• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.

DISCUSSION: Big money in politics, Voter Suppression, Oligarchy

pr0xyt0xin

Shaper Savant
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
7,996
Reaction score
737
Points
103
If moderators want to alter the Thread title I'm open to it.

This seems to be something that is far more unifying (even on this forum) than any other issue. Both Republicans and Democrats (the ones who aren't taking contributions) are mostly in agreement that big money in politics is a bad thing. Many are in agreement that overturning Citizens United would be a positive thing, but for some reason it still hasn't happened.

But big money isn't the only issue when electing officials, voter suppression is making it even harder to combat the issue of party elites deciding elections for us. Voter caging and other underhanded techniques especially in ethnic communities, and some might even argue the electoral college and lack of modern technology in voting (phone/internet), all lead to the same end result of a government which is controlled by a very select few special interests.
 
Democracy is a fragile institution that can only stand on the shoulders of an informed and politically-active electorate. Unless people start to take this brutal truth seriously, the ignorant apathy of the masses will continue to embolden the elites seeking to rig the game in their own favor.
 
Democracy is a fragile institution that can only stand on the shoulders of an informed and politically-active electorate. Unless people start to take this brutal truth seriously, the ignorant apathy of the masses will continue to embolden the elites seeking to rig the game in their own favor.

This is a well-crafted statement. I could see myself quoting it in the future.

Regarding the topic at hand, I have been delving into the works of a couple journalists:
Nomi Prins (author of All the Presidents' Bankers)
and
Greg Palast (author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy)

I think you're right in claiming that ignorant apathy is rampant and a root cause for the current state of the nation. But I think it's a fair to also say, that shouldn't hinder a democracy from functioning. People should want to be involved in politics, but high population and corrupt bureaucracy should not fill the void of political activism on an individual level.

What I am trying to say is there should be legislation to prevent these things. We need to make Corruption in US Politics ILLEGAL. Because as it stands now it is legal and encouraged.
 
This is a well-crafted statement. I could see myself quoting it in the future.

Regarding the topic at hand, I have been delving into the works of a couple journalists:
Nomi Prins (author of All the Presidents' Bankers)
and
Greg Palast (author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy)

I think you're right in claiming that ignorant apathy is rampant and a root cause for the current state of the nation. But I think it's a fair to also say, that shouldn't hinder a democracy from functioning. People should want to be involved in politics, but high population and corrupt bureaucracy should not fill the void of political activism on an individual level.

What I am trying to say is there should be legislation to prevent these things. We need to make Corruption in US Politics ILLEGAL. Because as it stands now it is legal and encouraged.

The problem is that people ignoring the fundamental nature of democracy - it works only for those who work to make democracy work for them (a bit confusing I know, but bear with me for a moment here). By not voting, you are forsaking your right to decide governance in favor of those who do vote. Ideally, it shouldn't be that way, but that is what democracy is.

The issue of money in American politics is the most pressing one right now because it has supplanted the vote of the individual as the primary determinant of who gets to govern and what laws are passed.

People are rallying after Bernie Sanders because he is saying out loud what every sane person with a functioning brain has instinctively known all along but was either too busy, too weak, too scared, too disenfranchised or too apathetic to bring it up and fight against it themselves. That is why I say it should be the civic duty of every citizen to be educated, informed and politically active. Elected representatives are merely agents who will work for their own self-interests unless and until they are held accountable by the people.

During this presidential election cycle, it delights me to see this rising wave of anti-establishment sentiment across the political spectrum. However, one must make a disturbing prophecy here that the establishment knows that the current enthusiasm for someone like Bernie Sanders is only a transient state and will not carry over to the equally-if-note-more-important gubernatorial, House or Senate elections. If you thought Obama got nothing done because of Republican interference, wait to till you see the epic cockblock both Republicans and Democrats have in store for a President Sanders.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that people ignoring the fundamental nature of democracy - it works only for those who work to make democracy work for them (a bit confusing I know, but bear with me for a moment here). By not voting, you are forsaking your right to decide governance in favor of those who do vote. Ideally, it shouldn't be that way, but that is what democracy is.

The issue of money in American politics is the most pressing one right now because it has supplanted the vote of the individual as the primary determinant of who gets to govern and what laws are passed.

People are rallying after Bernie Sanders because he is saying out loud what every sane person with a functioning brain has instinctively known all along but was either too busy, too weak, too scared, too disenfranchised or too apathetic to bring it up and fight against it themselves. That is why I say it should be the civic duty of every citizen to be educated, informed and politically active. Elected representatives are merely agents who will work for their own self-interests unless and until they are held accountable by the people.

Or too paid.

During this presidential election cycle, it delights me to see this rising wave of anti-establishment sentiment across the political spectrum. However, one must make a disturbing prophecy here that the establishment knows that the current enthusiasm for someone like Bernie Sanders is only a transient state and will not carry over to the equally-if-note-more-important gubernatorial, House or Senate elections. If you thought Obama got nothing done because of Republican interference, wait to till you see the epic cockblock both Republicans and Democrats have in store for a President Sanders.

Surely. I fully suspect blocking of cock will be in full force when Sanders takes office. Particularly if "Bernie's army" doesnt take off quite as strongly as they should. But here's my thinking:
Boomers are for the most part convinced that the establishment was built for them and the betterment of their lives. Convincing them otherwise is like trying to lead a horse to lava and make it drink. Believe wholeheartedly their vote matters because of the movements they incited in their youth
Gen X is probably slightly less convinced, but I suspect they essentially invented the pretense of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Gen Y just doesn't care. I am almost positive the majority of these people think so little of politics that they assume their lives will be better if it's never mentioned in the same room as them. I don't necessarily blame Ferris Bueller, but the thought has crossed my mind. Caring about important things isn't cool to Gen Y.
Millennials who don't see a win now (instant gratification) will likely end up being in the same category as Gen Y. They were raised to believe that they can do anything they want and realized quickly that this was not the case.
So now my point: if it does happen, if Millennials watch as social media and their other various tools successfully trigger this Bernie phenomenon. We'll have another generation of activists who vote as consistently and as passionately as the Boomers. Once that happens, the levies break. At least... That's the hope.
 
The issues facing America today are all of our faults. You can't blame American Corporate Capitalism when you have the power to help change it. We created ACC and let it run amok.

Politicians are the best we've got. Can you believe that. There's a select few narcissists that even want to be elected and even fewer with the credentials to do so. The American people put these "crooks" into office.

Once the **** hits the fan, America will stand up and do what's right. We always have. But in the meantime, we've always been a nation of procrastinators waiting for the **** to smack us in the face.
 
The issues facing America today are all of our faults. You can't blame American Corporate Capitalism when you have the power to help change it. We created ACC and let it run amok.

Politicians are the best we've got. Can you believe that. There's a select few narcissists that even want to be elected and even fewer with the credentials to do so. The American people put these "crooks" into office.

Once the **** hits the fan, America will stand up and do what's right. We always have. But in the meantime, we've always been a nation of procrastinators waiting for the **** to smack us in the face.

Of course I agree with your sentiment (again, I find it very hard to believe anyone is going to come in here saying they think any of this stuff is a good thing).

But as far as not placing blame is concerned, I have been of voting age for 6 years. I sure as hell am not taking the blame. Sure the collective "we" includes me and everyone in my circles, but it's not like ACC hasn't actively attempted to swindle us. Saying we only have ourselves to blame is like saying people who get their bike stolen are asking for it, or people who leave restaurants without paying are well-warranted. Now, I understand that we can't trust the honor system because honor basically doesn't exist in the US. So that's why I'm saying people should stop procrastinating and enact policies for legitimate change now. Or as soon as realistically possible.

Of course personally I believe that Bernie's army could be a good first stride in this regard. But there's only one way to find out.
 
If moderators want to alter the Thread title I'm open to it.

