« Why Obama Voted Against Roberts | MiddleClassBill's Blog | Barney Frank - gunning for a job at GM? »
As expected, higher taxes will kill jobs
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3yutzL3xApI
It's just a matter of time before more companies follow Microsoft's footsteps and move jobs offshore
If we're going to clean up the foreign tax loopholes, then we need to lower the US corporate tax rate so we can prevent losing more jobs than we already are.
Advertisement
The allegation makes no sense. How does taxing OFFSHORE profits MORE lead companies to want to move more jobs OFFSHORE? Unless offshore activities are actually losing money in which case moving more jobs there would increase the losses and thus decrease the tax burden MORE.
The problem with the argument that taxes reduce jobs is that it ignores the jobs which tax revenues support and create.
June 3, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality check: Earth to Middleclassbill:
Bush lowered taxes and said that would expand the economy and balance the budget. It didn't.
Ballmer is jawboning, increasing federal revenues may be more important than Microsoft BS.
June 3, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moving jobs overseas is BS? Please. MSFT needs to reduce costs in order to offset the higher taxes. I think foreign workers are a lot cheaper than American workers...
When did Bush cut the corporate tax rate? I think you're confusing corporate rates with individual rates. My post was about corporate rates.
June 3, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB, the list of tax havens for Morgan Stanley from GAO report, (same report said Microsoft only had 8 on page 37)see the report at pdf below-taxes the big coporations don't pay the consumer pays, and the consumer is 780% of the economy which means jobs, look over the report linked below and educate your self:
Morgan Stanley: Number and location(s) of subsidiaries in jurisdictions listed as tax havens or financial privacy jurisdictions
Bermuda (3)
British Virgin Islands (1)
Cayman Islands (158)-!!!
Cyprus (2)
Gibraltar (2)
Hong Kong (15)
Ireland (6)
Jersey (19)
Liberia (5)
Luxembourg (29)
Malta (1)
Marshall Islands (14)
Mauritius (4)
Panama (1)
Singapore (9)
Switzerland (4)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09157.pdf
June 4, 2009 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Citibank only had 90 entities in the Cayman Islands, consumer is 70% of economy not above figure.
June 4, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
tax havens is different than the tax deduction issue that Ballmer is talking about. I'm talking about corporate tax rates.
I'm not sure why you have to be so insulting about it in the first place. I don't think I say things to you like "Earth to NCD".
June 4, 2009 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me how these tax havens are associated with Bush lowering taxes? These tax havens have been around for decades.
June 4, 2009 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again - you are cherry pick some random facts that don't pertain to the larger picture. And these offshore tax jurisdictions have been around for decades so it's not really consistent with your first trial balloon about Bush.
Why have you gone radio silent? Why do people throw out jabs and then not defend them? Maybe because cutting corporate tax rates had nothing to do with the current crisis that we're in. But thanks for trying.
I guess you want to build a big wall around the US and not allow Merck, IBM, Exxon, and all the other big corporations to have any operations overseas? We can watch the foreign car companies close their plants in the South. And all the foreign tech companies and other conglomerates would also close down their US plants. That's a really good idea.
If you're so worried about the consumer than maybe you'd care about companies employing US citizens and not moving jobs overseas. And you'd also care about keeping the foreign companies that have opened up facilities in the US.
June 4, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
On my rare conspiratorial minded days I suspect that the entire Diebold/SC installed Bush Admin was about ensuring enough time for Asia to take over our high tech jobs like they had our manufacturing jobs.
Then the moneyed elite could safely abandon the first world democratic nations for locales where the natives are not as restless or demanding of services like 'roads', or pesky privileges like 'education' or 'health care' or for that matter 'voting'.
They can finally be free of us and retire to exotic locals like Dubai. When the need for protection arises, they will just hire our taxpayer trained and war-honed former military, who unable to find jobs stateside find high paying 'no questions asked' work as blackwater like mercenaries for hire.
As a final flourish they gave us a great circus with our 'feel good' civil rights election while raiding the treasury at the very last possible moment and our now quietly transferring their loot into safe assets abroad. While the rest of us, clueless as always, await as the inevitable TARP/TALF/PPP induced inflation begins its slow march towards destroying our county's worth.
As a encore Fox & Friends will blame the comparatively minor 'stimulus' and all hopes of our progressive goals will die in the flame of an Obama 'Malaise' of hyperinflation.
Ahhh, Galt is so proud!!
How bout Bill?
Did you leave your middle class moniker behind and make it into the club in time?
Okay, I'm off to find my medication again. Now was it the blue pill or the red pill I'm supposed to take? Damn it.
PS. Yes, Bush did cut the corporate tax rates and it merely gave the bubble a little more juice that has since vanished. If only he could have got a hold of those Social Security dollars! DOW 36,000!!!
June 3, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome! I'm copying this into a word doc, just in case 'something' happens to this post while we all sleep. ;)
June 4, 2009 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought NCD was talking about a more recent time period and trying to blame corporate tax rates on the current recession (and job losses). That would be silly. The corporate tax cuts that you refer to back in 2004 helped turnaround the recession we were going through in 2002 and 2003. If you remember we were losing jobs in 2002 and 2003.
In 2005 and 2006 we had some of the highest corporate income tax revenues as a % of GDP. Imagine that - lower corporate tax rates led to higher corporate tax receipts as a % of GDP. Amazing how incentives work.
Unfortunately, we had a Fed unleashing massive liquidity and a subsequent housing bubble bust come in 2007 and 2008 which put the derailer on things.
June 4, 2009 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeeze bill, sounds like you didn't make in to the club in time. Better luck next time.
Corporate tax cuts in 04 to help the recession of 01. Yeah right, that would be about 4 years too late, the tax cuts just threw more cash into the liquidity bubble chasing the same small returns.
Yes the FED did hold intrest rates at 1% for the entire four years of the First Bush term. That is what caused the recovery and also the subsequent bust the tax cuts didn't effect shit. Suspicious?
Oh never mind. Where's a glass of water I need to swallow this pill.
June 4, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes - that's right. Tax cuts in '03 and '04 to try to offset all the job destruction that was happening in 2002 and 2003.
June 4, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice one Sal. Always the BLUE pill, dude! What were you thinking...
June 4, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink