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.

103 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. A good first step. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Another great example of Trump common sense. Now make inversions illegal and make work requirements for Medicaid mandatory. #MAGA

    1. Re: A good first step. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only they are not, thatâ(TM)s the point. Nobody earning less than 1mil per year has got a tax increase, in fact everybody got a tax cut.

      You obvious donâ(TM)t pay tax yet child

    2. Re: A good first step. by PPH · · Score: 2

      middle class

      Simple solution: Incorporate.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re: A good first step. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And this helps explain why middle class taxes are going up.
      Yay.

      And a couple of months ago, I'd bet quite a bit you were running around screaming "Pay your fair share!!!"

      All you care about is being NOT TRUMP. You don't give a shit about anything else other than beating Trump.

      So please just fuck off and die.

    4. Re:A good first step. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The tax policy stuff isn't really Trump though. It's people like Paul Ryan. Trump is the Steve Jobs of the party - nasty but charismatic. Paul Ryan is more like the Wozniak - geeky but politically not that astute.

      In a odd sort of way the fundamentally corrupt nature of American politics works well for tax reform. If you have a bunch of lobbyists complaining all the time you can gain quite a bit of information from that. So if you know Apple and co have tonnes of money overseas, you can figure out what it would take to make them bring it back.

      Which, to the Trump administration's credit, they actually did

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

      Apple Inc. said it will bring hundreds of billions of overseas dollars back to the U.S., pay about $38 billion in taxes on the money and spend tens of billions on domestic jobs, manufacturing and data centers in the coming years.

      The iPhone maker plans capital expenditures of $30 billion in the U.S. over five years and will create 20,000 new jobs at existing sites and a new campus it intends to open. The Cupertino, California-based company's shares rose 1.7 percent to a record closing price of $179.10.

      âoeWe are focusing our investments in areas where we can have a direct impact on job creation and job preparedness,â Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook said in a statement Wednesday, which also alluded to unspecified plans by the company to accelerate education programs.

      You don't necessarily need to do what an individual lobbyist is lobbying for to make the companies they're lobbying for do what you want them to do.

      A combination of tax cuts policy wonkish stuffs like this and good old fashioned Trumpian bullying and intimidation to get companies to create jobs in the US should do the job. And of course Trumpian praise for ones who comply.

      Plus of course the Trumpian bullying and praise affects market cap

      https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...

      Apple's market cap is $886 billion. 1.7% of that is $15 billion. And they presumably reckon they'll make some more cash if public approval boosts their share price and on their business operations in the US.

      All in all it's an interesting mixture of conventional and unconventional incentives.

      --
      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;
    5. Re: A good first step. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Something is better than nothing. Nothing is what we currently receive when US companies move offshore for tax purposes. It's not a hard concept.

    6. Re: A good first step. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Trump is a proven traitor ....

      I'm curious - what color is the sky on the planet you're phoning this claptrap in from?

      I'm just waiting for the proof that Obama, his DoJ, and the FBI not only colluded in giving Hillary! a pass on her email server, but also weaponized the US intelligence agencies against Trump - illegally using the FBI to create the Trump "dossier", getting DNI Clapper to brief it to Obama so it gets in the press, then after Hillary loses anyway, used that same fake dossier to get a FISA warrant to wiretap Trump, then had Susan Rice illegally unmask US citizens.

      Then, we can get on to how the crooked investigators working for Mueller lost all those text messages from the time all that was happening.

    7. Re: A good first step. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In high taxes places like the UK and Sweden everyone earning a decent hourly rate incorporates. Even though personal taxes are high the corporate ones are low.

      http://stats.oecd.org/index.as...

      The Trump tax cut cut the US corporate rate from 35% to 21%

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      That's competitive with the Swedish rate of 22% or the UK rate of 19%.

      Also it could be argued that forcing people to leave money in a company encourages them to use it in ways that generate more money - it's sort of like an ISA in the UK which is exempt from income tax and capital gains tax. At least until you draw the money out. ISAs are used for retirement savings - if you put shares in them you don't get hit for taxes until you cash out.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      And of course if you let people use their money to generate more money by having low tax rates, they'll eventually end up paying more tax than if you took their money away and gave it to the government which will spends all the money it gets and more.

      The government needs to pass the Marshmallow Test!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      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;
    8. Re:A good first step. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The only time anyone pays Federal taxes on the declared value of an asset is when they die - the estate tax. You don't pay a Federal taxes on any asset value, you only pay on any income realized from the sale or use of that asset. You have a $10 million patent, or a $40 million building? No Federal taxes unless you sell them (capital gains) or realize income from renting/using them (license fees of rental/leasing).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re: A good first step. by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Informative

      For a small "income pass-through" business, incorporation will probably cost more in administrative overhead than saved in taxes. I investigated this with my tax person considering the new tax law as we just came into possession of a small farm with a cash flow of ~$50 - $75k. She indicated the overhead costs would be too much unless cash flow was much larger. I think she was talking hundreds of thousands or at least $1 million.

      It absolutely is not.

      I have an S-Corp, and work through it as sole employee and owner.

      What overhead costs?? Yes, I pay a CPA at end of year to do my taxes, but during the year, its just me and it isn't *that* much extra work, and it isn't rocket surgery.