This seems to be something that is far more unifying (even on this forum) than any other issue. Both Republicans and Democrats (the ones who aren't taking contributions) are mostly in agreement that big money in politics is a bad thing. Many are in agreement that overturning Citizens United would be a positive thing, but for some reason it still hasn't happened.

But big money isn't the only issue when electing officials, voter suppression is making it even harder to combat the issue of party elites deciding elections for us. Voter caging and other underhanded techniques especially in ethnic communities, and some might even argue the electoral college and lack of modern technology in voting (phone/internet), all lead to the same end result of a government which is controlled by a very select few special interests.

People who are adamantly against Citizens United tend to be people who do not understand our legal system. Firstly, Citizens United is a fairly narrow holding that leaves Congress with quite a bit of wiggleroom. All Citizens United essentially says is that a corporation's identity cannot be the sole ground for prohibiting exercise of political speech.

Second, Bernie getting into the White House won't overturn it. SCOTUS does not overturn itself lightly. It takes a major error to get SCOTUS to go against the principle of stare decisis. Its why the Roberts Court, despite having votes, has not overturned Roe v. Wade. The Court will generally only overturn itself if a principle is so fundamentally flawed that it cannot stand (think Plessy v. Ferguson or Dredd Scott). It doesn't overturn itself simply because there is a wave of support or opposition because the Constitution is not a flexible document that should be changed with every political shift. The Supreme Court does remain fairly apolitical, in that regard. If a decision is based on sound constitutional principles (and Citizens United is), you are hard pressed to overturn it. Even the Justices who dissented respect stare decisis and are unlikely to vote to overturn it.

Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment would result in Citizens United being overturned and such an amendment is both unlikely and presents a dangerous slippery slope.

I disagree with the Court's holding in Citizens United. I also see how they got there. Its not the cluster **** decision that Sanders makes it out to be. Sanders is using it as a rallying point to get the ignorant, who really do not understand the decision, to rally behind the idea of overturning it, which isn't something he can actually do.

In fact, Citizens United is not even the most pressing issue in the field of election law. Most post-Citizens United studies indicate that money in politics actually opens up avenues of speech for all people and leads to increased discourse, so it may be a moot point. The real way votes are suppressed is through political gerrymandering. If anything needs to be stopped, it is that. And it is actually within Congress's power to limit gerrymandering without crossing a constitutional line.
 
Last edited:
People who are adamantly against Citizens United tend to be people who do not understand our legal system. Firstly, Citizens United is a fairly narrow holding that leaves Congress with quite a bit of wiggleroom. All Citizens United essentially says is that a corporation's identity cannot be the sole ground for prohibiting exercise of political speech.

Second, Bernie getting into the White House won't overturn it. SCOTUS does not overturn itself lightly. It takes a major error to get SCOTUS to go against the principle of stare decisis. Its why the Roberts Court, despite having votes, has not overturned Roe v. Wade. The Court will generally only overturn itself if a principle is so fundamentally flawed that it cannot stand (think Plessy v. Ferguson or Dredd Scott). It doesn't overturn itself simply because there is a wave of support or opposition because the Constitution is not a flexible document that should be changed with every political shift. The Supreme Court does remain fairly apolitical, in that regard. If a decision is based on sound constitutional principles (and Citizens United is), you are hard pressed to overturn it. Even the Justices who dissented respect stare decisis and are unlikely to vote to overturn it.

Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment would result in Citizens United being overturned and such an amendment is both unlikely and presents a dangerous slippery slope.

I disagree with the Court's holding in Citizens United. I also see how they got there. Its not the cluster **** decision that Sanders makes it out to be. Sanders is using it as a rallying point to get the ignorant, who really do not understand the decision, to rally behind the idea of overturning it, which isn't something he can actually do.

In fact, Citizens United is not even the most pressing issue in the field of election law. Most post-Citizens United studies indicate that money in politics actually opens up avenues of speech for all people and leads to increased discourse, so it may be a moot point. The real way votes are suppressed is through political gerrymandering. If anything needs to be stopped, it is that. And it is actually within Congress's power to limit gerrymandering without crossing a constitutional line.

I'm actually strongly advocating an amendment to overturn CU personally. An amendment would be extremely hard to "unamend." This **** should be illegal. I can't stress that opinion strongly enough.

If I understand your slippery slope argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's essentially a nod to the first amendment. That we can't tell corporations how to spend their money to influence people because then we'd have to do the same for corporate media outlets, institutions of learning and the rest. But this is the common sense policy stuff. If they ratify an amendment in the name of democracy, I'm thoroughly unconvinced they wouldnt establish the specific ground rules.

You're also a condescending dude, calling anyone but you ignorant for rallying behind opposing something so blatantly anti-democratic, but I'm sure you've been told that before.

We do agree on gerrymandering though. So, *handshake* there.
 
DNC Rolls Back Obama Ban on Contributions from Federal Lobbyists

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

Since it was introduced, lobbyists and corporate advocates in Washington have complained about the ban and other limitations imposed by Obama. The only portion of the old rules now remaining in place is that lobbyists and PAC representatives will still not be able to attend events that feature Obama, Vice President Biden or their spouses, according to Mark Paustenbach, deputy communications director for the DNC.
Hmmm . . . the rule changes benefit Hillary (seemingly at the disadvantage of Sanders), but it still protects the "appearance" of a ban for Obama and Biden.

Principled people, those Democrats . . . :hehe:
 
HAH! I hate it so much. lol. DWS is going to single-handedly throw this election to Trump or Cruz.

If anyone is interested, Tim Canova is running for election in FL23 (Debbie's district) I can't say that I know his history very well, but where he stands on the issues syncs up pretty well with what we've been talking about in this thread.
 
It has been seen citizen do not get the rights there are many laws which are been availed to people.A legal action must be take for the people who break the law
 
Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment would result in Citizens United being overturned and such an amendment is both unlikely and presents a dangerous slippery slope.
TYT/Wolf Pac has been working/coordinating on the state by state level to get to a constitutional convention in which such a constitutional amendment could be introduced if they could hitch their wagon onto Bernie's momentum could it get done?

In fact, Citizens United is not even the most pressing issue in the field of election law. Most post-Citizens United studies indicate that money in politics actually opens up avenues of speech for all people and leads to increased discourse, so it may be a moot point. The real way votes are suppressed is through political gerrymandering. If anything needs to be stopped, it is that. And it is actually within Congress's power to limit gerrymandering without crossing a constitutional line.
Interesting but aren't the district lines drawn at the state level? Short of threatening funding what can the federal government even do there?
 
http://www.thenation.com/article/de...orporate-giveaway-to-the-tune-of-400-billion/

Did anyone else hear about this? Is it true? If yes, then why the f**k isn't everyone talking about this?

So Corporation X earns $100 million in taxable income in Country Z, which has a corporate income tax rate of 20%. Corporation X pays the $20 million and deposits the remaining $80 million in the biggest bank in Country Z.

Why should Corporation X repatriate the money to the US, only to pay an additional $15 million to the United States Government (after the Foreign Tax Credit is applied*)? Boards of directors have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders--why should they authorize a completely unnecessary $15 million dollar hit on income they have already paid taxes on?

These articles frequently leave out the fact that, if earned in a country with a corporate income tax structure, taxable income is subject to that income tax. Now, why is that? Why, one would think they want to imply that these profits are entirely tax-free until brought back to US shores. :cwink:

*I'm not going to go and calculate the exact Foreign Credit--just think of it as a general estimate.
 
So Corporation X earns $100 million in taxable income in Country Z, which has a corporate income tax rate of 20%. Corporation X pays the $20 million and deposits the remaining $80 million in the biggest bank in Country Z.

Why should Corporation X repatriate the money to the US, only to pay an additional $15 million to the United States Government (after the Foreign Tax Credit is applied*)? Boards of directors have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders--why should they authorize a completely unnecessary $15 million dollar hit on income they have already paid taxes on?

These articles frequently leave out the fact that, if earned in a country with a corporate income tax structure, taxable income is subject to that income tax. Now, why is that? Why, one would think they want to imply that these profits are entirely tax-free until brought back to US shores. :cwink:

*I'm not going to go and calculate the exact Foreign Credit--just think of it as a general estimate.

Because of a little something called stateless income. Might wanna look into that before buying into the whole silly premise of the "poor corporations" fleeing overseas and why we must lower the corporate tax rate even further in a tax code already littered with holes as big as craters.

:whatever:
 
And of course, considering the fact that corporate tax avoidance is a global phenomenon, especially with multinational corporations abusing mechanisms like transfer pricing to overprice goods and services and bringing down taxable income even further. Corporations don't avoid tax simply in the U.S; they avoid them everywhere.
 
Because of a little something called stateless income. Might wanna look into that before buying into the whole silly premise of the "poor corporations" fleeing overseas and why we must lower the corporate tax rate even further in a tax code already littered with holes as big as craters.

:whatever:

Are you aware of the concept of "an example?" I just gave one example asking why earnings subject to an income tax ought to be repatriated just so it can be taxed again, throwing in an additional question related to the fiduciary duty of BODs. In no way did I imply my example is always what happens. In no way did I imply that corporations won't act in ways to minimize or even eliminate taxable income wherever they are. I didn't say they are fleeing overseas just because our tax rates are too high (that's only <I>one</I> reason).

How about answering the questions? Surely someone as gifted with such knowledge and wisdom as you have can do that. :yay:
 
Last edited:
bycoffe-campaign-finance3.png
 
Are you aware of the concept of "an example?" I just gave one example asking why earnings subject to an income tax ought to be repatriated just so it can be taxed again, throwing in an additional question related to the fiduciary duty of BODs. In no way did I imply my example is always what happens. In no way did I imply that corporations won't act in ways to minimize or even eliminate taxable income wherever they are. I didn't say they are fleeing overseas just because our tax rates are too high (that's only <I>one</I> reason).

How about answering the questions? Surely someone as gifted with such knowledge and wisdom as you have can do that. :yay:

What was your question then? I already answered the one about why those profits are essentially considered as "tax-free" and why corporations don't really pay "double taxes", because they haven't been taxed to begin with.

As for fiduciary duty to shareholders, those do not take precedence over legal compliance. As far as I see it, the aforementioned U.S corporate tax rate rules are perfectly fair (let's just forget about the tax code loopholes, difference between statutory and effective rates and all that nonsense for now) and I see no reason why anyone would think otherwise.
 
What was your question then? I already answered the one about why those profits are essentially considered as "tax-free" and why corporations don't really pay "double taxes", because they haven't been taxed to begin with.

As for fiduciary duty to shareholders, those do not take precedence over legal compliance. As far as I see it, the aforementioned U.S corporate tax rate rules are perfectly fair (let's just forget about the tax code loopholes, difference between statutory and effective rates and all that nonsense for now) and I see no reason why anyone would think otherwise.

1. If a company pays income taxes on income earned overseas to the country the income was earned in, then that income isn't "tax free." It might not be taxed at your preferred rate, but it has been taxed. My question gave a specific example of this: A US-based company earns $100 million in taxable income overseas, pays the 20% rate to the country, and puts the remaining $80 million in the bank. My question to you is:

Why should the corporation repatriate the money to the US only to pay an additional $15 million in taxes?

2. Yes, fiduciary duty doesn't take precedence over legal compliance. But, since corporations are not legally required to repatriate overseas earnings, legal compliance isn't an issue here. But, fiduciary duty certainly can be.

3. Fairness, of course, is a wholly subjective term.
 
1. If a company pays income taxes on income earned overseas to the country the income was earned in, then that income isn't "tax free." It might not be taxed at your preferred rate, but it has been taxed.

And my point is that it often isn't taxed due to corporations abusing mechanisms like transfer pricing and stateless income.

