Slashdot Mirror
Tax Change Aims to Lure Intellectual Property Back to the US (wsj.com)
U.S. companies rich in intellectual property are looking at a new tax-friendly regime: the U.S (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source). From a report: A provision in the newly revised U.S. tax code slashes the income tax companies pay on royalties from the overseas use of intellectual property or so-called intangible assets, such as licenses and patents. The new tax break, for what is dubbed foreign-derived intangible income, effectively reduces tax on foreign income from goods and services produced in the U.S. using patents and other intellectual property to 13.125% until the end of 2025, after which the rate rises to 16.4%. Previously, royalties paid to a unit in the U.S. would have been taxed similarly to other U.S. income, for which the top corporate tax rate was 35%. The new headline corporate rate is 21%. The deduction is meant to induce companies with large U.S. operations and significant foreign income from patent royalties to base more of those assets in the U.S. Such companies, especially in technology and pharmaceutical sectors, often hold foreign rights for their IP in a company based in a low-tax country.
Another great example of Trump common sense. Now make inversions illegal and make work requirements for Medicaid mandatory. #MAGA
sorry, little brother up north, but this is true. Pleas donâ(TM)t club anymore baby seals, eh
What drags the US down most in these rankings is "tertiary efficiency": roughly the fraction of people in grad school or with graduate degrees.
Ranking countries is a dodgy business, even more than ranking colleges. A different set of weights or ways of measuring things could give you totally different answers.
If you're looking for a way to claim the rankings are biased, you might argue that this up-ranks countries that value credentials over actual innovation. Or you might claim that these days, an undergrad education is enough to go out in the world and innovate and that countries that send more students through grad school are wasting their time. Or you might claim that the US is a developed country with a developing country attached, which drags down the averages. And probably California, NY, MA and a few other states considered independently would rank highly.
The Tax Change Introduced by Trump that Aims to Lure Intellectual Property Back to the US Is Actually A Bad Thing. Here's Why.
More like it lowers the taxes Hollywood pays on royalties it receives from its distribution channels in China.
so now more IP / patent trolls in the usa!
I remember when /. used to scoff the invalidity of the concept. And ridicule any moron who uses it.
Then (if all they give me, is a mere copyof the result (information) of the hard work of some once-paid workers, then all they will ever get for it from me, is also a mere copy of the result (money) of the hard work of some once-paid workers (like me)!
I'll put money on the copier, add a nice big "specimen", tack on an artificial monopoly license that is physically impossible to enforce, call it my financial property "That I worked hard for!!!11eleven", and insult everyone as a "seafaring rapist thug" who doesn't play along and take my worthless "money".
It is a bad thing, because it's just another tax break for companies that are already evading taxes, and it won't actually bring anything back into the US.
Apple, Returning Overseas Cash, to Pay $38 Billion Tax Bill
I have been thinking about motorizing my Fleshlight and making it run Linux. I could 3D print motor mounts and control everything with a Raspberry Pi. The girls watching me use it would be connected through a cloud.
How much of this is patentable?
So what if those things come back? It will stiffle innovation even more and it means the taxes they pay will be even less. That means the few that will profit wwill have more to pay politicians left and right.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Tax cuts never work! They never result in higher wages!
Starbucks to boost worker pay and benefits after US lowers corporate taxes
Disney giving 125,000 employees $1,000 cash bonuses
JP Morgan Chase to build 400 new branches, raise wages because of the tax cut
Verizon Using Some Tax Savings to Give Each Employee 50 Shares
What does it take for "progressives" to examine their economic beliefs?
As if 8 years of failed "recovery" under Obama wasn't enough. The ONLY President in US history to never see 3% growth in the US economy in any year of his term...
Why can't we just have it simple. You get taxed where you make the money... period. This includes intellectual property. Time to set right the tax laws and base everything on the location of the consumer.
Every country can decide what their tax rules will be. For instance I am partial to one tax rate for income and another for taking money out of a country.
