Seeking Alpha

With companies looking to avoid paying taxes on their profits, 83 of the largest firms kept...

With companies looking to avoid paying taxes on their profits, 83 of the largest firms kept $1.46T overseas in 2012, up 14.4% from the previous year, Bloomberg calculates. GE (GE) again had the most with $108B held offshore, up from $102B in 2011; Pfizer was second with $73B, after which came Microsoft (MSFT), Merck (MRK), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and IBM (IBM).
Comments (73)
  • txbadonetoo
    , contributor
    Comments (325) | Send Message
     
    When will the USA learn to give tax holidays to repatriate offshore profits back to the USA without having to pay the highest corporate tax rate on earth? Let's talk real tax reform and forget these sound bytes about corporate jet tax accelerations (Obama is the biggest abuser of funded jets) and depletion allowances for miners and small oil drillers.

     

    Lets do some real tax reform to actually help companies grow within America - and it starts with repatriation of offshore profits so they can invest those $$ in America.
    10 Mar 2013, 06:23 AM Reply Like
  • Silvy H
    , contributor
    Comments (120) | Send Message
     
    Of course there is another school of thought that says if these corps actually paid the tax on their profits that they should have, your deficit would be lower. Here in the UK, when you have the likes of Starbucks paying zero tax on the billions they have earned in here over the years, then something is very clearly wrong. They have now relented and paid £20m, but they is still far short of what they actually should have paid. If everyone in the US operated the same tax avoidance schemes, the US economy would collapse.
    10 Mar 2013, 07:45 AM Reply Like
  • gathurm
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    If the US confiscated all profits from all US corporations it wouldn't be enough to cover the annual "budget" deficit.

     

    The US economy is collapsing, but it isn't tax avoidance that is doing it. It is out of control spending, something the UK experienced first hand before Thatcher became Prime Minister.
    10 Mar 2013, 08:00 AM Reply Like
  • Silvy H
    , contributor
    Comments (120) | Send Message
     
    No it would be enough to cover all if it, but it would help. And in the UK, if all the corps pay their tax, and our corporation tax is a lot lower than in the US, we would have been able to pay a lot more of our deficit off and wouldnt be in the dire situation we are in at the moment. No one likes paying taxes, however, with corporations, its the price of doing business, so they should pay their taxes instead of trying to avoid them. But the loop holes look as though they are going to be closed as every European government is looking at them as indeed are the US, so whilst it isn't going to happen over night, I suspect that within the next decade, things will change dramatically. As to Maggy Thatcher, amongst other things, she introduced the boom and bust cycle to the UK, which we are still paying for, so she isn't exactly the most popular person here and neither are the current Conservatives ( Maggies crowd ) who took an economy that was growing at 2.8% and totally destroyed it.
    10 Mar 2013, 09:02 AM Reply Like
  • lichan
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    If you are going to quote Margaret Thatcher then you should know that actually, its an imbalance between taxes and spending which is the cause of the problem. Margaret Thatcher understood that like the housewife and daughter of a grocer that she was. Some that George W Bush failed to understand as he CUT taxes and THEN engaged in 2 wars - wars which were NOT FULLY FUNDED.

     

    Every good housewife knows a household has to have savings - for the rainy days. But George W Bush and the GOP just didn't get it. When the economy started to tank, there was no savings/surplus to fall back on Because Dubya squandered the surplus/savings.

     

    Whilst I'd agree that when taxes are too high, it can be a disincentive to work and invest and take risks, taxes are necessary to pay for the life and infrastructure you take for granted, roads, security, police, army, air traffic controllers, hospitals, schools and on and on it goes.
    10 Mar 2013, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    It's absolutely asinine to suggest corps should be given tax 'holidays' for no other reason than the fact that they have used legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes that they would otherwise be legally obligated to.
    10 Mar 2013, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • maudie
    , contributor
    Comments (470) | Send Message
     
    Flat tax or tens of thousands of pages of tax code? Only to a politician and a docile electorate would that even be a question.
    10 Mar 2013, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    Silvy,

     

    "No it would be enough to cover all if it, but it would help."

     

    Just a monor dent is all.

     

    http://bit.ly/U8Buv6
    10 Mar 2013, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • tcliff
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    1.4 Trillion wouldn't cover the budget deficit? Guess again. Yes, spending is out of control but this would go a long way in correcting the revenue side. How about repatriating those profits tax free up to the extent that they are given as dividends to the shareholders. The shareholders would be thrilled, the stocks would rise big time, and the government could collect their tax on the dividends earned by shareholders. Win-win-win.
    10 Mar 2013, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • jfxwsr
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Good idea if the dividends were taxed at the same rate as earnings.
    10 Mar 2013, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • jeb62868
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    Wouldn't that help the evil rich people avoid paying their Fair Share?
    10 Mar 2013, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • kroyals
    , contributor
    Comments (494) | Send Message
     
    Then they will just keep the money offshore. Let them bring it in at reduced rate and create jobs, etc.
    10 Mar 2013, 05:03 PM Reply Like
  • tradewin
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    Bush did just that in 2004. A tax holiday for corporations to repatriate money. Not going to happen with this bunch in D.C.
    10 Mar 2013, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • croatkid1
    , contributor
    Comments (192) | Send Message
     
    Silvy H
    Please keep your quotes concerning the English attitudes toward their taxation and representation - you probably will do best when quoting or describing the Manchester, etc. crowd while keeping silent when describing the Conservatives - I hope you have noticed that the majority of your English cohorts who have relocated to the U. S.
    have become predominately Conservative (aka Republican).....
    10 Mar 2013, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • exportman1
    , contributor
    Comments (50) | Send Message
     
    How about a tax holiday on whatever portion that is repatriated that gets directed toward new hiring?
    10 Mar 2013, 08:44 PM Reply Like
  • XRTrader
    , contributor
    Comments (609) | Send Message
     
    Except that if we gave a tax holiday and could even get 500 billion of that money back into the US - some of it would be used or distributed to shareholders. Oh, what an economic boost that would be! If we could entice 1 trillion back into the US - we could have an economic renaissance!

     

    Kmi - you seem to be living in the "woulda coulda shoulda" world. The fact is the loopholes do exist. The money is currently sitting in off shore accounts. And, WE have the power to bring it back here and help the American economy.

     

    Why wouldn't we? Because we feel that these companies "should" just bring the money back themselves? Well, let me tell you - they wont.
    11 Mar 2013, 03:22 AM Reply Like
  • HCWHunter22
    , contributor
    Comments (60) | Send Message
     
    @tcliff; the 1.4T is the offshore profits, NOT the tax that would be paid on same. The taxes would only put a small dent in the deficit, and then what? What happens next year and the year after?
    11 Mar 2013, 05:27 AM Reply Like
  • Tmoen
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Yeah what a great idea and great President he was. He, his party, and his policies drove the world to near economic doom.
    11 Mar 2013, 08:20 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    XR you clearly either don't or can't understand my comments.

     

    The money is only "offshore" because it was funneled there via said tax loopholes. If you took as much time investigating the mecahnisms by which this money is "offshored" as you did in writing your comment you'd have a far clearer understanding of what's going on.

     

    Yes it is "offshore" under the current, legal, tax code. However the current, legal tax code requires payment of tax should it not be "permanently invested overseas" anymore, i.e. should it's status change.

     

    You advocate for a breach of the current, legal tax requirement.

     

    I advocate for leveling the playing field: if GE gets a tax holiday, I damn well better get one too. Got it?
    11 Mar 2013, 08:30 AM Reply Like
  • katzm
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    The highest corporate tax rate on earth?! Whaaat?! JNJ's effective tax rate in 2012 was 21.2%. Coca-Cola's underlying effective tax rate is 24%. Tyco International's tax rate is ~17.7%. Master Limited Partnerships, like Kinder Morgan (KMP), pay no Federal income tax. What's best for the US is not as simple as a US Chamber of Commerce endorsed "tax holiday" for American corporations to repatriate cash, avoid paying US corporate taxes, and simply repurchase shares. The Administration is right to try to incent American companies to invest in PP&E here in the US and onshore jobs.
    11 Mar 2013, 09:18 AM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    Kat, you can't use multi-nationals to compare domestic tax rates, as a large percentage of their income is taxed in a different jurisdiction under lower tax rates.
    11 Mar 2013, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • MrMatt
    , contributor
    Comments (1301) | Send Message
     
    To give them an advantage over those who now repatriate funds for existing staff?
    11 Mar 2013, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • Jdeboer87
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    I agree, we need these companies to repatriate these funds back, otherwise it will be reinvested in the foreign locations. $1.46T is a big number.
    10 Mar 2013, 07:13 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    When they repatriate the money they should pay taxes on it as they are legally obligated to do. I pay my taxes, they should too.