      And it is worth it...I can now write off most anything that is even remotely related to current work or work I wish to pursue.

      I also, save on employment taxes (SS/Medicare) and do not have to pay that on the full amount I bill on.

      You pay yourself a "reasonable" salary, and that is the amount you pay SS/Medicare on.

      Example:

      You Bill $100/yr.

      You pay yourself a reasonable salary of say, $40K. Out of this mostly, you give yourself a paycheck...and the company pays state/federal/SS/Medicare based on this.

      At EOY, from that remaining $60K, after you deduct for all expenditures, retirement funding, etc....what's left falls through onto your personal taxes, and you only pay state/federal tax on that.

      I just keep records during the year, I log onto state and fed websites monthly and quarterly to pay taxes....and send paper work to CPA at EOY and she tells me what extra I pay..

      and, by the way, during the year, that extra money is earning interest for me.

      I am FAR from being a millionaire, I live basically an upper middle class lifestyle, and that little extra effort, is worth it for me to keep more of my hard earned money.

      And for once it is nice to see that I likely will be affected by this new tax law.

      Its about time the small business guy caught a break.

      The reason that some millionaires set up pass through type companies...is because its a fucking GOOD idea. Why not emulate what works...?

      It cost very little extra but a bit of your time and effort.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re: A good first step. by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Informative
      So, I'm guessing you live in a HIGH tax state like NY or CA?

      You might wanna look into getting the local politicians to work for YOU and lower those taxes.

      The fed shouldn't subsidize your state taxes being too high.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re: A good first step. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I wish I could pay myself $40k out of $100/year, but I would be $39.9k short...

    12. Re:A good first step. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      There are other ways to do tax. For example a Land Value tax on Georgist lines advocated by Sun Yat Sen. SYS's Three Principles of the People was in a sense a Third Way ideology aiming for something between capitalism and socialism.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The Principle of Min2sheng1 is sometimes translated as "the People's welfare/livelihood," "Government for the People". The concept may be understood as social welfare and as a direct criticism of the inadequacies of both socialism and capitalism. Here he was influenced by the American thinker Henry George. Sun intended to introduce a Georgist tax reform. The land value tax in Taiwan is a legacy thereof. Sun Yat-sen said that land value tax as "the only means of supporting the government is an infinitely just, reasonable, and equitably distributed tax, and on it we will found our new system."

      Another option is a consumption tax like national value added tax. Or a Border Adjustment tax for filthy traitor companies who make stuff outside of ze fatherland

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      VAT tends to hit poor people more than rich ones because poor people spend a greater share of their income on things that are hit by it. Conversely a wealth tax tends to hit the wealthy more.

      Land value taxes still apply in Taiwan which is much more capitalist than either the US or UK in terms of how high tax revenue is as a percentage of GDP - it's 13% in Taiwan vs 26% in the US or 34% in the UK.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Of course modern Taiwan has individual and corporate income tax too. Actually, come to think of it the UK has property value tax and so do some US states.

      --
      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;
    13. Re: A good first step. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      Software contractors all do it. So do plumbers, gas fitters, dental hygienists and so on.

      Back when I did it it was only £70 to set up a company. For that price you'd be crazy not to. Companies cost money to run of course but it's easy to save enough by having a Limited Company that you come out ahead.

      --
      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;
    14. Re: A good first step. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I wish I could pay myself $40k out of $100/year, but I would be $39.9k short...

      Well, depends on the field and experience, etc.

      But also, do realize from that example, that you ask for a bill rate as a 1099 contractor MANY times more than you would take home as a W2 employee, since you do have to account for times not working (vacation and sick leave, about 3 weeks), and pay your own employment taxes, pay your own insurance and put money away for retirement AND....most importantly put money aside as a next egg for times in between gigs which can and does happen.

      When you add all that together, 6 figures gross is not that much really, especially if you have a family.

      A lot of people don't realize the bill rates for true contractors, especially in the IT world.

      With a federal contract, you easily see from the govt. side $175-$250/hr, depending on the job description.

      Take consideration, however...that the prime contractor takes a cut, as does each sub contractor between you and the prime in many cases....

      But as you work the field, you learn what the numbers are and where you fit in.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re: A good first step. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1, Informative

      Crazed AC stalkers are the missing +5 Inciteful moderation for slashdot.

      --
      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;
    16. Re:A good first step. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Only a fool would think that this was any good.
      Want to bring back jobs to America? Simple
      1) drop ALL deductions, exemptions, and breaks.
      2) now, for any business that is 80% American-made, American-sold, American-service and will pay their gains in America, 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.

      This is how you MAGA. Trump is killing us with his BS, and simply pointing out minor things that MIGHT do something. And yes, this MIGHT do something.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    17. Re: A good first step. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Nor should the feds subsidize states that do not pay enough in. That is getting old that the blue states fund the feds, while the red states waste money.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    18. Re: A good first step. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I was joking about your typo. I'm guessing you meant $100/hr or $100k /year.
      I do my own consulting, but I also keep a day job. I do pretty well.

    19. Re: A good first step. by cats-paw · · Score: 1

      The fed shouldn't subsidize your state taxes being too high.....

      WTF??

