Senate Loosens Ban on Offshore Companies with Federal Contracts: (or) Please Piss Us Off Some More, You Bastards
Language in the 2002 Homeland Security Act prohibited federal contracts for companies that put most of their operations offshore to limit their tax liabilities. You may remember that the Obama White House has been trying to find some of those accounts in the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, etc. They have been negotiating with Swiss Banks to get their lists.
This week the Senate financial services bill is including language that would ease the ban. The US Chamber of Commerce, that bastion of free and unfettered enterprise has been lobbying heavily for it, along with other groups. Some think it is answer to President Obama slapping a tariff on Chinese tires; I don't think they need a reason.
A representative of the Chamber is claiming that the former ban is "inconsistent with US obligations under international agreements." Nope, wouldn't want to violate any trade agreements, would we?
The US Public Interest Group (PIRG) spokesperson says the language undermines the intent of the original legislation, and will cost the American taxpayers billions. I'll bet.
The spending bill has not been brought to the floor for a vote yet; the House bill contains no such language.
Susan Collins (R-Maine) was in favor of the ban before she was against of it. "These companies create phony foreign headquarters in a file folder or a mailbox to escape taxes and then use other people's taxes to turn a profit," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said at the time. (2002) She 'doesn't believe' the new language undermines the ban .
Which body's language will be in the final bill? Come on; take a guess.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/61925-senate-loosens-ban-on-companies-with-offshore-businesses
Yep, there they go again - sucking the resources offshore. Collins is saying, it all depends on how you interpret "interpret." Ha.
Contractors can afford to break the laws AND change them. We should outlaw the chamber of stolen commerce.
Gee, I wonder what they are paying our Senators?
Placing a limit on the current ban is a BAD idea and I hope for our sakes it fails.
October 8, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
'Stolen Commerce.' And stolen tax revenues. And the Chamber is supporting Big Coal and lobbying hard against any climate change legislation. And against fair union voting and organizing. I can't wait to see the floor vote on that language in the House of Lords. Lawyers draft legislative language so that the constructed loopholes can be. as you say, interpreted more benignly.
McCain-Feingold: Hah!
We await the SCOTUS decision on corporations as people...wonder how that one's gonna go? (she asked cynically.)
October 8, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
That chamber of comicals takes it job way too far when the end results are the citizens of the country being thrown under its bus.
Collins must be doing a payback. (Or payout?)
Thanks, Wendy
October 8, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I googled about Collins and Chamber contributions, but I really didn't know how to go about it. I was hoping someones(s) had already done the work. Here's the open secrets site:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?CID=N00000491
Now Olympia Snowe did get the Chamber's 'Spirit of Enterprise Award" in 2005; the press release didn't say if the award came with a million and a half bucks like the Nobel does...
October 8, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also just read that the US Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the Franken Amendment that would punish defense contractors if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery, and discrimination cases to court. Luckily, it passed 68-30. Thirty Republican Senators voted against it.
October 8, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Read all about it here. Video of Franken, list of pond scum senators, good senators, the works.
Collins payback could also be to a colleague in the Senate. 'You wash my back on a bill, and I'll wash yours' type of thing.
October 8, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you think it's a good idea to screw over US companies? Sure, drive them all the way out of the US, that'll help the unemployment situation! Now, use your tiny little liberal brain for a moment and answer this: If companies are willing to move operations overseas to escape our extremely high corporate tax rate, if we lowered it would other companies decide to move operations to the US? Maybe? As a CEO, would you locate your company HQ in Ireland, with a 12% corporate tax rate, Bermuda or Bahamas with a 0% rate, or the US with a 35% rate? Which makes more sense? Which makes you more competitive? Enables you to pay more dividends? Allows you to expand? The question isn't why so many companies have left, the question is why are there any still here.
October 8, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
My tiny little inverted brain grasps that these "inerted companies" that were prevented from receiving homeland security contracts were simply creating shell companies offshore to avoid taxation. It is one of many reasons that most corporations end up paying Zero taxes; wish I could site the source, but I don't want to look. Even Ms. Collins used to agree:
“These companies create phony foreign headquarters in a file folder or a mailbox to escape taxes and then use other people’s taxes to turn a profit,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said at the time.
I think it's sick.
Our "extremely high" corporate rate is not so high if it isn't paid, now is it? And many of these companies benefit from government largesse.
If you were talking about moving manufacturing overseas, I would still disagree with you. It may have helped corporate bottom lines, but it has been devastating to Americans.
October 8, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it is devastating to Americans, that's the whole point of why we should do something smart, like encouraging companies to stay here, relocate here, manufacture here. Set the corporate tax rate to ZERO! Corporations don't pay tax anyway, people do. So by taxing a company, you are really taxing either (1) the employees (2) the customers or (3) the shareholders. By taxing corporate profits, then taxing the distributed dividends, you are double taxing corporate profits. It's just stupid. Make companies more profitable by lowering their tax burden, and they will expand, hire more people, increase salaries, or pay dividends. All those are good things.
October 8, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
CleverBulldog says: "Make companies more profitable by lowering their tax burden, and they will expand, hire more people, increase salaries, or pay dividends."
How do you spell trickle down theory of economics? And how has that worked out for us, hmmmm.
Corporations should pay ZERO taxes??? All righty then; I'm for it.....so long as American citizens pay ZERO taxes. 'Cause a person is a person or a personhood, or vice versa, right?
Here's an American business that, in the 90's, was being relocated offshore -- not to China, or India-- but to the Caymens, the British Virgins and the Grenadines: American lawyers were being hired, by the dozens, by those countries to redraft and rewrite their tax laws to create corporate and personal tax shelters.
Shelters is such a nice word, isn't it? Maybe the foreclosed former employee of an American corporation could use a SHELTER, eh?!?!?
October 8, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here you go Mr. Bulldog in a Mortarboard:
I do not call this 'fiscal responsibility.'
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1249465620080812
October 8, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a perfect capitalistic world, your view might work. A world where workers were paid decently, had affordable health care, inexpensive education, paid vacations, good pensions. That is not how it is working, and recent years has proven that economic model is totally unsustainable--except for those at the top, and in some cases, not even for them.
October 8, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If companies are willing to move operations overseas to escape our extremely high corporate tax rate, if we lowered it would other companies decide to move operations to the US?"
You're cute. Stupid, but cute.
October 8, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink