It is true that this is by far and away his best option, but this essentially amounts to the government seizing the Bald Eagle. (not that I feel that bad for a guy who inherited a stuffed bald eagle... but still)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...es-206-billion-as-apple-to-ibm-avoid-tax.html Didn't we have a Prez Candidate that wanted to chop Sesame Street?
C'mon Matt, it's EVERYBODY'S money, not those that earned it. The should bring it back so 18%-36% can be redistributed!
Cheap labor? Check. Cheap products? Check. Politicians in pocket. Check. http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontev...-cash-abroad-as-stock-piles-hit-record-1-45t/
ha ha funny. dude, the CEO or CFO hardly earn any of the money a company makes, that would be the workers - do you want to argue that they deserve to keep more of it? That's union organizer talk ;-) Skirting your taxes is unAmerican and you should be ridiculed (and turned-in) by your peers and shunned by your customers.
How long do you think any company would be around without executives? To say a CEO or CFO don't earn any money is simply jealousy or ignorance, take your pick. I know my company wouldn't be around if I left everything to my shop employees.
I didn't say they didn't earn any money (they earn some or most of their paychecks like the rest of us), you read poorly. I said they "earn" less of the total money a company makes than their actual workers do. What they get paid seems to imply the opposite of that truth, but does not make it any less true. How well would your company do if all you had was those executives, if they did the actual work? I am guessing less than if you let the employees handle the excess profits without the execs Obviously you need both, even if we probably differ on where we'd invest the most Hiding that money from the tax man (and I would assume also the shareholders and workers) is not responsible behavior, it's basically stealing. tax evasion is legal now? I mean it's fully accepted and expected by many, but it's still not legal or proper behavior
You are correct regarding the need of a director and the executives, but more to the point, the best paid CEOs aren't usually the best performers and the income ratio with average workers in the US is the highest in the developed world; in other words most highly paid CEOs don't earn the money that they make and are higly overrated regarding their importance to their companies. Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/08/28/4440246/high-ceo-pay-doesnt-mean-high.html#storylink=cpy
It's not evasion if the US government doesn't have a legal right to the money. Want to know what's basically stealing? How the US claims that they can tax their citizens for money made out of the boundaries of the US while no other modern country on the planet has such huevos to claim the same.
You said they "hardly" earn their money and I disagree with that for the most part. There are instances of people not earning their money regardless of their position so CFO or CEO aren't any different in that respect. You just notice it more because of the large amount of compensation. As to your comment about my company, I am generally on the floor either doing or overseeing the assembly being done so I would have to say I earn my keep, even by your definition. If I let my employees handle the profit (there is no such thing as excess profit) they would all be driving new cars until the electric company came by to shut off the power. I would also like to note the companies in dapip's original article are categorized as multinationals based in the US. Why do you think a multinational has some sort of responsibility to bring all their cash onshore? Your only true argument would be if they are transferring cash made in the US to offshore accounts. Keeping cash made in other countries in places where they aren't being taxed makes good business sense.
Given that these "multinational" corporations have infinitely more access to government at all levels than I have, I don't think it's excessively redistributivist to think they should pay for it in ways that benefit the commonweal. It's that enhanced access that has, over recent decades, redistributed wealth upwards and, apparently increasingly, offshore.
@stanger I think the outrage at ridiculous CEO compensation is absolutely just, but I don't think most CEO's/CFO's are overpaid. We're looking at examples of executives in niche markets (finance, ginormous box stores like walmart and home depot and McDonalds, boards of directors of said companies, etc.) taking redonkulous compensation packages not necessarily tied to performance whilst average workers are refused better wages. I agree that the general CEO outrage is overblown.
The difference between these people and Pablo Escobar is that Escobar feed the poor and wasnt good at paying off the political process so as to make his endeavors legal.
Actually Escobar was great at paying off the political process. They wrote laws to protect him personally Further, Escobar was involved in a business that shouldn't be illegal in the first place so I actually don't mind your comparison.
You said hardly earn any. That is the paying a coach lots of money or not, sure the players win the games, but the coaches may do a little something, and many do get paid lots for it, specially in the NCAA.
Not if what replaces it is a system operating for the benefit of multi national corporations. (I merely said they have way more access to government than I do. That doesn't mean my local government wasn't responsive when I complained about a rim-busting pothole on my street). Besides, so long as said multinationals occasionally need military assistance, the nation state will be just fine.
Again there is a difference between earnings from outside the USA and paying taxes on earnings inside the USA. Sure there are accounting tricks that companies use to hide money in off shore accounts that they earned in the USA, I am ok with trying to fix this issue. My issue is people wanting corporations paying US taxes for income they made in India for example.
Escobar was elected in served in the Colombian Congress if I remember correctly. I wouls also guess that Wal-mart (a company I fvking hate) has helped more poor people than Escobar ever did. (now we can argue they have hurt small shop owners)
As a matter of fact, he was part of the political process, having been elected to the Senate. I also have a problem with Drug Wars and that prohibition is at the root of the issue but I also think that a market like that should be heavly regulated. But that does not mean that Escobar was not a criminal. Or that corporations are supreme beings that should override states... They have rights and free speech already.. I think that the notion of him as a good guy because he fed some people or built soccer fields is ludicrous. He was first and foremost a criminal and that he decided to do good thing with the money he earned by criminal means does not wash the blood away.
Aren't you confusing taxing residents with taxing expatriates? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax AFAIK, most of the people with money stashed overseas are living here, not residents of other countries.