hyphenate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-01-10 05:47 PM
Original message |
Will someone who is better informed on corporatism tell me what is wrong with this idea? |
|
I hate big business, but we're stuck with it.
And I hate that many corporations are moving their corporations to other countries in order to avoid paying their taxes here in the US.
So I thought of a plan that could work, but I don't know whether it could get any kind of steam behind it.
Those companies who keep their corporate offices outside of the US should be obliged to pay tariffs UP TO and possibly AT the rate of taxes they would be paying within the US. And while they're doing that, companies who remain in the US should get a small break for stayed US corporations.
This wouldn't affect real foreign corporations, only those who moved out of the country because they're greedy assholes. A lot of them became Bermuda companies, for example. There are, I'm sure, records of all such corporations if anyone got the chance to look for them.
And this could also count for another situation--those who left the US because they didn't want to pay equitable wages to the workers. All one has to do is look at the salaries of the higher management, and it'll be easy to determine who is a fair employer, and which ones aren't.
Anyone else think this is a potentially good idea? I think it would offer back enough employment when companies have to come back to being US corporations to help out handsomely. And it certainly would spot potential Enrons earlier, because the books would be audited on a regular basis. Treat them like the criminals we all know they are. IF they want money, they have to pay for it.
|
Scuba
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-01-10 06:03 PM
Response to Original message |
1. You're on the right track... |
|
... no way should they be able to shirk their tax liability simply by moving the HQ offshore. You want to earn money in the US, pay taxes, fair and square. Soon there won't be any US-headquartered corps and all their tax burden will be shifted to the taxpayer.
Secondly, any company shipping US jobs offshore to save a buck should be fined on a dollar-for-dollar basis. If they only want to pay Vietnamese children a dollar a day, they can pay the rest of the minimum wage in penalties, plus payroll taxes they're avoiding.
|
Ruby the Liberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-01-10 06:08 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Chuck Schumer is actually taking a stand on offshoring |
|
Check the Late Breaking News forum for the full story, but in a nutshell, he wants companies who offshore customer service to (1) tell you they are transferring your call overseas and (2) make them pay $0.25 for every call transferred.
Its a start.
|
TransitJohn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-01-10 06:17 PM
Response to Original message |
3. My deal is about free trade |
|
How come only capital gets to operate transnationally in 'free' trade? If capital gets to, so should labor be free to market their labor in other markets, regardless of where the individual holds citizenship. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
|
nadinbrzezinski
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-01-10 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
9. I'll go further than you |
|
I want that labor to be able to organize into transnational unions.
|
TransitJohn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-02-10 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
hyphenate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-01-10 11:01 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Looking for more suggestions!
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-01-10 11:12 PM
Response to Original message |
5. There are may good ideas -- New Deal was a great idea. . . the problem is |
|
with this great wealth having bought our government and its agencies --
In other words, we have a co-opted government and government officials betraying
us every day!
How do we end this corruption is the question --
so that we can enact sane policies.
|
rhett o rick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-01-10 11:12 PM
Response to Original message |
6. There is a little problem with that. Those corporations you want to control, own Congress. nm |
John Q. Citizen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-01-10 11:18 PM
Response to Original message |
7. You would have to repeal the misnomered "free trade agreements" and the Dems aren't going to |
|
do that and neither are the Repos.
Too much corporate cash tells them no.
|
nadinbrzezinski
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-01-10 11:21 PM
Response to Original message |
8. That is more or less what we did for over 200 years |
|
you see NOBODY said that you could not bring shoes to the country. Just that you had to pay up to the actual cost of production in the US... in tariffs. That made all the advantage of moving to cheap labor centers go away... (and to be fair we had our own cheap labor)
All that went away in the 1980s...
And yes kiddies I just simplified US history a bunch, but this is more or less what used to happen...
Alas all the legislative laws that removed those tariffs, and later paid companies to move abroad.... well you and I know the final result.
|
JeffersonChick
(338 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-01-10 11:28 PM
Response to Original message |
10. I think it's a GREAT idea :) n/t |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 10:51 AM
Response to Original message |