      Those too highly taxed states you're deriding subsidize the low tax states. Gee I wonder why that is ? maybe because their taxes are too low to provide needed services ?

      how exactly did this get mod'ed informative ??

      --
      Absolute statements are never true
    20. Re: A good first step. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Make them pay the full amount. Set up treaties with other countries and smarten u, those taxes were cheated from other countries why the fuck should the US get them greed because the US military will kill you otherwise, what are you saying.

      They earn money in the US make them pay taxes in the US. They earn money in other countries, why the fuck should the US get any of those fucking taxes, WTF?

      Ireland wants to steak US social services, killing Americans to run a tax scam, to pay for their social services, why the fuck put up with it. That is economic piracy, they are killing citizens with diminishing social services, that is economic warfare, why the fuck put up with it. Israel is killing Americans paying of American to fight it's wars for it for cents on the dollars and dead Americans for free, Ireland is cheating US taxpayers of content licence fee taxes, other taxes are joining in, money exchanges for terrorist activities, organised crime, bribery and corruption. They are attacking the US and Americans are dying, why the fuckity fuck fucking fuck, roll over. Fuck them, bring the to heel and break them when necessary. Not just the tax cheats but the economic pirate nations that engage in it, fight economic warfare, with real harsh legal warfare, legally cripple the tax haven nations, brutalise their economies and strip mine of them of all stolen capital assets. They are killing you people with diminished social service fight the fuck back.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    21. Re: A good first step. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      In the UK working through a limited company and being self employed are two different things. Basically if you have an option, pick limited company.

      This page shows how much tax you'd pay with each option. If you budget £1000 a year for additional accountancy costs you still come out ahead even for a relatively low annual income

      http://www.freelanceuk.com/run...

      --
      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;
    22. Re: A good first step. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      For a small "income pass-through" business, incorporation will probably cost more in administrative overhead than saved in taxes. I investigated this with my tax person considering the new tax law as we just came into possession of a small farm with a cash flow of ~$50 - $75k. She indicated the overhead costs would be too much unless cash flow was much larger. I think she was talking hundreds of thousands or at least $1 million.

      It absolutely is not.

      I have an S-Corp, and work through it as sole employee and owner.

      What overhead costs?? Yes, I pay a CPA at end of year to do my taxes, but during the year, its just me and it isn't *that* much extra work, and it isn't rocket surgery.

      The thing is, you're a CPA... that means you already know all the rules and loopholes (and are part of the problem). How long would it take for you to learn the tax rules of the United Kingdom? Forget tax rules, how long would it take you to learn something outside of your career, like the French Industrial Relations legal system?

      Most people don't have the time to put in to that.

      What we want is a simple tax system. Taxes would be lower if everyone paid their share, right now we've got the big end of town paying a fraction and the average person paying a significant percent. of course this would put a lot of accountants out business but AI will do that shortly enough (long before it puts taxi drivers out of business).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    23. Re: A good first step. by sabbede · · Score: 1

      States don't pay federal income taxes, individuals and businesses do. The most populous and highest average income States are blue, so it's hardly a surprise that there's a lot of tax revenue coming from them.

    24. Re: A good first step. by sabbede · · Score: 1
      No. That's not a real thing.

      The top 5 States for Federal tax revenue are (in order) California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois. The top 5 States by GDP are (in order) California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois. The top 5 States by population are California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois (tied with Pennsylvania).

      See a pattern?

    25. Re: A good first step. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, you're a CPA..

      No..I am not a CPA by any stretch of the imagination.

      I"m actually not very good with finances, etc...but I do know how to research for myself to learn things, and I do HIRE a CPA to do my taxes and advise me when I need it.

      and I'm not talking about Europe in any form or fashion, my comments were for contractors in the US only.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    26. Re: A good first step. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Those too highly taxed states you're deriding subsidize the low tax states.

      Actually, "states" do not fund or pay the federal govt in tax revenues.

      Only businesses and individuals pay taxes.

      This was mentioned in this thread earlier by another poster.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. I can see the CNN headline now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Tax Change Introduced by Trump that Aims to Lure Intellectual Property Back to the US Is Actually A Bad Thing. Here's Why.

    1. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1, Troll

      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.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      false, you made that up.

      The majority of large companies *legally* do things to avoid taxes; now there is reason to do business here.

    3. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1, Troll

      They are evading taxes. That they've bought off our politicians to do it legally doesn't change that.

      We don't need to suck off corporations in order to get companies to do business here.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are evading taxes. That they've bought off our politicians to do it legally doesn't change that.

      We don't need to suck off corporations in order to get companies to do business here.

      Note that this is the same GP poster who posted

      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.

      It took about three minutes to post proof he's completely WRONG.

      Note how he's now using phrases such as "suck off corporations". He probably believes he's smart, too.

    5. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by zifn4b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is a bad thing, because it's just another tax break for companies that are already evading taxes

      Ok let's try your logic out here. By using Turbo Tax to comprehensively evaluate the tax code to get you the biggest tax refund aren't you also evading taxes by your definition? Corporations are basically using a more sophisticated version of "Turbo Tax" to lower their effective tax rate. Isn't that what you and everyone else is doing too? So much in fact that Turbo Tax, Tax Act, etc. all created profitable software businesses around it...