     

    The money wouldn't be 'offshore' if they hadn't first used the existing legal tax code to protect it from taxation, but perhaps you believe that corps with significant overseas revenue should be wholly exempt from taxation so you can bear the burden of supporting their overseas operations by covering their tax liabilities here?

     

    GE is more than happy to leverage the country's resources to promote its agendas overseas at a cost to taxpayers, but is never interested in funding it in any way other than through its lobbyists.
    10 Mar 2013, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • ocala
    , contributor
    Comments (69) | Send Message
     
    Pay the tax in the country where it is earned in compliance with their tax laws then be free to transfer or move it at will throughout the world.
    10 Mar 2013, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • cshoxie
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    Better to have it invested in foreign locations than pissed away by our government.
    10 Mar 2013, 11:14 AM Reply Like
  • wedidit
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    Many people are not aware of the changes taking place and the repatriation of manufactorying to the US. May I suggest the readers Google "The Insourcing Boom" and "Mr. China Comes to America" for an update. Both articles appeared in the December 2012 issue of The Atlantic.
    10 Mar 2013, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2499) | Send Message
     
    KMI the money is offshore because they are profits earned in a foreign country. The US is one of few large economies that attempts to tax money US multinationals have already paid taxes on in the country where the profits were earned.

     

    With the Fed printing $85 billion a month and pushing it into the system to help fund growth, I think a cut in this rate to 0 would be an excellent stimulus to the US economy, even if only 1/3 of the money made its way back to the US.
    10 Mar 2013, 07:06 PM Reply Like
  • XRTrader
    , contributor
    Comments (609) | Send Message
     
    Actually KMI, almost every other country in the WORLD does not tax corporations on overseas income. The US is one of the few to do this.

     

    If starbucks opens a store and sells a cup of coffee in china, it's the chinese consumer who pays. The chinese roads that are more congested. The chinese sewer and water systems that need to grow. And, indeed, they pay chinese taxes on this money.

     

    Why should the US gov get a piece of this revenue?? It's this tax philosophy that have created this infrastructure of US companies holding money abroad.
    11 Mar 2013, 03:26 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    Mike, that's a very naive understanding of how the money/profits were "earned".

     

    The problem with this issue is folks comment without ever having developed an understanding of just how this money got there.
    11 Mar 2013, 08:32 AM Reply Like
  • user39623
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Only wage earners and retires pay taxes.
    10 Mar 2013, 07:34 AM Reply Like
  • stever10
    , contributor
    Comments (104) | Send Message
     
    Do you really,honestly think that those big corporate giants, if allowed to bring those massive amount of funds back into the USA tax free will actually put those funds back into the American economy and create jobs here? If so, please contact me as I have a bridge in Brooklyn and an oasis in the desert up for sale.
    10 Mar 2013, 07:47 AM Reply Like
  • sandicam
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Exactly! The last time the did a tax holiday, the money went to buy back stock and increase dividends. Have to increase shareholder value, doncha know?
    10 Mar 2013, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2499) | Send Message
     
    Shareholders own the companies, so why shouldnt it go to shareholders? It is, after all, their money. Everyone on this site is an investor, so how can you possibly try to argue that increasing share prices and dividend yields are a bad thing??
    10 Mar 2013, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • Joey2shoes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    A simple 10% tax on off shore cash repatriated could entice these companies to return a significant portion to the USA. This could increase dividends or more investment in their businesses in the USA resulting in more employment. If they brought back 1/2 trillion that 50B more than the govt is getting now.
    10 Mar 2013, 07:50 AM Reply Like
  • gathurm
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    The amount of ignorance about international tax laws, and the impact of repatriating those funds, shown here is staggering.