Is there anything is can do? No, that's not a typo.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Intellectual property aka the knowledge about how to build something that you may or may not have a patent on is not technically transferable. What is transferable are the patents, copyrights, trademarks and any other rights to use the intellectual property. This article is really mincing words. No matter how you spin it, we are talking about repatriating money (assets of monetary value is you prefer) that is held abroad in foreign countries. We've been talking about it for years now. Whether it has something to do with intellectual property, subscriptions, licenses, patents, etc. is of no real interest. That's just partitioning the pile of money into categories. I don't care about that. What I care about are large sums of money sitting in a foreign country and there being no compelling reason for the holder of said funds to repatriate it to the United States to be used for the benefit of our country. We all know the primary reason that money isn't more frequently repatriated and that's because of prohibitive taxes on the money when it is transferred. No matter what your principles are or how much of a bunch greedy sacks of crap the 86% that holds 1% of the wealth is, lowering corporate taxes and tax holidays DO IN FACT make it more worth their consideration to repatriate the taxes. But we already know this and it's already be discussed ad nauseum on slashdot, why are we talking about it AGAIN?
We'll make great pets
You're a fuckwit!
Umm. Only the receipients pay taxes on the income *they* recieve when someone who dies leaves them assets that should be treated as income just like all income is. The *dead* pay no taxes only the recipients who receive income. Just like they would any other income!
The "Death Tax Lie" is an attempt to eliminate the income tax that is applied to all other types of income. Parents cannot "gift" more than $10K tax free per year per child during their lifetimes. So why should the same assets be transferable "tax free" to receipients at death?
It makes ZERO logical sense. Except for a small group of families who want to create intergenerational dynasties.
The term "death tax" is marketing to designed to confuse and eliminate the "income tax" in a special case to create legal pathway to monied dynasties.
It's not your money. It's likely your parents money. So you have to pay income tax on it if they give it to you.
Facebook is billions of individual "Skinner Boxes." And if you use it you are the pigeon!
Jesus did never pay taxes for the king of Israel or Rome's senators.
I want to be one as him!.
The UK has estate tax. It works like this
1) If you're very poor you don't pay it because your estate is under the allowance
2) If you're very rich you use gifts, trusts foundations and offshore entities and make sure your residual estate is under the allowance
3) If you're middle class and didn't do your research you get clobbered by it. Typical men die first and the estate tax bill forces the widow to sell her house.
I.e. it does very little to prevent 'monied dynasties'. It does screw over middle class people who didn't have an accountant and/or didn't read the fine print of the tax code. The ones who did use gifts and trusts (offshore entities and foundations are usually too expensive) but they still end up with a larger bill than the very rich who have more financial room to maneuver and can usually get away with more aggressive tax minimization schemes.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
This is amnesty and one thing we have learnt is that Amnesty never solves a problem. It just encourages more people to do the same in the hope of the next Amnesty. Whether that is tax evasion by hiding profits in foreign subsidiaries or illegal immigration- an amnesty does not solve the issue.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Except this doesn't happen. At all, ever, in the UK. You know how I know this? My Granddad died first, and my Grandma did not have to pay a single penny in tax on the estate.
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance...
Read the fucking document. It's dead simple - if you're married you do NOT pay estate tax on inheriting anything from your partner, and further your kids don't pay anything on up to 850,000 GBP. That's not clobbering the middle class by any means, it's taxing people who are rich.
But hey, why let facts in to your bubble?
The rules have changed multiple times. Back when I was dealing with it, there was inheritance tax from one partner to another. Hence the people in question set up a trust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Prior to this legislative change, the most common means of ensuring that both nil-rate bands were used was called a nil band discretionary trust (now more properly known as NRB Relevant Property Trust*). This is an arrangement in both wills which says that whoever is the first to die leaves their nil band to a discretionary trust for the family, and not to the survivor. The survivor can still benefit from those assets if needed, but they are not part of that survivor's estate.
If they had not have done that and the rules had not changed in 2007 the surviving partner would have lost the house
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
And yet not a single penny was paid or owed when my granddad died and grandma inherited the house (around 300k GBP) in 1994.
There is not, and never has been, an inheritance tax between spouses that causes middle class little old ladies to have to sell their houses.
working for me to make changes to tax codes _globally_ to allow me to hide my money from the government. Even if I wanted to since all of my money comes from wages earned (as opposed to 'passive' income, e.g. money obtained just by owning shit) it's damn hard to hide that.
You couldn't have come up with a better false dichotomy if you tried.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
For two reasons. First, they're regressive. e.g. they punish the poor and reward the wealthy. I've heard various schemes to 'fix' this that always end with a system just as complex and full of holes as progressive taxation.
But second, progressive taxes, when properly applied, serve as a check on out of control wealth inequality. Remember, past a certain point money is power, not wealth. That point is around where you can no longer spend it on any conceivable luxury. Where the only thing left to spend your money on is bending people to your will & whims. Progressive taxes can and should be used to prevent this, because otherwise you end up with oligarchy, aristocracy, and the kind of rampant conservatism that lead to the Dark Ages (e.g. no progress as the wealthy block it to maintain their favorable status quo).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I meant to write, "Is there anything it _can_ do". Trickle Down, Voodoo, Supply side. Whatever you want to call it, it's worthless.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
When CEOs were polled on what they're going to do with those tax cuts they had to answer honestly, since their words could impact investor's. All but a few said the same thing: Mergers & Acquisitions. And what always follows Mergers & Acquisitions? Layoffs. Lots of layoffs as redundant staff is fired and/or outsourced (gotta make back the cost of the acquisition somehow, and got to do it _immediately_ or else the shareholders get mad).
These tax cuts are going to hurt. Aside from the fact that Paul Ryan is already talking about taking Medicare & Social Security away from everyone under 55 to pay for them there'll be mass layoffs in the wake of all the M&Es. Wages will go down when those people hit the job market and then go down again since there will be fewer companies to work for and therefore less competition to pay wages.
Expect another crash, but way, way worse this time. Hopefully what's remains of the Left in America steps in to clean up the mess (like Obama did). Otherwise it'll spiral out of control and we'll start seeing pogroms against one of the minorities (Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks, Jews, take your pick) as the working class majority try to make sense of why they can't afford food and shelter anymore. This is just what happens when you let wealth inequality spiral out of control. Humanity's danced that Charleston for hundreds (thousands?) of years.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There is not, and never has been, an inheritance tax between spouses that causes middle class little old ladies to have to sell their houses
And yet if you read this that problem has caused both Labour and Conservative governments to alter the rules on the nil band multiple times since 2007
http://researchbriefings.files...
Not to mention people who knew what they were talking about set up a trust to avoid the problem before 2007
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Some HTML tag gobbled up half the post.
Nevermind then ⦠--.--
Intellectual monopoly is an affront to human dignity and a millstone around the neck of the economy. It must be abolished.
Yep, build a big wall around your economy. That will ensure you compete and grow and not just hide behind the wall. It's worked every other time it's been tried hasn't it :)
You are badly informed. Spouses do not pay inheritance taxes. Sales by widows are typically to unlock equity to make up for lost retirement income.
Want to keep more jobs in China? Simple
1) drop ALL deductions, exemptions, and breaks.
2) now, for any business that is 80% China-made, Chinese-sold, Chinese-service and will pay their gains in China, they pay ZERO corporate tax.
Start this at 40% and then raise by 5% each year until hitting 80%.
3) for all others, charge 25% corporate tax. 4) Charge a 20% VAT like most other nations.
Let me guess, if China does this it will be bad right...