      --
      We'll make great pets
    6. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      TurboTax mostly exists because our Intuit and similar companies fought against having it be simple to file your personal taxes. There is a corollary here, in that the tax system for corporations is similarly the result of bribery.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      They are evading taxes.

      Wrong my friend.

      Tax evasion is illegal and they are prosecuted for that.

      Tax avoidance is perfectly legal, in that it is perfectly legal to use ANY LEGAL method as put for the by the tax code, to save/deduct or otherwise pay as little in taxes as possible.

      Are you saying you willingly forego any and all tax deductions that are available to you, and willingly pay more in taxes that you really legally have to?

      If not...why should any other individual or company have to pay a single $0.01 more than the legally are obliged to pay?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      There is a corollary here, in that the tax system for corporations is similarly the result of bribery.

      Define "tax system for corporations". Let me introduce you to logical syllogism that you seem to be unaware of. First of all, you have two conceptual ideas. You assert there exists a "tax system for corporations" and you assert that corporations used bribery in some manner to influence the nature of this so-called "tax system for corporations". In order to take your claim seriously which sounds like it was all invented in your mind and probably sounded good before you posted it to slashdot, you must do the following:

      1) Define "tax system for corporations". What is it? Where is it defined? How can I read up on it? Can you provide any citations for it?
      2) Define "corporate bribery" as it relates to somehow influencing this so-called "tax system for corporations"?
      3) Once we know that both of this terms are being used to refer to something real that we all have common understanding of, you need to explicitly connect the two concepts together to substantiate your claim

      If you need help start here:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      When you can make a claim that isn't based on nonsense hyperbole, come back and we can have a more serious discussion on the topic. That is, if it's really that important to you or you're simple interested in trolling.

      For funsies, consider this, Corporation A in 1950 lobbies the federal government to get a part of the tax code changed to benefit them. The law remains unchanged to the day. Several corporations including B, C and D that had nothing do with Corporation A's actions use that part of the tax code in filing their version of "Turbo Tax" to lower their effective tax rate. Did Corporations B, C and D do anything wrong? Did you do anything wrong taking the child tax credit as opposed to doing your patriotic duty to pay your taxes for the benefit for everyone else?

      --
      We'll make great pets
    9. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      >We don't need to suck off corporations in order to get companies to do business here.

      So what you would do to encourage companies to do business here? Assume you left the corporate tax rate at 35% - what else would you do to encourage businesses to come back to the US?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Invest in infrastructure, education, a less ass-backwards healthcare system. Maybe look into a UBI, so more people have the ability to start their own businesses.

      The "race to the bottom" niche is already saturated, and automation will eventually eat dirt cheap labor anyway.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    11. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Someone hasn't heard of the Nunes memo. It's been confirmed that the Mueller investigation is 100% FBI-sponsored anti-Trump payback over firing Comey, based on illegal intelligence that Obama had been gathering against Trump in a failed attempt to overturn the will of the people.

      Trump isn't going anywhere, but there is a massive scandal within the FBI and Democrat Parties brewing.

    12. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      TurboTax mostly exists because our Intuit and similar companies fought against having it be simple to file your personal taxes [propublica.org]

      TurboTax having enough power to lobby is equivalent to me standing at the edge of a pool, proceeding to piss in it, and then making a statement of how I've risen the level. While technically true, it's rather meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

      No, the reason our tax laws are so complicated is because to simply the code means taking away legislative power to social engineer society. THAT is power. They will NEVER give that up. The all powerful console that it is full of buttons, levers, and knobs. Replacing that with what otherwise could be a simple single rheostat (adjusts the laffer curve via tax rate) eviscerate Congress of that power.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    13. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      1) Define "tax system for corporations". What is it? Where is it defined? How can I read up on it? Can you provide any citations for it?

      Primarily, I'm talking about the US tax code, as it pertains to corporations, basically just excluding Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, although state codes are also relevant, along with the tax codes of other nations, when considering loopholes such as the "double Irish."

      2) Define "corporate bribery" as it relates to somehow influencing this so-called "tax system for corporations"?

      Contributions to politicians outside of the $2700 limit for individuals for presidential campaigns, and the individual limits for the jurisdictions that an individual lives in. So, for example, the Hillary Victory Fund would be corporate bribery, as would virtually all SuperPACs.

      3) Once we know that both of this terms are being used to refer to something real that we all have common understanding of, you need to explicitly connect the two concepts together to substantiate your claim

      Sure, US policy does not follow public opinion, outside of the very wealthy and corporate interests.

      For funsies, consider this, Corporation A in 1950 lobbies the federal government to get a part of the tax code changed to benefit them. The law remains unchanged to the day. Several corporations including B, C and D that had nothing do with Corporation A's actions use that part of the tax code in filing their version of "Turbo Tax" to lower their effective tax rate. Did Corporations B, C and D do anything wrong?

      At the very least, they are complicit. I'm great at multitasking, so I can hate the player and the game.

      Applying concepts of personal morality to things on a the scale of international corporations is pointless, so blame is far less of a concern than actually fixing the system. The overwhelming majority of our tax code should be removed, and every exception added should be subject to public scrutiny, ideally with a sunset to ensure repeated scrutiny.

      Did you do anything wrong taking the child tax credit as opposed to doing your patriotic duty to pay your taxes for the benefit for everyone else?

      I just take the standard deduction and have no children. I'm happy to throw a little shade towards them for their penny ante deductions, though, so long as we throw proportionate blame to the wealthy. If the appropriate punishment for them is a literal slap on the wrist, the appropriate punishment for a CEO would be punching their skull off.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    14. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Intuit specifically fought it at the state level. You are correct about the reason for the complexity for our whole tax code (although I'd argue that congress isn't the direct engineer, just the paid lackey of other powerful interests), but I'm talking about simple filing for the masses. TurboTax might still exist, but no individuals would use it, and pretty much everyone would have saved money.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    15. Re: I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Actually, fixing the healthcare system would lower labor costs, infrastructure improvements would also increase productivity and lower costs. Education invests increase productivity, and not having a generation of debt slaves cuts a lot of costs as well. UBI is great for starting new businesses.

      But no, I wouldn't actively incentivize businesses, because I don't have Alzheimer's, so I know that supply-side economics doesn't work.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    16. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      They do realize that a lot of that so called intellectual property doesn't really exist? That it was largely made up to create tax dodges in the first place? Billions for use of the name Starbucks, insane fees paid by Google Inc for the use of patents held by Google Ltd or Google BV. That sort of thing.

      This change is good for the US in the sense that it may bring back some taxes now collected by other tax havens. But it's bad (or rather: shortshighted) in the sense that it allows these tax dodges to continue right in the US. Large corporations can afford to use them, small business still end up paying the full rate. The good news is that this rate is dropped from 35% to 22% at least, which is decent.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    17. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by MaryannG · · Score: 1

      I have to ask if you applied logic and/or math to your comment. Take any company who is currently, as you put it, "evading taxes" (they're not...they're avoiding them because evasion is being legally obligated to pay them but refusing to). They have X amount of revenue or profits or whatever valuation it is the tax is using to calculate the tax bill on. Currently, they're paying exactly 0% (X times 0%) to the IRS (because they're not obligated to). However, if this change makes the United States a better deal for them than whatever country they're currently paying that country's IP tax in then the equation changes to X times 13.125%. I often wonder at the difficulty some have for what is, apparently, simple mathematics. 0% of something is always going to be less than any other taxation percentage greater than 0 of that same something. Unless I totally misunderstood you and that your objection ("bad thing") was based on a company paying taxes to the IRS...because the only way your statement makes any sense at all is if you equate paying more than zero to the IRS as a "bad thing".

      --
      Social Media Handywoman at Texas Boys Balloo
    18. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Setting up your own tax heaven costs about $5000 in founding and them about $2000 per year to finance it.
      It is not just for big business. Every free lancer or self employed can do it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    19. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Take any company who is currently, as you put it, "evading taxes" (they're not...they're avoiding them because evasion is being legally obligated to pay them but refusing to)

      Tax avoidance is just legal tax evasion. It's essentially the same act, just done via lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants. I'm tired of indulging their distinction without a difference, because we recognize tax evasion as a criminal act, and tax avoiders should be perceived as criminals, even if the law does not reflect that.

      However, if this change makes the United States a better deal for them than whatever country they're currently paying that country's IP tax in then the equation changes to X times 13.125%. I often wonder at the difficulty some have for what is, apparently, simple mathematics. 0% of something is always going to be less than any other taxation percentage greater than 0 of that same something.

      There are two ways to get them to pay the taxes they should be paying, but aren't. They can either use the carrot or the stick. This approach is the carrot, which is almost always what we use for corporations in America.

      I would prefer a stick approach, such as ineligibility for other tax breaks if they don't pay these taxes. Let's say we raise corporate taxes 10%, but offer a 10% "patriot" tax cut for businesses that are not holding their tax obligations hostage. The exact numbers and structure are up to debate, but the key concept is punishing noncompliance instead of rewarding compliance.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    20. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      Huh, I just checked Turbo Tax. I didn't see the "open a shell company in Northern Ireland via another shell company based in Delaware, and transfer all my assets to Northern Ireland to avoid taxes" checkbox. But maybe I just didn't look hard enough.

      I've also tried to "comprehensively evaluate the tax code" (via turbo tax) to get my net taxes to a percentage rivaling some corporations, but I came to the conclusion that I'd have to donate 75% of my gross salary to a charity in order to do so.

    21. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Didn't we try that for the last 8 years, and we ended up with 3% growth (well below historic averages) as a result?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    22. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Not to a real extent. By "not ass-backwards" I mean single-payer, not Nixoncare. Also, regarding growth (a pretty stupid metric in the first place), there was that whole "global economy crashing" thing. Plus, we expanded the stupid wars that we should have gotten out of.

