Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by CFnwside, Jul 26, 2002.
which one is the left coast?
if you look towards canada the west coast is
but if your looking towards mexico then the east coast is
Good for California.
That's downright un-American. They're not going to do business with people or companies simply because they're breaking the law?!?
Talk about dealing with the symptoms and not the problem.
Since when is relocating to a tax haven illegal?
It's not- it's just unpatriotic and un-American. Like Hollywood liberals threatening to move to France.
Which Pat Buchanan-authored book did you rip that page out of?
Here's a tip, if you have to resort to allegations that something is unpatriotic or un-American, you might be on the wrong side of the argument.
Suprisingly, I actually agree with what they are doing. No one should dodge their civic duty of paying taxes.
It was a joke.
Seriously, what's the argument? The state of California decides to remove the public teat from the mouths of those who put mailboxes in Bermuda to avoid paying taxes. These companies want to make their profit off the public coffers, but refuse to ante up themsleves. Corporations are already contributing a lower percentage to the coffers than at anytime in the last 75 years. Screw 'em.
Well, for consistency's sake I hope that no one here who is critical of these corporations has ever selected a county to live in because its taxes were lower than a neighboring one, ever shopped online or ordered from a catalog to avoid paying sales tax, crossed state lines to buy a big-ticket item from a lower tax state (say from NY or Penn. to Delaware), or ever made a duty-free purchase.
OK, I apologize then.
If California wants to refuse to do business with the companies, that's fine. But as for the larger issue, I don't understand why this surprises people so much. Everyday people make decisions about behavior based on taxes -- where to live and buy things (people around here love to live in Northern Virginia and work in DC, at least partly due to taxes), why should corporations be any different?
When the DC government tried to figure out why it was having such a hard time attracting people to live here one of the things that was pointed out was the substantially higher taxes compared to VA. So DC decided to institute an income tax cut (granted, this is a DC version of an income tax cut, which comes out to something like .1% a year, and even then only if certain conditions are met). At least partly due to this tax cut people are returning to the city.
Same thing with corporate inversions. Maybe instead of bashing corporations, we should examine why they are leaving the country. I don't think it's any coincidence that this has emerged as a problem at the same time that the US has the 4th highest corporate income tax in the OECD (exceeded by Italy, Belgium and Japan -- none of which are synonymous with economic growth). Think about that, that means that the US has higher taxes on corporations than places like France and Sweden.
Corporations aren't dumb, if they want to stay competitive they can't be subjected to higher taxes than their competitors. Given that remaining in the US with no tax cut in sight is basically the same as bending over and grabbing their ankles, why are we surprised when shareholders -- such as at Stanley -- vote to relocate overseas?
Colin, you're a smart guy, and I bet that, on reflection, you see how bogus this is.
1. I would actually be living there.
2. That county doesn't have taxes low for the sole purpose of having people make that their physical address, while using the services of another county.
3. I wouldn't be going to the gvt. and trying to get them to give me contracts. Many localities require employees to live in the jurisdiction.
I'm trying to figure out how any of these would really apply to California. Counties out here are bigger than your so-called states. I don't know what you buy online that you don't pay more in shipping than you ever would in taxes. And outside of Lake Tahoe, where is it convenient to hop over a state line to do shopping?
Hey, going to TJ for drugs and prostitutes isn't THAT convenient. There's a big old line to get back into San Diego, after all.
You mean you don't do all your shopping at LAX? Duty free is the only way to go if you can live entirely on VSOP, Marlboros and Toblerones.
that's totally different. regardless of ever having shopped online i still pay taxes which help pay for roads, emergency services, military to protect me (ok, the last one is a bad example ), etc. the companies that do business here and keep a p.o.box in the cayeman islands draw those same benefits, but don't pay for them. that's a scam.
The last two CDs I bought online both had free shipping. Amazon.com offers free shipping on orders over $49 and buy.com offers free shipping on a lot of stuff as well.
And while this may not apply to California, you can see the cross-state phenom with people who live in Washington and buy stuff in Oregon where there is no sales tax (6.5% in Washington).
Those are some valid points. I am more thinking about here in DC where lots of people live in Arlington County but spend much of their time in DC. In my neighborhood I see plenty of cars with Virginia plates driving around -- helping to create new potholes as fast as they are filled. They also use city services such as police protection while they are here (unfortunately DC ain't always the safest place to be). This is a significant enough issue here that people have talked about instituting a "commuter tax."
This can also been seen in other places where people live in suburbs and work in cities. Even though they live in the suburbs, they still place a strain on city resources and services.
Income tax is the better example for California. Nevada has no personal or corporate income tax while CA has some of the highest personal and corporate income tax rates, so it is little wonder that companies like CISCO relocate to Nevada, and wealthy retirees move from California to Nevada.
No problem with this unless you then try to send your kids to the schools in the county with the higher taxes, try to get their better unemployment benefits etc.
These companies can re-locate to Bermuda if they want to. They just shouldn't expect to get the same considerations as the corporations that do stay here and pay taxes.
The businesses that have used this "inversion" strategy are still paying US income taxes. They still conduct business here. I believe the major benefit they get from the inversion is that the income from their non-US businesses are not taxed by the US. However, such income is already taxed by these foreign nations - but probably at a rate lower than it would in the US. (As Colin mentioned, that is the "problem" that is giving businesses an incentive to do these inversions.)
To illustrate this, assume you have a business that has operations in the US and Europe only. The US has a rate of 35% and the European nations average 30%. Without an inversion, the business based in the US pays 35% on all its income; the business based in Europe pays 30% on its European income and 35% on its US income. The US business has the higher tax burden. However, after an inversion (to Bermuda, perhaps), the "US" business now pays 30% on its European business and 35% on its US business - the same as its potential Europe-based competitor.
The day they make B&H readily available via duty free, I've got a serious moral dilemma.
New York has a similar situation with people who live in New Jersey and they charge similar payroll taxes to combat this.
That's only part of the story
California has been very agressive on taxes for years. Several years ago, there was a celebrated case where they tried to tax Pat Benatar on her worldwide income because she held a concert here. The actions of these confiscators sometimes creates tax scofflaws out of well-meaning people.
Another funny item from here on the left coast:
We already have "medicinal" marijuana dispensaries here in SF, with stoners behind the counter dispensing prescriptions. I love this crazy place.
But they're NOT leaving the country. Their infrastructure is based in the U.S., their employess are based in the U.S., their products are consumed in the U.S.- it's just thay they have a P.O. Box somewhere else. So they're taking advantage of all the amenities provided by the U.S. tax dollar without contributing to it.