My question gave a specific example of this: A US-based company earns $100 million in taxable income overseas, pays the 20% rate to the country, and puts the remaining $80 million in the bank. My question to you is:

Why should the corporation repatriate the money to the US only to pay an additional $15 million in taxes?

Uhhh, because the company clearly takes advantage of the US economic and financial infrastructure that helped it grow in the first place. These corporations are still American, they are listed on American stock exchanges, they take advantage of America's capital, financial and labor markets. They benefit from close proximity to the world's leading educational and research powerhouses such as Ivy league universities that are also subsidized by the government. Many countries follow and adopt guidelines from American regulatory agencies, and the fact that corporations based here have the advantage of influencing policy decision making here allows them to reap the rewards elsewhere. If the U.S ever adopts protectionary measures, corporations outside the U.S will suffer more due to having being cut off from the world's largest economy and the primary source of the world's main reserve currency. And I can go on and on...

Fact is, if they don't like it here, they can delist their shares from our exchanges, bugger off to their tax havens that are mere parking lots and offer no true economic or financial advantages. Tax havens simply do not have the labor, capital, technology, resources or infrastructure to support industrial or commercial activities on the scale required for MNCs to succeed. There's a reason why these leeching multinational corporations haven't left the U.S because if they truly wanted to, they very well would have a long time ago.

2. Yes, fiduciary duty doesn't take precedence over legal compliance. But, since corporations are not legally required to repatriate overseas earnings, legal compliance isn't an issue here. But, fiduciary duty certainly can be.

I am also of the opinion that they shouldn't be forced to repatriate earnings. The U.S should simply mandate that all corporations listed in the U.S will have to pay the differential tax on the total income (that also includes income from foreign divisions and subsidiaries) declared in the 10-K form they file with the SEC, not just income earned in the U.S. Being in the U.S has its privileges and corporations will have to pay for it.

3. Fairness, of course, is a wholly subjective term.

Not entirely, no.
 
And my point is that it often isn't taxed due to corporations abusing mechanisms like transfer pricing and stateless income.

And I'm not arguing that these don't occur. So, we're making different arguments here.

Uhhh, because the company clearly takes advantage of the US economic and financial infrastructure that helped it grow in the first place. These corporations are still American, they are listed on American stock exchanges, they take advantage of America's capital, financial and labor markets. They benefit from close proximity to the world's leading educational and research powerhouses such as Ivy league universities that are also subsidized by the government. Many countries follow and adopt guidelines from American regulatory agencies, and the fact that corporations based here have the advantage of influencing policy decision making here allows them to reap the rewards elsewhere. If the U.S ever adopts protectionary measures, corporations outside the U.S will suffer more due to having being cut off from the world's largest economy and the primary source of the world's main reserve currency. And I can go on and on...

Fact is, if they don't like it here, they can delist their shares from our exchanges, bugger off to their tax havens that are mere parking lots and offer no true economic or financial advantages. Tax havens simply do not have the labor, capital, technology, resources or infrastructure to support industrial or commercial activities on the scale required for MNCs to succeed. There's a reason why these leeching multinational corporations haven't left the U.S because if they truly wanted to, they very well would have a long time ago.
This is actually a fair argument. I don't agree with it, because I think it could open a Pandora's Box of a market-stifling tax and regulatory structure--a quick example, how much of US-earned taxable income would be due to India, if that US company relies on a majority Indian-born-and-educated workforce. But, I do see your point. :up:


I am also of the opinion that they shouldn't be forced to repatriate earnings. The U.S should simply mandate that all corporations listed in the U.S will have to pay the differential tax on the total income (that also includes income from foreign divisions and subsidiaries) declared in the 10-K form they file with the SEC, not just income earned in the U.S. Being in the U.S has its privileges and corporations will have to pay for it.
Except the Form 10-K lists net income and not taxable income. Those are not the same number--for example, a fine paid to the US government for a legal violation would be included in net income but would be disallowed as an expense in determining taxable income (Sec 162(f) of the IRC).
 
This is actually a fair argument. I don't agree with it, because I think it could open a Pandora's Box of a market-stifling tax and regulatory structure--a quick example, how much of US-earned taxable income would be due to India, if that US company relies on a majority Indian-born-and-educated workforce. But, I do see your point. :up:

As I said, it is not just the labor force. One or two factors on their own are not sufficient to justify the differential tax rate, it is a combination of all the different factors I mentioned earlier. Furthermore, your example is flawed. India is the world's biggest recipient of one-way foreign remittances from its expatriate population around the world, the highest number coming from the U.S, followed by the Middle East and then Europe. That is why India is right now in a diplomatic tussle with the U.S over the revised rules on the H1B visa that India has benefited so much from.

Except the Form 10-K lists net income and not taxable income. Those are not the same number--for example, a fine paid to the US government for a legal violation would be included in net income but would be disallowed as an expense in determining taxable income (Sec 162(f) of the IRC).

That was not what I meant. I was referring to the fact that in Form 10-K, companies disclose income from both domestic and foreign subsidiaries - that is how the government knows how much in profits corporations have stashed abroad. Instead of waiting for them to bring it here, the government should simply not exclude those items from a corporation's tax liabilities. And I guarantee you, if it ever comes down to it - few, if any, corporations will actually end up paying a differential rate of 15%, because the current effective corporate tax rate in the U.S is itself closer to 20% or so and not the 35% statutory rate that corporate lackeys love to bring up so much. As far as fines not being a tax-deductible expense, say hello to one of the worst loopholes in the U.S tax code.
 
As I said, it is not just the labor force. One or two factors on their own are not sufficient to justify the differential tax rate, it is a combination of all the different factors I mentioned earlier. Furthermore, your example is flawed. India is the world's biggest recipient of one-way foreign remittances from its expatriate population around the world, the highest number coming from the U.S, followed by the Middle East and then Europe. That is why India is right now in a diplomatic tussle with the U.S over the revised rules on the H1B visa that India has benefited so much from.

Well, you're going to need to have factors that are both specific and measurable--not just saying "benefitting from close proximity" to universities and such; otherwise, lawyers will tie up this kind of legislation for years.

That was not what I meant. I was referring to the fact that in Form 10-K, companies disclose income from both domestic and foreign subsidiaries - that is how the government knows how much in profits corporations have stashed abroad. Instead of waiting for them to bring it here, the government should simply not exclude those items from a corporation's tax liabilities. And I guarantee you, if it ever comes down to it - few, if any, corporations will actually end up paying a differential rate of 15%, because the current effective corporate tax rate in the U.S is itself closer to 20% or so and not the 35% statutory rate that corporate lackeys love to bring up so much. As far as fines not being a tax-deductible expense, say hello to one of the worst loopholes in the U.S tax code.
In my line of work, specificity is important. For instance, the Form 10-K doesn't give you taxable income. Period. So, you can't "simply not exclude those items from a corporation's tax liabilities," especially since tax liability actually refers to the taxes owed and not the income (or "profits") subject to taxation. Back when I was in corporate accounting, if the boss had asked me to book the tax liability and I booked the taxable income amount, I doubt my next review would have gone well. :csad:

Here's another place where specificity is important: I did not--I repeat, DID NOT--say that fines weren't tax-deductible as a group. I said that fines paid to the US government for a legal violation weren't deductible. And, they aren't. The link you gave specifically stated as such: "Although the tax law forbids deductions for criminal fines and penalties owed to the government, other kinds of payments &#8212; to compensate victims or correct damages &#8212; are eligible for a tax deduction." So, your article actually proved my example (although looking up 162(f) of the IRC would have accomplished the same.)

And I also don't know why you keep bringing up statutory versus effective rates. I'm well aware of the difference. I even posted on it . . . in 2008. :cwink:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=13790447&highlight=effective#post13790447
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
201,347
Messages
21,948,206
Members
45,738
Latest member
odanrot1961
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"