     

    The US doesn't have a tax collecdtion problem, it has a massive spending problem.
    10 Mar 2013, 08:03 AM Reply Like
  • Silvy H
    , contributor
    Comments (120) | Send Message
     
    " The US doesn't have a tax collection problem"...hmmmm....well it clearly does otherwise Carl Levin wouldn't be looking at how to close the various tax loop holes would he?
    10 Mar 2013, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • fred1724
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    Wasting your time, Gathurm. Tax the "bad" guys is today's mantra. Spending is OK because the people get the rewards. These people will never understand our problem until The USA gos down with no one to bail us out.
    10 Mar 2013, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • XRTrader
    , contributor
    Comments (609) | Send Message
     
    Lol Silvy. Levin is always looking at a lot of things. That doesn't make them true.
    11 Mar 2013, 03:28 AM Reply Like
  • Bret Jensen
    , contributor
    Comments (10032) | Send Message
     
    We should do three things:

     

    1. Provide tax holiday so funds can come home.
    2. End double taxation of company profits (This cash is built up after the company has paid taxes on that income in the overseas country).
    3. Get rid of the GE chairman on the president's job council. Having someone leading that council whose huge corporation pays next to no taxes is bad optics. Also undermines the president's class warfare rhetoric.
    10 Mar 2013, 08:25 AM Reply Like
  • geman
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    The presidents jobs council no longer exists.
    10 Mar 2013, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • Thomas Azzara
    , contributor
    Comments (458) | Send Message
     
    Bret. A tax holiday won't bring the back into the US because in the offshore tax havens there is no tax on capital gains of reinvested funds, and no taxes on income period. Bermuda, Cayman, Hong Kong, Panama - all have essentially no taxes. No estate taxes.. no gift taxes. No taxes of any kind.

     

    I formed over 1000 Bahamas corporations for small business investors since 1995, but IRS crack downs which revolves around "compliance" has stopped the "smaller players" from going offshore.
    The exception is the hedge fund managers and the funds themselves, which don't have to pay taxes even if managed from inside the USA?
    Contemplate that for a moment! Read this:

     

    Offshore Tax Breaks Lure Money Managers http://nyti.ms/YOJIsx
    Goldman Sachs expected in December 2008 to pay $14 million in taxes worldwide for 2008 compared with $6 billion the previous year, after making $2.3 billion profit and paying $10.9 billion in employee pay and benefits.

     

    The company’s effective tax rate dropped to 1% from 34.1% in 2007, due to tax credits and, according to Goldman Sachs, "changes in geographic earnings mix" thus reducing the company's tax obligation. Many critics argue that the reduction in Goldman Sach's tax rate was achieved by shifting its earnings to subsidiaries in low- or no-tax nations.
    Goldman Sachs had 28 such subsidiaries at the time, including 15 in the Cayman Islands.

     

    Goldman had revenues of $41 Billion in 2012 and has 32,000 employees.
    GS is just one of thousands of US companies offshore, but they don't advertise this, do they?
    10 Mar 2013, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    1. if so, I'd like a tax holiday of my own too, please. I'll set up some corps and route some money through Ireland and the Netherlands to the Bahamas and Caymens. What I earn here can be be paid as licensing revenue to the entities there, paying their zero to minimal 'tax rates', and then those "profits" can be tax free! Of course, my business isn't big enough to support such a fancy structure and the costs would likely eradicate the profits, so.... I guess you only get to not pay taxes when you are big enough. How does that help the average US citizen again?

     

    2. Not quite. But I'm open to reforming the tax code, if it applies to -ALL- US domiciled corps, not just those with multiple int'l subsidiaries.

     

    3. GE is the most consistent actor in this play. Just cause Mr. CEO is hanging out with the current Pres. doesn't change a tactic that's been in play for dozens of years and multiple administration.
    10 Mar 2013, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • Thomas Azzara
    , contributor
    Comments (458) | Send Message
     
    There's a 30 percent us withholding tax on the gross amount sent offshore on licensing revenues, so that won't work, but some of the us tax treaties reduce the rate to 0.
    11 Mar 2013, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • gathurm
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Aha, someone has touched the 3rd rail - class warfare. Blaming the 2% of taxpayers, that pay well over 50% of all taxes, for our budget deficits is the height of class deceit.

     

    Nobody wants to pay taxes, but the US's deficit problem comes from the class of politicians that will spend any amount of our children's future to get re-elected.

