks pretty good. But wait Norway is ranked 3rd and has a corporate tax rate of 28%. And Luxembourg who is ranked 2nd has a corporate tax rate 29.63%. Even the United States of America which is ranked 6th has a varying federal tax rate of 15-39%. So in conclusion is there a correlation between economic strength and corporate tax rate? Nope.

Oh btw, A report from the US Congress released last week found that two-thirds of corporations in the country paid no federal income tax between 1988 and 2005.

Re:McCain called it?

[natedubbya]

Oh btw, A report from the US Congress released last week found that two-thirds of corporations in the country paid no federal income tax between 1988 and 2005.

What's your point? I suppose you're trying to hint that those 2/3 companies are using loopholes and playing dirty to keep from paying taxes? You need to know how many incorporated businesses are *small businesses*. It's overwhelming. It's also easy to find thanks to the census bureau.

Straight from the census: "About three quarters of all U.S. business firms have no payroll. Most are self-employed persons operating unincorporated businesses." In other words, 2/3 don't pay taxes, but 3/4 are a single person trying to make a living with his own corporation. Did you know that those single people pay themselves from that corporation, and then they pay income tax on the money? In other words, they do pay taxes. So btw, look up the facts!

Re:McCain called it?

[superpulpsicle]

There are alot of factors and not just tax. The thing that hinders business is not really money. Is all the unnecessary politics such as some donut shop owner is a friend with the town mayor. Therefore no other competitive donut shop can open within 5 miles of him. Or signs must be restricted to 5 inch tall because it is a residential town. Stupid shit like this is what hurts consumers, growth and the competition. The local town gov is IMHO much worse than federal.

Re:McCain called it?

[Stalyn]

From the page you cite, emphasis mine:

About three quarters of all U.S. business firms have no payroll. Most are self-employed persons operating unincorporated businesses, and may or may not be the owner's principal source of income.

So I was specifically talking about corporate taxes. Anyway here is the GAO paper that I referred too. Tax Administration: Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005. While it does focus on all USCCs and FCDCs (which ~60% did not report tax liability) it also refers to "Large" USCCs and FCDCs which is defined as:

"Large" FCDCs or USCCs are those with assets of at least $250 million dollars or gross receipts of at least $50 million dollars. Differences between all FCDCs and all USCCs were not statistically significant in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.

In 2005 ~25% of both Large USCCs and FCDCs reported no tax liabity.

So btw, look up the facts!

But I did!

Re:McCain called it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess McCain is actually referring to Corporation tax? He's not very clear. In Ireland, Capital Gains tax is zero (subject to certain conditions), (Foreign) dividends are taxed at 25%, VAT is 21%, withholding tax is 24%.

Anyway, Corporation tax is 12.5% in Ireland (since 1 Jan 2003) and you only get to pay this rate if most of your business is conducted in the country. That is, the company is managed and operated in Ireland (not just a plaque on a wall).

Ireland has received a lot of criticism about this rate from within the EU, too, it's not restricted to the US. Company HQs have been relocating from the UK at a steady rate.

But hasn't this always happened with large companies? Switzerland used to be a favourite one time. Cayman Islands are another.

Re:McCain called it?

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, the problem IS how to lower our taxes. Take a look at Hauser's Law. The best the US can hope to achieve is about a 20% taxation rate of the GDP. Higher tax rates do NOT generate a higher tax revenue in terms of GDP.

.
So the question is not how to use taxes to get more money, but how to use taxes to stimulate growth. If you want more revenue - dollars - then you want to grow the GDP (Hauser's Law stating that you get a fixed percent of the GDP regardless of tax rate).

It's generally accepted that lower taxation will stimulate GDP growth faster than higher taxation. Keep taxes low, your economy grows faster, and while the Government doesn't get more tax as a percentage of GDP, it gets more dollars overall.

So the question is not how to spread taxes, but how to use tax policy to encourage economic growth. And that is generally through lower taxation.

Re:McCain called it?

[evilviper]

I recalled McCain's argument for lowering business taxes. He used a very specific example...Ireland.