Cue massive increase in patent trolls
I think you've misunderstood that document. 3.2 is about transferring unused allowances between spouses. E.g., say the limit per person is £250k, and the house is worth £400k. Currently, on death of the first spouse, no inheritance tax is paid on transfer to the second spouse, but would be on £150k on the death of the second. The proposal is/was to allow the nominally unused £50k, in this case, to be added to the surviving spouse, meaning IHT would be due on only £100k.
I know this because my grandfather's share of the house was far in excess of the individual IHT limit at the time, yet my grandmother did not pay any IHT, but a large bill was due on her death.
P.S. both died before 2007
No one actually believes that American companies pay that tax though...Looking at your data American corporate taxes are way higher than in Canada for example. The actual money collected tells a very different story.
The U.S. corporate income tax, as a share of GDP, averaged 2.2 percent of GDP for the 2000 to 2011 period. This is in sharp contrast to its northern neighbor, Canada, which collected far more corporate income tax revenues than the United States at roughly 3.4 percent of GDP during the same period (Chart 2)
https://taxfoundation.org/us-c...
No one actually believes that American companies pay that tax though...Looking at your data American corporate taxes are way higher than in Canada for example. The actual money collected tells a very different story.
The U.S. corporate income tax, as a share of GDP, averaged 2.2 percent of GDP for the 2000 to 2011 period. This is in sharp contrast to its northern neighbor, Canada, which collected far more corporate income tax revenues than the United States at roughly 3.4 percent of GDP during the same period (Chart 2)
https://taxfoundation.org/us-c...
You still (conveniently) forget about VAT payroll taxes and social security etc that are higher for businesses in other countries.
Already shown not to be the case. Data shows your EFFECTIVE rate, isn't very effective at all. Only collecting 2.2 percent of GDP vs Canada's 3.4%
No one actually believes that American companies pay that tax though...Looking at your data American corporate taxes are way higher than in Canada for example. The actual money collected tells a very different story.
The U.S. corporate income tax, as a share of GDP, averaged 2.2 percent of GDP for the 2000 to 2011 period. This is in sharp contrast to its northern neighbor, Canada, which collected far more corporate income tax revenues than the United States at roughly 3.4 percent of GDP during the same period (Chart 2)
https://taxfoundation.org/us-c...
You still (conveniently) forget about VAT payroll taxes and social security etc that are higher for businesses in other countries.
Keep on bullshitting though, some ignorants will believe you still.
If you could read and understand you wouldn't look so foolish...
You mean the same link that shows you are totally incorrect?
The same link that mentions, after deductions and subsidies and everything else, America is only about a 1/3 of Canada. Even though you foolishly keep telling everyone America is much much higher.
Learn to read silly boy.
American companies don't pay that tax though...Looking at your data American corporate taxes are way higher than in Canada for example. The actual money collected tells a very different story.
The U.S. corporate income tax, as a share of GDP, averaged 2.2 percent of GDP for the 2000 to 2011 period. This is in sharp contrast to its northern neighbor, Canada, which collected far more corporate income tax revenues than the United States at roughly 3.4 percent of GDP during the same period (Chart 2)
https://taxfoundation.org/us-c...
You still (conveniently) forget about VAT payroll taxes and social security etc that are higher for businesses in other countries.
So not only do Americans pay less tax than you keep claiming, other places pay more in other corporate taxes as well. You're doubly foolish.
Lynwood liar, still with his head stuck up his arse.
You still fail to understand what they mean by effective. Think more 'in theory' assuming no deductions or tax breaks or other handouts. The actual tax American companies pay is much much lower than your 'theoretical effective rate'.
You are only proving your willingness to continue misunderstanding on purpose, because it suits your partisan agenda.
And it gives you an excuse to do what your kind always want to do, which is lower taxes for well off people.
Truly Republican logic if there ever was. How can the actual percentage of tax taken be higher if the percentage of GDP is lower.
Try reading and a little common sense.
Your trolling is getting to be a joke, at least make an effort to make sense.