Tdbo,
I totally agree and without getting political, many are PO'd about it.
I think that frustration is starting to grow and show.
My point is that with a reasonable tax rate, 15-20% of 181B$'s could be dedicated to fixing infrastructure.
Instead, a group of incompetent, mouth breathing sloths have decided that 35% of zero is so much better, along with exterminating the potential for jobs that would result.
And this just refers to one company.
Insanity is simply doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
The real problem is that even when the government has given certain companies massive tax breaks to repatriate overseas funds, they bring all of the money in, and still lay of thousands of people.
Not saying it applies to all corporations, but it's clear that some simply don't give a rat's rear about anything but bottom line. Enticing them to park their money in the US create jobs in any way is going to go absolutely nowhere. They're parking it offshore o of pure greed, and have no interest in doing anything to contribute to the economy or job market under any tax scenario.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/edsilverman/...a0b3e821c8661b1
The bottom line is that business needs to give a rats rear about the bottom line.
One reason is that if they don't, they won't be in business for long. Another reason is that if they don't, they will have a bunch of shareholders with a case of the red rump that will motivate, intervene, or redirect careers to promote a healthy bottom line.
Sure, not all business is civic minded. Frankly, the role of government is to extract as much revenue from business as possible through compulsory contribution. If government giveth, it is because they think that it will favorably influence the amount they taketh away.
Companies have to have somewhere to park their money off shore. Why are they selecting the locations they are? Because it is to their advantage to do so.
When you can get a better tax rate in the UK than you can in the US, something is wrong. It is called not being competitive.
There is very little chance of growing the economy if you have business relocating off shore. As I said in my previous post, 20% of something, is more than 35% of nothing.
Nothing is absolute, but its clear the current path isn't working.
My only point was exactly what I said. Job creation is stifled considerably by greed, and there are a great deal of layoffs and job losses that obviously have nothing to do with the corporate tax rate in the US.
With regards to FCA parking itself in the UK? Who knows what kind of dirty deeds were involved in that arrangement?
Job creation is determined by the needs of the business.
If the demand is there for a good or service that a business produces, the demand is there for people to produce or fulfill that good or service.
The more that demand increases, generally, the more job opportunity increases.
Inversely, as demand decreases so do job opportunities.
Businesses are not charities, nor do they have the power of the printing press to print more money. They cannot haphazardly create jobs without the revenue stream to fund them. Nor will they be created if government confiscates profits through overly aggressive taxation. Contrary to popular belief, government does not tax business, they tax the consumer. Taxes are a cost of doing business, that is ultimately reflected in the cost to the consumer. If a good or service exceeds the threshold of what consumers will pay, they will look for less expensive options or will not purchase at all.
If government allows the free market to operate with minimal, reasonable intrusion (and I am not advocating giving them free reign to do whatever they want), good things can happen. The only constructive thing that government can do to create jobs in the private sector, is stay out of the way. The only jobs that governments create are short term by purchasing goods/services or permanently by creating huge, bloated bureaucracies.
Why are businesses moving offshore? Because it is in their long term best interest and longevity to do so. It is called competition. Some countries get that that they are better off setting a reasonable, competitive tax rate and generating business instead of imposing by the fiat of assertion an inflated tax rate and punitive business environment that dissuades growth and innovation. As much as I personally hate to say it, I can't blame them for going.
What needs to happen, is that the US government needs to explore best practices from an economic perspective world wide, implement the best, and become competitive on the world stage. The focus needs to be on growing, recruiting, and retaining business within the country instead of punishing it and milking it dry.