It's purely a red herring, and he knows it as well as anyone.

Companies that "can locate any place in the world" already do, NOT because of taxes (which are actually modest) but because cost of living is two orders of magnitude lower in 3rd world countries.

That 10% extra tax you have to pay to operate in the US is NOTHING compared to the adjusted cost of living.

So, cutting corporate taxes is NOT going to bring in any more business. What it's going to do is to give free money to those companies who CAN'T relocate.

So... Why would he advocate cutting taxes on companies, and the richest 2% (see the "Bush Tax Cuts"). It's the typical Republican mantra of "trickle-down" or "voodoo" economics. The idea that we give all our money to the richest of the rich, and they will, in turn, do great things with it, and give the rest of us more value in return. It's been panned by every credible economist on the planet over the past century, and it's been tried several times, with terrible results. It didn't work in the Guilded Age, it didn't work for Reagan, it hasn't worked for G.W. Bush. Every time it's been tried, it has resulted in a deep recession, and directly led to The Great Depression.

For the Republicans, trickle-down economics is just a bullshit mask, so that they can PRETEND that their corrupt actions are well-intentioned. Even though, in plain fact, they're out and out doing the bidding of Corporate America, so that they get nice big campaign contributions, more houses than they can keep track of, and keeping the revolving door spinning, so they get a cushy, ridiculously high-paying, do-nothing job from the industry, when they finally get kicked out of Washington by the voters, or by the courts, for rampant corruption.

See: Tom Delay, "Duke" Cunningham, Ted Stevens, John McCain (he just barely escaped the "Keating Five" scandal by the skin of his teeth), the K Street Project, Jack Abramoff, and everyone else in the Republican Party that is perpetually on the edge of indictment.

In fact they can't even feign to support their own stated principles, since they regularly throw them out the window, whenever the well-being of their rich friends happens to be in jeopardy. See the Terry Schiavo affair, where "state's rights" were summarily thrown out the window to pander to the religious right. See G.W. Bush's huge deficits, massive growth of the government. See the $700 billion bailout, which is now actually up to $1,100 billion, filled with the typical new tax cuts to help Republicans pander to their preferred corporate overlords...

Not that the Democrats are perfect. They're typically beholden to the media industry (ie. RIAA/MPAA/Disney), and I'd certainly love to be rid of Dianne Frankenstein. But they're squeaky clean virgins by comparison. Most important of all, they don't use discredited pseudo-economic bullshit as an excuse to do what they want... They actually have REAL economists working for them, and make policies that will actually, provably, HELP the economy (going back to FDR's New Deal, that the Republicans have been desperately trying to covertly dismantle for half a century). It's the difference between a party of adults running the country, and a bunch of children using the government as their own play thing.

Of course I don't hate all Republicans. After a rough few years at the start, Arnold Schwarzenegger has since actually done quite a respectable job as Governor of CA. And I personally happen to be much more on the conservative side myself, and cringe when I hear democrats regularly pandering to women about the provably non-existent "gender gap/glass ceiling" and promoting ever easier abortions for under-aged girls, and the like. Still, I can see through the vast majority of the GOP's pandering, lies, and out and out irresponsibility with the government they run, and can't possibly vote to subject the country to more of that.

Re:McCain called it?

[harmlessdrudge]

Your argument is nonsense and depends on all other things being equal, which they are not.

Norway is one of the richest countries in the world, from its hydrocarbon wealth alone. Subtract Norway's oil wealth and see where it comes in the GDP stakes. Ireland has no such resources and uses low tax rates to attract inward investment. There's also the matter of actual and effective rates and the actual amounts collected.

Countries and even cities are competitors. Capital is mobile. Ireland's low taxes were certainly extremely important in the transformation of the Irish economy, and lower taxes increased tax revenues.

Found him!

[cizoozic]

He's there, you just have to use the Search feature.

Re:Found him!

[Stanistani]

*peers at link*

I call shenanigans!

*brandishes his shillelagh*

Lower taxes.

[MaWeiTao]

People complain about American companies going overseas but then aren't willing to do what it takes to motivate them to remain in the US. I realize there's a current desire in the US to want to punish corporations with higher taxes.

Certain politicians love talking about how the the middle class apparently is the engine of the economy. In some ways that may be true, but the basic fact is that they don't create the jobs, corporations do. I don't even see why it's become such a political issue. When a company is taxed more heavily it means less money to invest elsewhere, be it employee salaries or equipment. Among other things this is reflected in lower salaries and fewer jobs.

South Korea just lowered taxes for corporations, as did Taiwan last year. And the reason they gave for doing so? To help ensure strong economic growth, and these two countries already have over 4% economic growth. And they wisely realize that this also benefits small businesses.

Unlike Obama's supposed plan to "help" small businesses by cutting capital gains tax. How exactly does this help small businesses when they pay income tax, not capital gains tax. And weren't the democrats up in arms a number of years ago when Bush cut capital gains tax? At the time weren't they claiming that these cuts only helped wealthy investors?

The problem nowadays is that both parties are spending recklessly. It's hard to justify cutting tax in light of this. But still, I think in the long run it's a good thing and would be more effective than all the ridiculous specific tax breaks available now.

To this carrot, however, I'd offer a stick. I'd cut corporate tax significantly, but then, among other things I'd penalize companies heavily for outsourcing, which I consider a significant problem. This would obviously require some nuanced regulations, but basically any company that lays off American workers for the sake of outsourcing gets punished with heavy outsourcing taxes. The goal would be to eliminate the cost-effectiveness of outsourcing.

Re:Lower taxes.

[forceman130]

This presumes that corporations can't do math. They will quickly calculate whether it is cheaper to outsource the workers and pay the tax, or keep the workers in the US, or whether it's really just better to give up on the lower business taxes and move to another country that might have higher taxes but also has fewer weird laws about outsourcing.

Brilliant!

[Overzeetop]

I'm truly sorry, but you know somebody had to say it.

Not aimed at you

[Kohath]

Yeah. Not you. The people who criticize "American Exceptionalism". They're objectively wrong. There's a lot of other things not to like about them too, but when you can easily prove people "objectively wrong" there's not much reason to consider anything else they might say until they wise up a little.

Ass backwards

[Overzeetop]

The fair tax penalizes people for spending money. That is, without a doubt, a bad thing for the economy as a whole.

I'd prefer a gross receipts tax on every TIN (that's taxpayer identification number, aka SSN for individuals and TIN for corps). A small percentage (3-4%) of every dollar you receive goes to the government. I'm even okay with a 2087xFMW (annual min wage salary) against any receipts. It sounds like the fair tax, but it's essentially a "fee" for all transactions in the US. Think of them as real estate agents...just cheaper. Spending costs you "nothing" extra. Multi-level corporate schemes cost the tax rate x the number of layered corporations. Yes, it will "double tax" S-corps. Big deal - you want the protection of a corporation - a Government institution - you pay the fee. I happen to get all my income from an S corp, so I would be affected. Sole Propriatorship or Partnership avoids that tax, and it makes all the officers liable for any screwups they do. That can hardly be seen as a bad thing. It also rewards short distributor chains (or, rather, punishes large chains) so items made an sold locally directly from the source have the lowest tax (i.e. it's "green"...but don't tell anyone).

Re:Ass backwards

[jemminger]

>> The fair tax penalizes people for spending money I suppose you could phrase it that way, but it certainly doesn't impede my spending here in Florida, which only has a sales tax in lieu of a state income tax. After having read the book it seems to make a lot of sense.

Re:Ass backwards

[Overzeetop]

Depends. In the UK, the VAT is 17.5%. That's a pretty big hurdle, and they have a whole slew of other taxes as well. The other, admittedly speculative, problem I have is that it is a sales tax, and no matter how many times they say it will replace the income tax I don't believe it. The tax will creep up. In FL, don't you also have an intangable assets tax? I always presumed that was the flip side of the income tax - too many residents with assets but no earned income (that whole "God's waiting room" thing).

I do agree that its hard to hide from a sales tax.

