Harmful tax competition?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Voltron, Jun 21, 2004.

  1. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #1
    [​IMG]
    Hah --- France thinks the USA has low tax rates. [​IMG]
    If we are such a tax haven how many businesses from Europe have outsourced their manufacturing product to our country? And why is it businesses have to put their HQ's over seas to escape from our overburdened taxes?[​IMG]
     
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #2
    For your first question, I note that BMW, Mercedes and Toyota have assembly plants here--and are building more--in order to have a greater net-profit benefit. The production is for the US market, of course.

    As for the other, corporations move their headquarters offshore to go from some given tax structure to a lesser-cost structure. While we might be lower-tax than France, that doesn't mean US rates are as low as in the Bahamas.

    You have two forces at work in the world: Those who want to keep as much of their money as they can; and those who want to tax them for some social purpose. It's only common sense to figure out a way to avoid this latter group.

    :), 'Rat
     
  3. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #3
    funny how chrylser produces their cars in austria....(which has higher tax rates than germany) ?
    many comapnies pay higher taxes here than in germany but there are still maufacturing here
    guess who is the biggest railway track manufactuer of europe (and after a recent purchase even in the _US_) ? voest linz...still paying taxes in austria...


    comparing luxemburg,lichtenstein to US is kinda way off the topic about 'tax paradises'
    many companies profit from the austrian/german/french infrastructure of very good roads/railways etc. which are paid by taxes from citizents...so citizent have to pay taxes for those companies if they just open a bureau in lichtenstein ?

    imagine GM would say "we have a bureau in lichtenstein so we don't pay any taxes anymore" ....

    yeah and the US is far from being a tax heaven ... there are places where there are _zero_ taxes..... and thats the problem not some 10% tax difference
     
  4. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #4
    My problem is the way mega-corp plays states and municipalities off eachother to get "special" tax deals. Only the big ones have the clout to do this so everyone else ends up paying for either their special deal here or their special deal across the state border.

    All perfectly leagal of course, but unfortunate.
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    Ford UK does route sales through Lichtenstein to avoid UK taxes.
     
  6. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    You don't need tax havens, although they can save a lot of money. Toyota for years worked quite a deal for its US sales. Toyota of Japan sold to an allegedly independent Toyota of the US. ToyUS operated at a thin profit margin, as it "paid" much higher prices to ToyJ than a Ford dealer would have paid FoMoCo. ToyJ avoided being in an ownership position of a highly profitable US sales arm which would have paid US taxes on the profits.

    'Rat
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    Yeah, that was about the shape of the Ford deal, too.
     
  8. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #8
    seems to me that, absent other factors, the prime motivation for moving a manufacturing base somewhere is low labor costs, not corporate tax structure.
     
  9. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #9
    Columnists are great to debate. But why waste the time? Where are your own thoughts from REAL news sources? You try and try again to bait people with this drivel. Some take the bait, some of us know better - sice teh only opinion that maters is the political ones that support yours.
     
  10. Voltron thread starter macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #10
     
  11. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #11
    I may think that the Uk taxes are too high from my US perspective. But then again i don't have the benefit of their "social services" that makes a difference to my way of life.

    I had the opportunity to see the benefits of "socialized" medical care. My Dad served 20+ years in the military. Because of my student status I had military medical care available to me till 1979. It may not be perfect. But for those with health insurance, it is the only hope to maintain a productive lief for the betterment of the country as a whole.

    I would personally prefer to see higher taxes and a better way of life than lower taxes, and only the rich being able to benefit.
     
  12. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #12
    i'm unclear on who or what is the embodiment of "France." or does french soil hold an opinion?
     
  13. Voltron thread starter macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #13
    Here in the US the poor don't pay income tax. You have to make at least 15,000 dollars before you owe the government more than you get back in tax refunds. If you have kids that number goes up to something like 30,000 bucks. Guess what --- 30,000 bucks aint being poor.

    Now how can you cut taxes to less than 0? Unless of course you want to have our government pay them simply for the priveledge of having them as citizens.[​IMG] Tax cuts help those who pay taxes. Who else would it freaken help?
     
  14. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #14
    I really want to know where a family of three or four even can "live" on $30K a year in most of the country of the US. In the DC area 30K can barely make ends meet with apartments going for $850 to $1000 for an studio to one bedroom apartment. That equates to to under $600 a week at $30K before taxes!

    A society can be judged on on it helps those that can not help themselves. And in the case of the US, we spend many more "real" dollars on helping those that don't have the means to support themselves than we do to help those within our own borders.