     

    The facts are that taxing the top 2% of taxpayers 100% of income would barely make a dent in the deficit. Spending is the US's problem, not tax revenue.
    10 Mar 2013, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • kalum
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Money goes where it is loved and respected,not where it is hated and punished
    10 Mar 2013, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • milehr
    , contributor
    Comments (476) | Send Message
     
    There should be ZERO tax on corporate profits. Taxing enterprise is immoral and stupid. I wish that leeches, who believe otherwise, understood that.
    10 Mar 2013, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    Contact your representative and lobby for change in the tax code. In the meantime, what you are advocating amounts to a breach of current law. That's why this used to be called a "tax amnesty" but the spinners have figured it out: call it a "holiday" and you completely change the tone of the conversation.
    10 Mar 2013, 09:52 AM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    Profits that are reinvested should not be taxed. Employment costs are taxed at the employee level, dividends can be taxed at the recipient level at full tax rates. Don't know how to treat buybacks.
    10 Mar 2013, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • Frank101
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    I'm a bit confused about the $108B kept overseas in 2012. I'm pretty certain GE didn't make $108B in profits in 2012.
    10 Mar 2013, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • Tmgrl2
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    I believe this is what they have accrued over time in overseas holdings.
    10 Mar 2013, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • Bnapieralski
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    I am a wage earner but pay far more taxes on investment income,interest and dividends. I guess I dint fit user 39623's profile. I get a feeling I am not alone.
    10 Mar 2013, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • KamyarPT
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    The time has come to use technology and to educate people instantly about the present and long term costs associated with financial decisions. Taxes are paid in a variety of ways.... in the US at the local, state, and federal level.... on consumed items as well as on earnings and profits... The tinkering done by elected officials, usually in the name of "stimulus" has complicated our tax system and made it impossible to have a simple and educated public discussion. Do we need to move towards a more full democracy and away from a Republic framework? Is social media already doing this?
    10 Mar 2013, 10:55 AM Reply Like
  • User 8308791
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Maybe all this money would come home t the US if the gov't wasn't so punitive in its tax structure and so wastefull with the funds it does collect. I wish I could stash what little money I have in similar schemes.
    "It is not difficult to make money, it is difficult to KEEP it!"
    10 Mar 2013, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • sharpham
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    As I understand it IBM is paying Tax. At least I pay Tax on dividends earned on my IBM shares.
    10 Mar 2013, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • svelluto
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    They already paid taxes on that money in the country where it was made. Of the 22 largest industrialized countries in the world the U.S. is the only one that taxes a company on all of it's profits, no matter where they were made. The rest tax corporations on the profits that were made in their country. That's why we have one the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Also, much of that is foreign exchange gains and not from earnings. Why pay taxes because Japan or China are keeping their currencies artificially low?
    10 Mar 2013, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • 123vmh
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    We should stop trying to collect taxes we aren't collecting. Let's allow profits earned overseas repatriate with no tax consequences.

     

    If the American worker is truly as productive as studies show, companies will repatriate those profits and use them to upgrade US facilities and worker skills. As it is , those funds go to upgrade overseas facilities and they take advantage of lower cost factors to increase the productivity of foreign competition.
    10 Mar 2013, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • tradewin
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    123, You're right. The congress we have right now will not make the terms reasonable for companies to bring back some of that cash. What they will do, however, is change the tax laws and go after cash rich corporations sitting on piles of money here in the U.S. For instance: Google, Facebook etc.
    10 Mar 2013, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • Old Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5725) | Send Message
     
    In any sort of organized human activity, the entities participating most successfully are those that most effectively study the "rule book". I find the imposition of "ex post facto" penalties, because one doesn't like the outcome to be distasteful, at best, and arguably immoral at worst.

     

    If you don't like the outcome of the game, change the rulebook. (Meaning that its the regulators that are at fault, rather than the companies being complained about.)
    10 Mar 2013, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • jfxwsr
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    I run a small retail company, and am delighted to pay taxes every year. It means that we operated succesfully, and we can help ouf communities and our country by supporting our schools, building our roads and infrastructure, protecting our environment, and making a world where all our children can grow up successfully, and compete internationally. Would we all not be better off if GE and Google and Goldman all felt that way, and acted that way? Is it intelligent to choose intense wealth in a country with increasing poverty? A better world for all of us is clearly a better world for ALL of us.
    10 Mar 2013, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    " help ouf communities and our country by supporting our schools, building our roads and infrastructure"

     

    Generally, Federal income taxes support none of those things. The taxes that support them don't care if you make a profit or not...
    10 Mar 2013, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • JOHNTBAKERJR
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    Whaaaa....whachutalkin... Alex_G? Did you have a big stiff coffee this morning? If not "income taxes", just what taxes are you talking about?
    11 Mar 2013, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    John, I have no idea what you're asking...
    11 Mar 2013, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • JOHNTBAKERJR
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    Alex_G...
    You say: "Generally, Federal income taxes support none of those things. The taxes that support them don't care if you make a profit or not..."

     

    What does that sentence mean? Income taxes DO support schools, roads, and infrastructure. What taxes (those not dependent on profit, apparently) do YOU think supports these things?
    12 Mar 2013, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    The lions share of school support comes from the states, in my state (Washington) it comes from property taxes. Roads and infrastructure are paid by gas and use taxes. Federal income taxes cover very little. That's what that sentence means. I thought it was pretty clear...
    12 Mar 2013, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • jeb62868
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely agree... and in fact the federal government should get it's grubby little fingers out of things like education. Does it not strike you odd that we ship our hard earned dollars off to DC where the politicians live in the lap of luxury at our expense and expect us to come kiss their rings so that they can ship our money back to us for local things like schools, 'first responders', etc? Why do we do that? It simply creates more opportunity for waste and corruption. The federal government needs a serious wing-clipping
    15 Mar 2013, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • JOHNTBAKERJR
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    Gosh...the Tea Party themes expressed in this comment string are great examples of their lunacy. Saying the US "just has a spending problem" is equivalent to saying that shoplifters just have a spending problem! Actually, shop store owners love it when people carry stuff out of their store...it is just the ones who don't pay for it that are the problem. So let's get real...the same people who bought the wars, the weapons, the programs, and the health care are the very same people who decided NOT to pay for it. They simply shoplifted all this from the American people....the store owners. And now us "store owners" have to pick up the tab. Since there is no way to return two trillion-dollar wars and to pay for the unending medical expenses for the wounded veterans (for example)....then it's time to pony up the payment. Pretty simple concept. Either pay for the product or don't buy it. Our congress was full of shoplifters during the Bush administration and nothing has changed to date. They want all the shiny objects (jet engines) for their legislative districts but they don't want to pay for it. Grand larceny is pretty much what they are up to.

     

    Also 35% of $1.4T is $0.5T ($500B)...that is enough to close the projected 2013 federal budget deficit by more than half....not an insignificant amount. Instead of a tax "holiday" for these corporate looters of the public treasury...I suggest we introduce a tax "incentive" (rich people and corporations understand "incentives"): bring the money home currently and it's taxed at 35%; bring it home later and pay a 5% ADDITIONAL tax for every year it is held overseas. Money held overseas longer than 5 years is taxed at 75%. Just a simple way for corporations to "avoid paying taxes". These companies benefit from US law, US culture, and US infrastructure....they should stop being "shoplifters" and pay for what they take! Let the first company that brings home the money be lionized.
    10 Mar 2013, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • milehr
    , contributor
    Comments (476) | Send Message
     
    It is amazing to read such economically illiterate nonsense on an investment site.
    11 Mar 2013, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • JOHNTBAKERJR
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    Illiterate nonsense indeed? Makes no sense to the Tea Party, I'm sure. That bastion of economic intelligence. Those one-track debaters. Those slippery-footed thinkers. Those men of etch-a-sketch principles!

     

    Explain how fighting two wars without paying for them was responsible. Oh...make that two UNNECESSARY wars. And then there's the Ryan miscarriage budget....what a smug little pimp for the rich.
    12 Mar 2013, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • terlack
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    I will be more blunt. Your an idiot. Go tell it to your lord and master Obumer and all the other arrogant libs that know nothing of economics and business. You people just can't grasp the concept that it isn't your money, yet you constantly have your hand out thinking it is.
    16 Mar 2013, 05:41 AM Reply Like
  • consultnick
    , contributor
    Comments (184) | Send Message
     
    Two PUNISHING truths:

     

    1. The up-to-current costs of our over 20 year war (now in the 23rd year) in the Middle East compares almost EXACTLY to the size of our deficit....$4 Trillion. The England to France Channel Tunnel cost $21 Billion--the US spent $7.5 Billion/MONTH during the conflict in the Middle East! That's an English Channel Tunnel every 2-3 months since 1990....Roughly speaking--repeating the greatest feat of construction and engineering in history 115 times--and for us to be hated and ever-more despised, while we are apparently doomed to live in terror for the rest of our lives....(been to an airport recently? Do you have drone fear? How do you feel about "Homeland Security??) Ain't been a real great deal in my view!

     

    2. Actuarial studies show that the PEAK cost of a war comes 50 years AFTER the end of the conflict, as wave after wave of old soldiers hit the government for post-conflict retirement benefits, late-in-life medical costs and benefits are paid out to survivors for generations.

     

    We have JUST finished paying the last beneficiary of the Spanish and American War! And although there are now fewer and fewer WWII survivors, and their widows and survivors children, we have just passed the peak of the Korean War expense, and have YET to see the largest wave of vets/benefits demands from the Vietnam War.

     

    I will be one of them--and would already be one if I had been disabled, would have had PTSD, or had decided to be a street drug/alcohol "victim". Even now, as a Medicare recipient, I still have rights of access to Vet hospitals if I should so chose, as well as the right to a vet burial. My dad died well off--but he had all of his medical needs--especially surgeries--performed at Vet hospitals. He was paid for a 10% shoulder injury/disability from 1946 until the day he died in 2000. Although he could do everything but throw an over-hand curve-ball, he figured he was owed that after 3 years of war that carried him from North Africa through all of southern Europe and into the Battle of the Bulge--and who would disagree?

     

    Vietnam vets lives are far more disrupted--they fought an unpopular war for nothing, and came home hated instead of heroes. America has contemporary ambivalence regarding whether or not Middle East conflict warriors are indeed heroes. Media treats them schizophrenically. But there is one clear difference--closed head injury from IED's--there is an enormous amount of them that will sap the medical field for the next 50 years, as these guys go down the inevitably grim trail that is consequent to getting your brains scrambled. Serious Mental health challenges come first, followed by early dementia and a very long disease pathway before death. We are facing a hydrogen bomb of veteran expense that will not reach its peak until 2060.

     

    In order to keep the ball rolling, NOW would be a great time to get geared up for some selected African conflict--and we gotta continue being a super power off the coast of China, who has already stolen the very best of our military secrets regarding missile and radar technology, nuclear and submarine vessel construction, fighter aircraft/aerospace engineering, as well as displaying a manifest need to beef up their military presence off their shores in "response to our threat". So we gotta stay in the race--don't we? F-35's anyone? Only $400 million each.....merely $1.17 Trillion lifetime Program Costs. isn't that getting kinda close to the offshore cash we are barking about here on SA?

     

    Life has definitely gotten much harder since we stopped worshipping Venuses, and began to take up arms big-time in about 3000BC. Can’t go back home again either—now we got Venuses wanting to shoot each other in combat….I dunno….it’s way too late for me to change anything, and besides—it’s a young man’s world….er….young women’s world now, and it’s gonna be real expensive FOREVER.
    10 Mar 2013, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • GalXZ
    , contributor
    Comments (57) | Send Message
     
    The government needs to stop spending so much. Then the government needs to work with businesses to work on a plan together. Free enterprise makes this country great.
    18 Mar 2013, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • JOHNTBAKERJR
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    Most of what the Government spends is with BUSINESS! So when the government stops spending, there goes a very big business customer! You are really deluded! Enterprise makes this country great! However, unregulated (free) enterprise stifles progress. Look what the last ten+ years has cost this country. FREE enterprise during this time meant...unregulated banking, gambling vs. investing, UNLIMITED MONEY IN POLITICS, cashing in on government service, and I could go on and on. The big lie is that business will fail without government support and coddling (oil subsidies, farm subsidies, tax subsidies, etc). There is absolutely NO evidence that supports this. It's just a figment of the imagination of the Chamber of Commerce!! Nope...business needs ONLY regulation to thrive. It is the LACK of ground rules which stifles business across the globe. Business thrives here ONLY when the government plays its rightful role in keeping the playing field level. And, yes, that means things like NOBODY can pay less than a livable minimum wage!! Greed will always push business forward within whatever environment exists. Fear not, greed will always exist!! Unregulated, greed consumes itself!!
    19 Mar 2013, 12:59 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|