Re:Ass backwards

[jemminger]

In the UK, the VAT is 17.5%. That's a pretty big hurdle, and they have a whole slew of other taxes as well.

As written, there would only be a national sales tax of 23%. By replacing the income tax with a sales tax, companies no longer have to pay the "embedded" taxes of payroll tax etc, so cost of manufacturing drops by roughly 22%, effecting about a net 1% increase in price of goods as compared to today's prices. Not to mention the prebate that everyone will get... it's such a win for everyone, especially those on the lower income strata.

no matter how many times they say it will replace the income tax I don't believe it. The tax will creep up.

Well, the only way I would vote for the FairTax is as it is written in HR 25, which is to repeal the 16th Amendment. No more federal income tax period. As for state income tax, the book explains why states would follow suit in dropping it but I don't remember the reasoning off the top of my head.

In FL, don't you also have an intangable assets tax?

Not that I'm aware of... we don't file any sort of state tax on April 15, just the federal.

Re:Ass backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold on. I have doubts.

The incentive to spend provided by greater amounts of spendable income should offset the disincentive to spend generated by the tax to a fair degree. The remaining difference will mean less debt and more investment. It seems to me that will stabilize the economy in the medium and long term, with possibly (but I still doubt) a slight hiccup in the short term.

Re:Ass backwards

[DinDaddy]

By replacing the income tax with a sales tax, companies no longer have to pay the "embedded" taxes of payroll tax etc, so cost of manufacturing drops by roughly 22%, effecting about a net 1% increase in price of goods as compared to today's prices.

For goods where manufacturing costs are 100% employee pay derived. Is that an accurate assumption?

Re:Ass backwards

[jemminger]

not necessarily. for example a component X might cost Y dollars, which the manufacturer arrives at by the cost of materials plus the cost of labor. in this cost of labor are some embedded taxes in the form of payroll taxes that the manufacturer has to pay for each of its employees (before the employees get to pay their own taxes on what's left over!). repealing the 16th amendment eliminates these taxes and so the "cost" of manufacturing goes down, which follows that so do the prices, or that manufacturer finds they've priced themselves out of the market since every competitor also now has lower operating costs.

Just couldnt get past that first sentence huh?

[GlobalColding]

Ummm holy non sequitur Batman! My post wasn't about citizens, aliens or planet earth - but I guess this is /. . Your "easy answer" completely misses my point and is flawed on many levels. Buying a stock in a company with overseas offices does absolutely nothing to avoid the tax consequences of my investment. Also just because a company has overseas offices it sure as hell doesn't make it a sound investment choice on that qualification alone. I defer to the other answers to my post as examples of what I was looking for - sound, rational answers. Thanks anyway.

Re:Just couldnt get past that first sentence huh?

[Kohath]

Buying a stock in a company with overseas offices does absolutely nothing to avoid the tax consequences of my investment.

The company's profit will be taxed less. That leaves the company with more after-tax profit. You benefit by receiving higher dividends or an increased capital gain on your investment. These are then taxed at the normal rate, which is double taxation. But you benefited when the money was taxed less the first time it was taxed.

Any benefit that a public company receives can be shared by anyone. All you need to do is buy shares of the stock. That's the simplest answer to how to get the benefit.

I offer the simplest answer because many comments on Slashdot are predicated on the hatred and envy of corporations. Buying stock is a fix for that. There's no need to envy a group of people when anyone can join the club.

Get in on it

[toddhisattva]

How do we, the citizens get in on this?

Work for Facebook.

That is, if you can stomach working for a corporation. Eeewww, a company. Corporations are bad. They make profit and that's just awful. Companies never do anybody any good at all. They alienate the worker from his toil. And alienation makes people feel bad. And that's just awful.

Re:It will yet become a center of top-notch talent

[Da_man]

Funnily enough... I have worked for a number of US multinationals (Cisco, Dell, ACS Inc) and have often found that if you wanted something done, rather than just talked about, Gantt charted, etc. then you engaged the Irish IT crew. I have even had IT directors come to me to "do an end run" around bureaucracy to get essential infrastructure done.

One large Europe wide Oracle 11i project I was involved in was done in 18 months, whereas the US based equivalent was going on for years (ended up having it's own building!).

There is a significant amount of IT talent in Ireland, and Dublin is seen as a "young persons" city, so it tends to attract more and more young professionals from all over Europe.

Some disclaimers:
1) I am Irish, so I am sure to be biased. That said, some great colleagues, and friends were / are American. I just feel that they are sometimes "defeated" by the business environment over there.
2) I am not saying that some of the project management / admin stuff was not worthwhile, but I can't count the number of hours of my life that I can not get back due to wasting away on conference calls to the US

My > EUR0.02

Re:It will yet become a center of top-notch talent

[adonoman]

I'm not Irish (other than a 1/32nd sliver from way back), and I've never worked directly with an Irish IT crew. But the fact that it is so easy to move around in Europe now means that talent is going to concentrate where the good jobs are. Once you hit a critical level of talent, you start getting new start-ups, and the whole thing cascades.

Of course eventually, things will get to the point where corporations are taking advantage of tax loopholes, and not contributing back to the local economy. Eventually you get the arms race between the corporations and the tax collectors, leading to the mess of a tax code that the United States now has, and the corporations start looking elsewhere.

Now that I'm thinking about it, there's almost a parallel between developing software to keep out hackers, and developing tax laws to keep corporations from abusing them. You want to maximize ease of use, difficulty of abuse, and overall utility. And while it's tempting to scrap the whole thing and start over with something simpler, each of those little hacks are in there to fix some "bug", or implement some desired feature.

Low taxes

[Korey Kaczor]

Lower taxes means that corporations are more likely to come and play in your playground, thus leading to increased economic activity and employment in the area.

America could increase it's economic activity if it decided to lower taxes (and that also goes for individual states as well) but politicians would rather put some crazy ban on outsourcing than actually combat the problem: ridiculously high taxes.

It's an extreme example, but just compare Hong Kong to the rest of China. Which area has less regulation, and which one would you rather live in? It goes without saying, honestly.

I'll probably get modded down by some crazy armchair e-warrior socialist, but whatever.

When did Learned Hand become a Supreme Court

[mrmike37]

Justice?.

Oh, joy

[metzomagic]

As a Yankee ex-pat, living in Ireland for the past 23 years, words can't even *begin* to express how much I look forward to life under our new FaceBook overlords...

Re:It will yet become a center of top-notch talent

[xaxa]

It's easy enough to move round the EU in some ways, but it's not as easy as moving between US states for instance.

I'm British, and live in London. If I want to move to Dublin that's relatively easy -- same language, same culture. But Amsterdam? Well, the culture is a bit different (as I see it -- no doubt non-Europeans wouldn't see so many diffences). And I'd need to learn Dutch, for socialising if it wasn't needed for work. And they use a different currency, and I don't know how other things like renting somewhere to live, insurance, healthcare, pensions etc work -- I could find out, and if I was going to work for a large company they'd help me, but that's not quite the same as chosing between somewhere else in Britain.

I'm guessing if you're 21 and just graduated in the USA and you see jobs you like all round the USA it's not that big a deal where you go, but we're not quite there yet for the EU, at least from my point of view in the UK.
(Obviously it varies, some countries have much more mobility, e.g. between Denmark and Sweden, or France and Belgium).

Comparison of corporate tax rates

[DesScorp]

So, Ireland is smarter than us in how they go about attracting corporate dollars... ... and you fault THEM for it?

Maybe if we were a little more competitive companies wouldn't bother fleeing there. Just a thought.

While the US has a low sales tax burden compared to other nations, we have, depending on who's numbers you believe, the third or fourth highest corporate tax rates in the world, and our combined personal Federal and State income tax rates are on the high end compared to others as well. The Nordic Countries have much higher personal rates than we do, but few other countries do.

Public Investment vs. Free Market Policies

[DesScorp]

Actually, the reason Ireland has come so far in terms of standard of living and per capita income is because of heavy investment by the EU during the late 90's. This investment was mostly funded from tax revenue in wealthier EU countries (like Germany). That investment of public money has certainly turned around the Irish economy, but to act as if it is because of their pro-business, free market policies is a bit misleading.