    To those that point to those with money to invest. How do those jobs equate to a living wage? The Republicans want to give tax breaks to those that invest in America. Yet Republicans do not penalize those companies that move off shore. They reward "investors" that send jobs to other countries. They reward "investors" that create lower paying jobs. While boosting the standard of living overseas.

    I challenge you to move to the DC area and see just how far as a single person you can make it on your own! To make it easier, maybe I should say NYC, SF, Chicago, or any other main US city!

    Now if you are talking of the US "policy" of "rewarding" those that have more dependents than they can afford, that is a whole different topic.

    For it brings to the front who should be punished. The parents who have too many children, or the children born to those parents that can not afford to have them?
     
  15. Voltron thread starter macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #15
    A 3 bedroom 2 bath in a middle income neighborhood with good schools nearby cost my sister 625 bucks a month plus utilities etc. Port St. John Florida.

    People who only make 30k a year shouldn't live in Washington DC, NY City, or the other high priced towns.
     
  16. Voltron thread starter macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #16
    There is nothing wrong with charity.
    There is something wrong with taking money from those who earn it at a point of a gun and giving it to those who don't.

    Let say that you are considered righteous if you don't read porn magazines.
    If Porn is free and freely available and you resist temptation then you are righteous. However, if it is illegal to have porn mags, and you can't get ahold of one no matter how hard you try that doesn't make you righteous. Being forced to abide by a moral standard does not make you moral.

    Being forced to give to charity is not the same as giving charity of your own free will. You should not judge a society based on stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. However, nothing is wrong with judging a society based on individual gifting to those in need if it is done out of the goodness of their heart and not at the point of a gun held by the IRS enforcement agency.
     
  17. Voltron thread starter macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #17
    if it is not a livign wage than their employees would starve to death and die and they would be forced to pay more in order to insure their employees survive to work. Most companies realize keeping an employee alive is alot cheaper than retraining new employees. If you cannot survive on the wages that a particular employer is paying then don't work for that employer. He will raise his rates if necessary.

    It is unfair if employers have to pay more than they make selling the product they manufacture and end up having to go out of business. Increases wages require increases in the cost of the goods they sell. Which makes it more expensive to buy those goods so we who don't work for that company can no longer afford their products and stop buying them and then the company goes bankrupt and now nobody has any job that pays any amount of money in that company. Unless of course that company was smart enough to outsource before they had to file bankruptcy.
     
  18. Voltron thread starter macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #18
    Are you recommending that we take away those children and stick them in orphanages? What about those parents who refuse to stop having kids, because its so much fun, or whatever reason they use?
     
  19. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    What happens to "those in need" who don't find a sponsor?
     
  20. Voltron thread starter macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #20
    it is not the responsibility of the national government to insure to the needs of every single individual. It is their responsibility to regulate trade with other nations and to protect us with a well armed militia.

    You can not be free to succeed if you are not also free to fail. It is not right to take from those who succeed, thus handicapping their ability to succeed, and give to those who fail. If they wish to give to charitably that should be their free choice to do so, not to do so at the point of a gun.
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    So your answer is? Let them starve to death?
     
  22. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
    what's the opposite of a bleeding heart? a bleeding brain?
     
  23. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #23
    A bleeding stone?
     
  24. Voltron thread starter macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #24
    If you don't think they should starve to death then there is no problem with you giving them a job, or you giving them money, nobody is stopping you.
     
  25. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #25
    You conveniently ignore the fact that their poverty may preclude them from moving in the first place, or the fact that they might not be able to find comparable employment in another locale. Part of the reason some cities are so large is because of employment opportunities, which drew settlement. Why is it the people's fault? Does someone who earns 30K or less, less deseving or less hard-working? As society needs people to do menial work as well as well-paid professional work to function, why s**t on those who find themselves on the lower-end of the spectrum?
    This stance ignores the fact that economic success is not acheived in a vacuum. Society is the springboard that helps individuals acheive their earning potential, so it seems fair to have to give back to that which helped you get where you are. It is amazing how self-centered and myopic some people can be.

    There is also the issue of Societal stability. Poverty breeds desperation and desperation can lead to some very extreme actions. It is in no-one's interest to abandon a segment of society, as they will not dissapear if they are merely ignored. The resultant problems will require solutions that would cost at least as much in fiscal terms as the "forced charity" you describe, as well as a substantial cost in terms of the moral and psychological health of the society. Even if we were to decide to put all the poor in Prison, that itself would cost an exorbidant amount, as the average cost for annual incarceration of an inmate in US Prisons is $21K, not taking into account the cost of building new prisons.

    Is "forced charity" completely fair to the individual. No. It is, however, imo the best option to a healthy and successful society. It is not a matter of morality as it is of pragmatism.
     

Share This Page