      In other countries, Obama would be considered center-right to right. I'm talking about actually being on the left.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    23. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So then, perhaps you can explain how companies are now repatriating massive amounts of capital, and then re-investing in new buildings, factories, and employees here in the US? All happening after our corporate tax rates were cut down to a point to be competitive with the EU and OECD (you do know that our statutory, effective, and average corporate tax rates were at or very near the top, didn't you?). Why did business wait until then to explode in the US. Why is growth a bad thing?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    24. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by MaryannG · · Score: 1

      Ah! I see the issue here. You have decided that avoidance is the same as evasion because your emotions overwhelm actual reality. I wonder...when you drive down the road do you wish you were pulled over every time and given a citation for speeding? I mean, you likely saw the signs that described the allowable speed limit. Why did you not simply drive faster? Why did you avoid (dare I say "evade") the fine? The only difference between your equality and this one is how one personally feels about the situation...because the laws in neither case magically changed to transmute avoidance to evasion. There is a reason why there are two different terms for them...they're NOT the same thing. Every one of us observes the rules and the letter of the law so as to avoid undesirable consequences. That includes you. Why, if it's okay for you, is it not okay for others? A company is, ultimately, people. Those people gather to discuss how best to govern and manage the company. One of the aspects they examine and make decisions about is how to account for the operations of their business so as to avoid paying taxes to a government. The government of the United States just changed the rules and, now perhaps, companies will decide to conduct their financial business under our auspices and, therefore, pay the taxes those activities produce. We go from zero to something...and your entire argument is that this is bad...because they followed the rules and successfully avoided doing something...were they a person...that could best and most accurately be described as "stupid". Others not being stupid offends you somehow. You are, of course, welcome to embrace your opinions and ideas and even espouse them to others...but you cannot twist meanings of words because, minus such falsities, your opinions are exposed as fallacy and folly.

      --
      Social Media Handywoman at Texas Boys Balloo
    25. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood my point entirely. I feel that what the law IS conflicts with what the law WOULD BE under an equitable system that is a democracy instead of an oligarchy. By public opinion, corporate tax rates should increase, but policy does not reflect public opinion.

      It's similar to, and directly related to, how lobbyists are the least trusted profession because the public perceives their role as bribery. Legally, it is distinct from bribery, but it is a legal distinction without a practical difference.

      The law can be and often is a farce, as anyone who has studied history will know well.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    26. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I didn't say growth was a bad thing, I said it was a poor metric. A lower GINI coefficient, or wage increases that roughly match productivity increases are better indicators of overall economic health, although even those really need broader context, but context doesn't make for good memes.

      As for the "why now," there are two main factors.
      1) They were planning on doing these things at roughly the same levels at roughly the same timeframe, and announced it as a way of encouraging more handouts.
      2) The reason they were hiding their money was because they knew a holiday like this would come, and that there were no disincentives for holding out. So, this behavior only encourages further abuse. You're like the idiots who feel grateful that they get a tax refund instead of being pissed that the government needlessly jacked their money for the rest of the year.

      Solving the disincentives part is the solution, but since both parties are controlled by lobbyists, we don't have that as an option. We can get the money we should get if we're willing to use a stick now and again instead of just a carrot all of the time. Punish those that use tax havens, and they won't use tax havens. Greater transparency on shell corporations would also make solving these problems easier.

      Finally, as others pointed out, US taxes aren't high, except for nominally.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    27. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      We are talking corporate taxes, and for those we're right at or very near the top. Well ahead of most of Europe in terms of statutory, average, and effective corporate tax rates. Why do companies do things like relocate to Ireland, the Netherlands, and other places in the EU? Because it was cheaper than the US.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    28. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Corporate tax rates for the US were near the highest in the world. Not just statutory, but effective tax rates. Companies are now bringing back cash and operations because it's financially viable now. Or should corporations just pay and pay and pay? You take every deduction you can - why shouldn't someone else?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    29. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      You take every deduction you can - why shouldn't someone else?

      I take a standard deduction, actually.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    30. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      On a corporate tax rate basis - what we're discussing here - the US was heavily taxed. Fourth place in the OECD for effective tax rate, third place for average tax rate. When a business is looking to keep its profits (or, actually, not act as a tax collector for the local Government as taxes are passed through to customers) the effective tax rate is quite important. And it's why countries like Ireland and others set a low tax rate, or allow things like "double Dutch" and other plans to lower tax rates. Now that the US has a more sane corporate tax rate - I predict we'll see less of these issues coming up as there is less pressure to get legally creative.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    31. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Your childish point of view makes no sense, no corporation is going to pay taxes it doesn't have to. It is not evasion when they legally don't have to pay, quit making up definitions for words outside the dictionary.

    32. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      It's a legal distinction without a practical difference. Lobbying is legalized bribery. Enhanced interrogation is legalized torture. Tax avoidance is legalized tax evasion. All should be referred to as their criminal form instead of the euphemism, because euphemisms get in the way of actually addressing problems. I'm calling a spade a spade, and not mincing words just because of legal loopholes. Do I need to pull up a George Carlin routine to explain to you how euphemisms are used to conceal abuse?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    33. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by MaryannG · · Score: 1

      So, let me get this straight...governmental tax policy should follow "public opinion" because why again? Because the public is well informed? Because the public understands basic economics much less more complex theories? THAT'S your response? Because public opinion? I don't know why that would surprise me though given that your entire other argument is based entirely on what YOU feel the law should be. Lowering the tax rate makes it more attractive for businesses to do their thing in the United States. This means more jobs, more tax revenues, more...well...everything. More jobs, incidentally, means that more people work and that those people make more money. That, in turn, also leads to more tax revenue via income taxes, sales taxes and so on. In fact, given that you think HIGHER corporate taxes are the way to go (they're not but hey, we skipped proven economic reality already) then you're likely also one of those folks who think income redistribution is also a good thing. Do you know why more money in the middle and lower classes' hands is a good thing? Because they spend it and are taxed on it. Does the source of the money matter if the middle and lower classes have more of it? It doesn't when it comes to taxation revenue. Discussions like this always come down to two sides: factual reality and "feelings". Forming national fiscal policy based on feelings is an incredibly poor way to go.