Those investments may have laid the foundation for Ireland's ability to attract this kind of business, but do you honestly think that their low tax-pro markets strategy isn't responsible for getting new business? If Ireland's corporate tax burdens were much higher, do you honestly think they'd still be getting business like this?

As someone who's in IT in Ireland....

[Arabwel]

I can see where they are coming from with this. Ireland has so many attractions BESIDES the GUinness (Jameson FTW!) that it is very easy to attract talent - for a while.

Most companies in IT here operate with baby burnig - grab, use, discard. Or grab and use before they run off for whatever reason.

I myself work for a large American company and since I have an intense attitude problem, I keep hanging round - but I see the patterns evolving all around me. I know peple who work for M$, Google. etc here and theyhave attested to something similar - Ireland is a tax haven but employee nightmare, so as a result, the only way that works is either the company giving immense amounts of benefits or accepting an insanely high turnover rate in staff. My company gives decent bnefits, and even so the average rate of employees is 8 months - grand majority just stay for one 11 month contract and then take off.

Re: Irelands crumbling infrastructure.

[DiarmuidBourke]

What are you talking about? Seriously? What crumbling infrastructure? For a country of 5million, we have a very good infrastructure. Are you aware of our new road networks? (yes i'm aware a lot of new motorways wont be finished until 2010), but our current roads are MUCH better than the 80s or 90s. CIE is undergoing radical transformations, same for bus-eireann. We've built many new and upgraded countless other hospitals, transport stations, public areas, town-centers and other facilities.

Oh and dont forget that we've done all this during a time of war (northern ireland), which has costed the state a lot of taxpayers money. Sure low corporate tax has helped us draw in foreign investment. We needed this because there was no employment before the 90s. Nowadays anybody can find work (probably not in finance atm, but that's their fault for overextending themselves.), including the many immigrants. The real underlying cause to our recent success has been the quality of our education system during the 90s.

Your backwards religious theocracy statement is complete rubbish too. Religious organisations have had minimal input into recent governmental decisions these days.

o/t post since your journal replies be frozen

[somersault]

Completely OT post here, and perhaps you don't want to know (feel free to stop reading just now if you want :D ).

I'm reading my second Robert Anton Wilson 'self help' type book (and have the Illuminatus! trilogy sitting on my desk ready to read at some point). I hadn't realised that he was dead until today, and on a wikipedia article saw that it was mentioned that /. had raised a fund to help the guy. I then found the story, found that I'd actually commented on the story and had a conversation with you about donating and healthcare, his books kind of being prescribed geek reading and such (I usually have problems when it is implied that geeks have to be clones who all read the same literature, repeat the same in jokes etc - sometimes it's nice to have a brotherhood, but if everyone is the same is gets boring - especially when people think my jokes are quotes :p ).

Somehow I just happened to read Prometheus Rising in spring this year - perhaps from a reference on slashdot, but I think it was after just looking at books on Philosophy and happened to see Prometheus Rising on Amazon. Great book. Most likely it was one of the main factors in making my mind receptive to change and allowing me to renounce my Christianity in March this year (which I consider a Good Thing despite the invisible stress it has put on a few of my relationships).

I've added you to my friends list anyway, and apologise if I was appearing rash and hotheaded in my attitude towards this guy. It's pretty strange considering my attitude before, but he has done a lot for my life post mortem, and had my financial situation been the same as it is today (I'm getting paid a lot better than I was in early 2006), I definitely would have donated money to help him. I wasn't even aware until today that many slashdotters would have read his books - he has some seemingly crazy non-scientific new agey beliefs alongside the rest of his astute observations on humanity and psychology. He did take a couple of quotes from the bible rather out of context in Prometheus Rising, which made me wonder how accurate he was on other areas where I am less informed, but as I said overall it was good for helping me free my mind from some of its previous programming, which is why I started reading "Quantum Psychology" today :)

I don't exactly know why I'm telling you - it just seemed appropriate to mention it after seeing our fossilised conversation like that and thinking how much everything has changed since then. I have no idea what to believe these days, but I'm enjoying the journey and letting my mind think and learn again, rather than constantly having to make excuses for my beliefs to assuage the cognitive dissonance I was experiencing as I saw more evidence for the validity of evolutionary theory, and saw the poor condition of the Church and Christians around me. The world makes much more sense now, despite the fact that I still don't understand it.

