|
Post by supposn1 on Sept 16, 2014 11:35:06 GMT -6
I’m among the proponents of a unilateral transferable Import Certificate trade policy. Enacting such a policy would be of advantage to any nation suffering chronic annual trade deficits of goods.
The policy’s an indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods. The policy’s variable effects upon prices of USA gods to foreign purchasers and foreign goods prices to USA purchasers behave inversely to each other; [i.e. the policy’s market rather than government driven]. It’s not pure free global trade but it is pure competitive enterprise.
The policy does not favor or disfavor any particular foreign nations. If you consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, the policy does not favor or disfavor any particular industry.
Its enactment into federal law would be of advantage to any USA enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond USA’s borders.
For reference google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Expatriating of USA corporations:
Additionally the expatriation of USA corporations for their immediate tax benefits trouble me. Can legislation that would be of net economic benefit and not reduce USA’s corporate tax rates be drafted?
What if we denied foreign corporations of all rights and privileges that are exclusive e to corporations? In order to avail themselves of such corporate advantages they would have to operate through USA subsidiary corporations fully subject to federal and state laws?
Would that significantly mitigate the advantages that now motivate corporations to expatriate? Are there any similar laws now in force within the USA?
Do I encounter so many existing USA and North American subsidiaries corporations of foreign nations' enterprises because a North American subsidiary is entitled to all the participation benefits to the NAFTA agreements?
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 3, 2014 10:29:12 GMT -6
What if we denied foreign corporations of all rights and privileges that are exclusive e to corporations? In order to avail themselves of such corporate advantages they would have to operate through USA subsidiary corporations fully subject to federal and state laws? Respectfully, Supposn I certainly agree with doing this, though I'm not sure how legislation could be written to do this. But here again, as I've stated elsewhere in reference to our trade deficit, TARIFF imposition would go a long way toward stopping this. Imposing Tariffs on anything coming into our country from overseas production facilities, regardless of who owns the facilities, would certainly help. If only the Corporate Office is located overseas, and the production facility actually in the US, then US Corporate taxes should apply. Corporate taxes should be based on where the goods are actually sold--not where they're produced and not where their Corporate office is located. If you sell goods in the US, you should have to pay US Corporate taxes on the proceeds. (By itself, even without Tariffs, this would make imports more expensive & make US-produced goods comparatively less expensive). But I still maintain that import Tariffs are better than import certificates, because they don't increase the cost (and likely the consumer price) of goods produced in the US for US consumers. Again, the US consumer market is 20% of Global GDP. 80-90% of US-produced goods are sold to American consumers. Anything that impedes the sale of that 80-90% portion, in order to increase the 10-20% portion that goes towards exports, is not a good idea. Tariffs raise the price of imports and reduce their ability to substitute for purchase of American-made goods by Americans. But Tariffs do not raise price of American goods purchased by Americans, nor do they raise the price of American-made exports sold to foreign countries.
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Oct 3, 2014 20:03:47 GMT -6
Excerpted from Unlawflcombatnt’s post of 3Oct 2014:
But I still maintain that import Tariffs are better than import certificates, because they don't increase the cost (and likely the consumer price) of goods produced in the US for US consumers.
Again, the US consumer market is 20% of Global GDP.
80-90% of US-produced goods are sold to American consumers.
Anything that impedes the sale of that 80-90% portion, in order to increase the 10-20% portion that goes towards exports, is not a good idea.
Tariffs raise the price of imports and reduce their ability to substitute for purchase of American-made goods by Americans.
But Tariffs do not raise price of American goods purchased by Americans, nor do they raise the price of American-made exports sold to foreign countries.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unlawflcombatnt, if both tariffs and Import certificates are applicable to ALL goods imported into the USA, then both entirely increase the imported portions of imported goods and do not increase the proportions of any portion of goods not imported into the USA.
Tariffs and Import Certificates differ due to:
(1) tariffs double the additional price increases to USA purchasers of imported goods due to requiring assessing BOTH all USA’s import shipments, and for shipments for which the USA exporters' agreed to pay the federal fees. [Those fees defray the entire direct federal expenditures due to the Import Certificate trade policy].
(2) Within an Import Certificate policy, the net increases to USA purchasers of imported goods are market rather than government determined.
(3) Unlike tariffs, Import Certificates are an indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exports.
Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Oct 5, 2014 12:16:24 GMT -6
What if we denied foreign corporations of all rights and privileges that are exclusive e to corporations? In order to avail themselves of such corporate advantages they would have to operate through USA subsidiary corporations fully subject to federal and state laws? Respectfully, Supposn I certainly agree with doing this, though I'm not sure how legislation could be written to do this. ... Unlawflcombatnt, this is not precisely what I proposed but I in favor of eliminating foreign enterprises’ advantages over U.S. enterprises conducting business transactions within the United States. Respectfully, Supposn //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Refer to www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Notice-2014-52-Rules-Regarding-Inversions-and-Related-Transactions. WASHINGTON – Rep. Sandy Levin and Sen. Carl Levin, both D-Mich., authors of legislation to close the corporate inversion tax loophole, today welcomed the Treasury Department’s announcement of rules changes to address inversions. H.R. 4679: Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014: On May 20, a group of nearly a dozen House Democrats today introduced legislation to tighten restrictions on corporate tax inversions, limiting the ability of American companies to avoid U.S. taxation by combining with a smaller foreign business and moving their tax domicile overseas. The House legislation – the “Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014” (H.R. 4679) – and companion Senate legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) largely mirror the inversion proposal included in the President’s FY 2015 budget. Co-sponsors of the legislation include Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-MI), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-MA), Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Rep. John Larson (D-CT), Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL), Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// • On May 20, Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin introduced the Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014, which broadly follows the proposal laid out by the President in his FY2015 budget. Sen. Carl Levin introduced similar legislation in the Senate • Currently, Section 7874 of the tax code prohibits U.S. companies from reincorporating overseas through an inversion unless stakeholders of the foreign company maintain more than 20% of the combined foreign corporation. The Stop Corporate Inversions Act would change the threshold so that the stakeholders of the foreign company must maintain at least 50% of the combined foreign corporation. • The bill would also prohibit U.S. companies from reincorporating overseas through an inversion if the affiliated group that includes the combined foreign entity is managed and controlled in the U.S. and conducts significant domestic business activities in the U.S. • As under current law, the bill would continue to provide a broad exception from Section 7874 rules if the affiliated group has substantial business activities (25% of employees by number, employees by compensation, assets, and income) in the foreign country where the combined entity is domiciled. The bill would be permanent and apply to inversions completed after May 8, 2014
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Oct 5, 2014 18:51:15 GMT -6
I’m opposed to eliminating corporate taxes because it would encourage the return of the expense account society of World War Two. If personal net incomes are taxed at a greater than corporate’ rates, we will re-experience the prevalent tax evasion practiced by our expense account society during of World War Two. To the extent that we retain the taxing of net incomes, both individual and corporate incomes should be taxed at rates that are reasonably equitable to each other. I’m advocate of expanding the Earned Income credit provisions of IRS income tax regulations and (to the greatest extent feasible) replacing the taxes upon the lowest earning individuals with a federal sales tax. Sales taxes can be (to a very limited extent) be drafted to be effectively somewhat more progressive than a purely flat tax rate). There’s no such thing as a “fair” tax but this transfer of tax revenue sources would effective, equitably and simply tax continue taxing individuals’ and corporations’ net incomes while reducing their income tax rates. I’m an advocate of replacing the individuals’ $3900 per capita reduction of taxable incomes to be replaced with a revenue neutral tax credit amount that’s annually updated to stay abreast with the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power. The federal government should not be granting more per capita amounts of tax considerations to wealthier earning taxpayers and their dependents. Refer to unlawflcombatnt.proboards.com/thread/13804/sales-taxes I’m opposed to “special strokes for special folks”; the differentiating between sources of incomes or the manner the incomes were acquired. Corporations' dispersements of dividends should reduce their taxable incomes and 25% of earners’ dividends should be taxes withheld; In the cases where the individual or corporate taxpayers receive their dividends just prior to the end of fiscal quarters, the taxpayers could almost immediately file to reclaim refunds for their excess income taxes paid. I’m opposed to the unjustified tax reduction granted to long term capital gains incomes. Refer to the thread Capital gains tax and tax averaging methods for reducing taxable incomes. I’m proponent for entirely eliminating the FICA payroll taxes funding of Medicare, and half of Social Securities’ long term disabilities and retirement programs. FICA is the most regressive tax that of extremely greater burden to lesser earning employees. These are among the measures that could reduce both individuals’ and corporate income tax rates and equitably, retain federal tax revenues and be of lesser net burden to the working poor. To the extent that taxes upon the net incomes of enterprises are reduced, we would be reducing incentives for USA enterprises to be expatriated. Respectfully, Supposn
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 13, 2014 10:45:00 GMT -6
• On May 20, Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin introduced the Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014, which broadly follows the proposal laid out by the President in his FY2015 budget. Sen. Carl Levin introduced similar legislation in the Senate • Currently, Section 7874 of the tax code prohibits U.S. companies from reincorporating overseas through an inversion unless stakeholders of the foreign company maintain more than 20% of the combined foreign corporation. The Stop Corporate Inversions Act would change the threshold so that the stakeholders of the foreign company must maintain at least 50% of the combined foreign corporation. Thanks for finding this, supposin.
And though this is a great start, why only 50% 50% seems like a very timid proposal, typical of the new "Corporate" Democrat. Seems like it ought to be pushing 100%, or at least 90%. But this is where the timidity factor really underwhelms: So if 25% of the firm's employees are in a foreign country, the firm is exempted??
We certainly don't want to be too hard on those poor, persecuted, frequently maligned super-rich oligarchs, now do we.
After all, they create all the jobs--don't they?
Never mind that they're creating them all overseas.
|
|
|
Post by supposn1 on Jun 23, 2023 14:22:54 GMT -6
Unlawflcombatnt, excerpted from the 1st post of this thread', “Expatriating of USA corporations”, (posted Sep 16, 2014 at 1:35 PM):
. I’m among the proponents of a unilateral transferable Import Certificate trade policy. Enacting such a policy would be of advantage to any nation suffering chronic annual trade deficits of goods. …
… The policy does not favor or disfavor any particular foreign nations. If you consider importing and exporting as a single global trade industry, the policy does not favor or disfavor any particular industry.
Its enactment into federal law would be of advantage to any USA enterprise that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond USA’s borders.
For reference google Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”.
Competing participation ALL products, (including imported products), within our nation's domestic markets are beneficial to our economy; but unless a nation's labor markets are effectively experiencing full employment, Annual trade deficits are economically net detrimental to their nations. They are financially net detrimental to family's dependent upon wage incomes, and consequentially net detrimental to enterprises more sensitive the financial conditions of that great major majority segment of USA's population.
If the USA adopted an “Import Certificate' trade policy, I don't know and do not speculate if an act such as Sander Levin's 2014 proposed “Stop Corporate Inversions Act”; but for many products, there'd be no advantage, and likely disadvantages for transferring production beyond USA's borders. Import Certificate policies are greatly less intolerant of their nation's experiencing annual trade deficits of goods.
Respectively, Supposn
|
|