      --
      Social Media Handywoman at Texas Boys Balloo
    34. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      So, let me get this straight...governmental tax policy should follow "public opinion" because why again?

      Public opinion should in some way reflect public opinion because we live in a democracy. Now, we should weigh that against the opinions and advice of reputable economists, but guess what, reputable economists don't support supply-side economics, which is what this is.

      Lowering the tax rate makes...[incoherent Alzheimer's-riddled Laffer curve bullshit that doesn't reflect reality]

      Our tax policy is not supported by data, is not supported by the majority of economists, and it is not supported by the public. The only group that supports it are campaign donors, their paid "experts," and gullible peons like you. Even some billionaires that directly benefit from these policies, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, say that we don't need to lower corporate tax rates.

      Discussions like this always come down to two sides: factual reality and "feelings". Forming national fiscal policy based on feelings is an incredibly poor way to go.

      You are right about that. You just don't know which side of that discussion you are actually on.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    35. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      We have rule of law and your mere opinions on legal things being a "euphemism" are irrelevant. If you get your viewpoints from a stand up comedian don't expect to be taken seriously.

    36. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I'd be far more concerned about someone who can't evaluate systems outside of the current rule of law. Many of the worst atrocities in human history were legal under rule of law.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    37. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      as I recall our system helped to put down those systems

    38. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1
      Our system helped put down the Nazis, but the Russians did most of the work. Even during that time, though, we put the Japanese in interment camps, which is still on the side of very awful things.
      Our system included slavery, and de facto segregation was upheld as law for decades afterwards.
      Our system still includes Gitmo.

      If you buy into not being concerned with law because we are the "good guys," which appears to roughly approximate your position, then you're even worse than someone who merely supports law, because you've got a dogmatic belief that blinds you to abuse.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    39. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Yes the Russians did the most work. Our system found the internment of our Japanese citizens to be wrong and compensation and apologies were made. Our system found slavery and racism to be wrong. See, our system is self-improving, we're not the good guys but the guys with a system that can fix itself.

      Gitmo is for enemy combatants and terrorists, your *opinion* of it is may not be held be all.

    40. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      See, our system is self-improving, we're not the good guys but the guys with a system that can fix itself.

      Self-repair requires criticism. If there is no criticism, there is no self-repair, which is why fixing things often takes so long.

      Gitmo is for enemy combatants and terrorists, your *opinion* of it is may not be held be all.

      Gitmo is full of people we asked other governments to round up. We asked for terrorists, but they just gave us people they didn't like, which doesn't correlate all that strongly to actual terrorists. Plus, the methods employed there are useless, as torture does not work for gathering useful intel, which has been known for a very long time.

      If you're defending Gitmo, no wonder this conversation isn't going anywhere.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    41. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      At least 30% of the people released went back to terrorism, I'd call that strong correlation with gitmo actually housing dirtbags. And there might be good reason those detainees weren't liked by other governments, perhaps they were violent terrorists and their supporters.

      Defend it? I'd just say it's a good place to keep lowlife.

    42. Re:I can see the CNN headline now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1
      At least 30% of the people released went back to terrorism, I'd call that strong correlation with gitmo actually housing dirtbags.

      You'd probably become a terrorist too if you were anally raped and tortured. Also, the principles of justice are not based on "correlation," and certainly not a correlation where 70% are innocent. I'm done. You're too damn stupid to talk with, and I have a lot of patience.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  3. so now more IP / patent trolls in the usa! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    so now more IP / patent trolls in the usa!

  4. You are so full of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:You are so full of shit by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      So, temporal tax evasion, then.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:You are so full of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whoa, there, tiger. Lets stick to TFA here. We aren't talking about repatriated profits. we are talking about how taxes are calculated when a company licenses IP to a foreign subsidiary. Choosing what international branch licenses IP to what international branch doesn't actually move anything anywhere, its just numbers on paper. So while its true that this change could make those internal deals taxable in the US, that isn't really the point of this new tax loophole.

      The real point is to pay less tax in the case where you license to a foreign company that is not a subsidiary of the US company that owns the IP. This way, when US companies license their brands to foreign manufacturers, they will have a lowered tax burden. This is essentially how Trump's hotel business makes its money....

      Trump literally gave himself a tax cut and you are trying to defend it with an unrelated story about Apple repatriating overseas income.

    3. Re:You are so full of shit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and companies will keep playing this game until the loopholes allowing them to stash cash overseas in the first place are closed. They can wait out governments for decades, no problem. Stashing the cash doesn't even really inconvenience them.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  5. Meaningless by houghi · · Score: 1

    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.
  6. Oh noes! More tax cut "fail"!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:Oh noes! More tax cut "fail"!!! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The ONLY President in US history to never see 3% growth in the US economy in any year of his term..

