Slashdot Mirror


Battle Lines Being Drawn As Obama Plans To Curb Tax Avoidance

theodp writes "Barack Obama has squared up for a major battle with big business, announcing a crackdown on offshore tax avoidance and evasion by US multinationals that's designed to raise $210B and make it easier for companies to create 'good jobs here at home'. Obama cited a building in the Cayman Islands where more than 18,000 US companies are housed: 'Either this is the biggest building in the world or it is the biggest tax scam in the world,' he said. 'I think the American people know which it is.' The administration says that more than a third of US foreign profits in 2003 came from Bermuda, the Netherlands and Ireland, and noted US companies paid an effective tax rate of just 2.3% on the $700bn they earned in foreign profits in 2004. Among tech companies affected by the crackdown, Microsoft joined 200 companies who signed a letter complaining that the proposed tax changes would put them at a disadvantage with their rivals, Cisco moaned that the measures 'would adversely impact our ability to invest and grow our business in the US,' and Google declined to comment for the time being."

6 of 1,505 comments (clear)

  1. Am I cynical? by NathanE · · Score: 5, Informative

    Am I cynical to think that these businesses will just raise the cost of their goods to cover the additional tax, thus making consumers the ones to pick up this $210 billion tab? I somehow doubt that publicly traded companies are excited to see the earnings hit show up in their quarterly statements.

    1. Re:Am I cynical? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Informative

      They'll try. They'll be faced with the other side of the equation, though: as prices go up, demand drops. So they'll have to decide how much they can afford to lose in sales.

      To me it only seems fair. As a private citizen I don't get out of paying taxes just because my income was outside the US. I have to file and pay taxes on that income, the only thing I get is a credit against US taxes due for the amount of taxes I paid on that income in that foreign country. The corporations are mad because they had a sweet deal going: don't pay US taxes on foreign income, and make a deal to avoid paying foreign taxes on that same income because they're a US company bringing all those jobs to the foreign country. And now Obama's looking to ruin their nice little sweetheart deal.

  2. I block the Politics section for a reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I block the Politics section for a reason
    But Slashdot seems more and more obsessed with ramming the Politics section down everyone's throats.

    First I had to block the Your Rights Online section because it morphed into Your Rights COMMA On-Line.
    Then Science, because Slashdot turned it into a Creationists/Stem Cell debate section
    Now, 3 stories in the last few weeks have leaked out of Politics (where they rightly belong) and on to the front page/News

    Dear Self-Important Editors:
            You (yeah you) created sections and the ability to block sections for a reason.
            Maybe you should show some self-restraint and put you Damn Fucking soap boxes back in their proper sections.
            I and many others have no desire to be subjected to stories, the main point of which seems to be running screeds on how "Jews control the GOP" or how "Ron Paul was right".
            Your inability to observe the standards of conduct you yourself created shows an utter lack of class.

  3. Re:Where is the crossing line for lowering tax rat by Sparklepony · · Score: 5, Informative

    One: The Congressional Budget Office issued a report to that effect in 2005 (when the US federal government was entirely Republican-run). http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf

    Two: Nobel prize laureate James Tobin, for another. In 1992 he wrote that "[t]he 'Laffer Curve' idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981."

    And three, economist Paul Pecorino calculated in 1995 that peak revenue was generated at a tax rate of around 65%, much higher than current tax rates in the US.

  4. Re:Not a tax scam by icebrain · · Score: 5, Informative

    And guess who winds up paying for the taxes companies pay? Yep, the people that buy the products. Taxing a company is still taxing the people, just adding another layer onto taxation.

    That's not to say corporate income shouldn't be taxed; that may be the most efficient means to collect the needed revenue. But let's not kid ourselves by thinking that taxing companies means the "evil rich" will be paying taxes instead of "the common people".

    --
    The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  5. Re:Not a tax scam by Kristoph · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think a number of your assumptions are incorrect ...

    The money used to pay off expenses, pay employees, buy/rent offices and equipment is not taxed (there might be payroll and income tax on each employee, there may be state taxes of various sorts but the federal government will not treat these expenditures as taxable income).

    Similarly, investments in expansion are likewise not taxed (as long as these are essentially along the lines of the above)

    It is only income the companies hoard or distribute as dividends that is taxed.

    The funds distributed as dividends are not subject to double taxation. Indeed, as per the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, dividends are taxed as capital gains not as income so it's not even 'single dipping', never mind 'double dipping'.