Re:o/t post since your journal replies be frozen

[spun]

Wow, what an interesting turn of events. Not to sound pedantic, but be sure not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a lot of good in Christianity, both it's teachings and practitioners. I was lucky never to have had it forced on me, so I never felt the need to reject it completely. But the brainwashing, 'we have the ultimate truth and nobody else does' part, that's that bad part. Only you can decide what the truth is for you, or if you even need 'the truth.'

Good luck figuring it all out yourself. It's what we all have to do, but some people like to pretend they have finished. We can't. But luckily, we don't have to figure it ALL out.

Re:o/t post since your journal replies be frozen

[somersault]

Indeed, my morality is almost entirely the same, just with a few differences on sexual issues and the like (my brother is gay - I'd already accepted that, but I still had to consider it "wrong" from a Christian perspective). Pretty much all my family and the majority of my friends are Christians, so I have little choice but to continue to be influenced by Christian values too. I know a lot of good, genuine Christians, but I also know some crappy ones. No different to the rest of us then.

Thanks - I am indeed trying to be content that there are some things we cannot know in this life. As a Christian I was content to put too many things down to 'god' as you say, and had all but stopped being amazed by the wonders all around me, since they were just stuff that god had made and ultimately would mean nothing in the wider context of eternity.

I still perhaps have a bit of a nihilistic streak, but I'm working toward trying to find or create my own meaning in life again :) The whole of existence sometimes just seems like a bad joke to me - that anything would exist at all, just 'exist' for the hell of it. It's crazy. Was funny to see RAW say that death seemed like a joke too (on his wiki article). I guess he hadn't really worked out "the answer" any more than the rest of us, but at least he had a good crack at it, and was going into it with his eyes open so to speak.. if there is any existence and 'judgement' after this life, you'd hope that they'd give marks for effort!

Re:o/t post since your journal replies be frozen

[spun]

The whole point of nihilism, in my opinion, is that given there is no knowable ultimate meaning to life, we are free to create our own meaning. Given your background, I have a book to recommend, don't know if you've heard of it, called A Course in Miracles.

It starts from a Christian perspective, but it veers, in my opinion, into a very Buddhist-like philosophy and practice. I found the separate workbook, which contains one short meditative exercise per day for a year, to be very helpful in confronting the essential, and terrifying, freedom that we have to create our own reality.

Re:o/t post since your journal replies be frozen

[somersault]

Sounds good. I was eventually going to look into more eastern philosophies anyway, as my current logical (hopefully) musings have led me to believe that the only man-made belief systems that make real sense are ones that don't start out by condemning all non-believers - since no one religion has had, nor will ever have 100% coverage of humanity (or any other species AFAIK!).

Have ordered a copy from Amazon that has the teachers' material and students' workbook combined, thanks for the recommendation :)

Will maybe get back to you in another 2 years when I've joined a monastery in Tibet or Kyoto! That seems just as far fetched to me now as the idea that I'd lose my Christian faith would have been to me 2 years ago.

Re:o/t post since your journal replies be frozen

[spun]

I also like Buddhism because it simply doesn't think certain questions are important. Is there a God? Not important. Afterlife? Ditto. An individual soul? Who knows, who cares? The present moment? Ah, well, that we can agree exists, let's talk about that.

Now, if we can only figure out what to say during orgasm. "Oh, Darwin!" just doesn't have the same ring to it...

Re:o/t post since your journal replies be frozen

[somersault]

"Oh, Darwin!" just doesn't have the same ring to it...

I don't know, I could imagine some of the more zealous Apple fanboys find that appropriate ;) I love my Macs, but not that much.