      If you're pulling out simplistic numbers, then clearly the answer is raising taxes.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Oh noes! More tax cut "fail"!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The ONLY President in US history to never see 3% growth in the US economy in any year of his term..

      If you're pulling out simplistic numbers, then clearly the answer is raising taxes.

      What's "pulled out" about the fact that the US never saw 3% annual growth under Obama - the only President that never had that? Even Jimmy Fucking Carter managed to get over that bar - it's not that hard.

      Obama spent his entire Presidency talking about "remaking the US economy" - meaning along "progressive"/redistributionist lines. He waged a "war on coal" and threw every effort he could to stop fracking. He lived in a pie-in-the-sky world powered by solar, wind, and unicorn farts. It's no surprise employment, wages, and the entire US economy stagnated under his lead - he'd never been in charge of even a two-person 7-11 shift in his entire life.

      Given stated economic goals are just about the same as those Hugo Chavez implemented for Venezuela that resulted in an utter, deadly train-wreck of an economy it's probably a good thing Obama was incompetent in getting things done.

      Hell, that's a lot more relevant than your bullshit with what? A 0.06 correlation coefficient?

    3. Re:Oh noes! More tax cut "fail"!!! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, relish your little prize, worker bee, and keep on voting for those massive tax breaks for the 1%, maybe you'll get another!

      This is all by design. The bonuses and time-limited tax breaks for the middle and lower classes, designed to keep your taxes from going up while Trump still needs your votes, are a one-time thing, but the wealth transfer to the rich is forever.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Oh noes! More tax cut "fail"!!! by bwd777 · · Score: 1

      Letting people keep more of their own money is not a transfer.

    5. Re:Oh noes! More tax cut "fail"!!! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The evonomic effects of changes in laws are usually (that means the US) seen about ten years later.
      E.g. Clintons laws taking effect during the Bushs ruling, and the Bushs laws taking effect during Obamas ruling.
      Get a clue man, it ain't that hard.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Oh noes! More tax cut "fail"!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obama also inherited the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression. When you start off with your predecessor pushing you off a cliff, then OF COURSE you're going to have a lot of ground to make up.

  7. One tax for money collected in that country. by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:One tax for money collected in that country. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      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.

      That is exactly what 99% of all countries do. Even down to the personal level. You pay taxes where you earn your income, end of story. The US, however, wants a share of ALL your worldwide income, regardless of where you made it - or even if you are in the US at all. So you get the proliferation of overseas subsidiaries as legally separate entities as a maneuver to avoid double-taxation (yes, the US gives you credit for overseas taxes paid, but only up to a point - and then you get to pay overseas AND US income taxes on everything above, and the limits are pretty low...)

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:One tax for money collected in that country. by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      One example is a building contractor makes ***lots*** of money. He or she also has ***lots*** of expenses (tools, people, materials) so deductions are allowed. Of course the whole tax thing becomes political as elected officials make laws so they and their friends don't pay taxes but yet get benefits of govt spending. i.e. area of town where mayor, governor, congressman lives has the best roads and infrastructure. Others also game the system. Many self employed that have a nice standard of living (exclusive neighborhoods, get to stay at the best hotel rooms, boats, airplanes, always fly first class) but when they file taxes they are able to write much of it off so their "profit" is about $0. Steve Forbes proposed a much simpler tax system: flat 17% on wages. BUT he and others like him make money on investment earnings, not wages.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  8. Ah, supply side economics by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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/
    1. Re:Ah, supply side economics by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Ironically, it appears you did make a typo, which ruined an otherwise clever post.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  9. Let's be clear by zifn4b · · Score: 2

    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
  10. The Death Tax Lie Again(was Re:A good first step.) by atrimtab · · Score: 1

    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!
  11. Amnesty by ghoul · · Score: 1

    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**
  12. Re:The Death Tax Lie Again(was Re:A good first ste by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    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;
  13. The difference is I don't have pro lobbyists by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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/
  14. Flat taxes don't work by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    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/
    1. Re:Flat taxes don't work by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Excellent summary, I'm saving this. I also saved your "There is No Left" essay that I post in forums that bitch about "radical leftists" like Clinton.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  15. No typo by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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/
    1. Re:No typo by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      And you actually wrote "Is there anything _is_ can do". I agree with your sentiment, but you did actually make a typo.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  16. True, but the repatriatation makes things worse by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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/
  17. Re:The Death Tax Lie Again(was Re:A good first ste by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    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;
  18. not property by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    Intellectual monopoly is an affront to human dignity and a millstone around the neck of the economy. It must be abolished.

  19. Re:bullshit by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    The numbers I used come from the CBO and are based on actual US Tax returns. The typical company in the US actually does pay a higher income tax rate than most of the other members of the OECD.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  20. Re:more lynwood lies by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    You do realize you can have a higher tax - EFFECTIVE, meaning what is actually paid - tax rate, even though the share of GDP is lower. Your own link shows this to be the case. Do you have data otherwise?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  21. Re:bullshit by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Your own link confirms my claim that we had an incredibly high marginal, average, and effective tax rate. Thank you for proving my point - and proving you're just a troll...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!