Posted on 05/12/2014 6:17:42 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal
News that Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, plans to buy Britain’s AstraZeneca for $106 billion, renounce its U.S. citizenship and declare itself a British company has jolted Congress.
Pfizer is being denounced as disloyal to the land of its birth, and politicians are devising ways to stop Pfizer from departing.
Yet Pfizer is not alone. Hedge fund managers are urging giant corporations like Walgreens to go nation-shopping for new residences abroad to evade the 35 percent U.S. corporate income tax.
Britain’s corporate income tax is 20 percent, and Pfizer stands to save over $1 billion a year by moving there.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Not necessary.
Much manufacturing always follows cheap labor. That is how we got the textile industry here, until cheap labor drew it overseas. That will always happen.
Other Asian countries are now starting to draw manufacturing away from China.
Again, it is not a one dimensional issue. If you manufacture in china, you have large shipping costs and time delays.
BUT, if you continue to have the cost of compliance with vast regulations and the constant cost of legal protection and large taxes, you are far better off to move overseas.
"We don’t owe those countries anything. It’s our market and if we want to charge for access to sell in it, then so be it. "
What could possibly go wrong with that?? Oh, yea... Global Depression. Been there done it. No nation that is isolated from others and prospers. There must be give and take.
More importantly to your desire to bring manufacturing back. It will only happen, if you change the things cited above.
It would cut yearly tax compliance costs as much as 95 percent (instead of spending soon US$500 BILLION per year in tax compliance, we now have US$475 billion per year now freed up for more productive activities), and would eliminate 50% of the lobbyists in Washington, DC (and all the corruption that goes with it!). The DJIA would zoom past 25,000 in a matter of a few years because we eliminated capital gains and stock dividend taxation. And that only scratches the surface of the positive effects on the US economy.
Just so, Ray. Just so!
Cut it to 20% and cut mine to 10%.
To begin with, Thomas Jefferson had noted that, in his time, the rich paid all federal taxes via tariffs on imported goods.
“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied [emphasis added]. … Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.” —Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
The key question to be asked concerning the rich uniquely bearing the burden of keeping the federal government is this. What limited the federal government from taxing the rich to the extent that they wound up in the poor house? It so happens that in Jefferson’s time Justice John Marshall had officially clarified limits on Congress’s power to lay taxes as evidenced by the following excerpt.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So regardless that the rich were Congress’s cash cow, Justice Marshall had clarified that Congress was limited to taxing essentially only what it needed to fulfill its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited duties. In fact, based on justice Marshall’s words, here’s a rough estimate of what taxpayers should be paying Congress annually in order for Congress to do its job.
Given that the plurality of causes in Section 8 are defense related, and given that the Department of Defense’s (DoD) budget for 2013 was $500+ billion, I will generously round the DoD annual budget up to $1 trillion, but probably much less, as to what taxpayers should be forking over to Congress each year to keep the federal government running within its Section 8-limited powers.
In other words, we shouldn’t be hearing about the multi-trillion annual federal budgets that the corrupt media, including Obama guard Fx News, is reporting without mentioning Justice Marshall’s statement about Congress’s limited power to lay taxes.
In fact, the only reason that I can think of that rich people who own coporations are paying 35% tax is because the parents of those rich owners evidently didn’t make sure that their children were taught the Constitution and its history. So rich people, low-information voters like mostly everybody else, simply don’t know enough about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers to argue Justice Marshall’s precedent and reduce their taxes.
Finally, the next time that the states amend the Constitution, I think that they should enumerate Justice Marshall’s statement about Congress’s limited power to lay taxes into the Constitution where it will hopefully be a little less ignored.
Other nations already tariff the living crap out of U.S. producers. China would never allow an American made vehicle into its’ market, yet Buick’s largest market is China, Chinese made Buicks made with American technology in Chinese Auto plants. Japan is the same way. NO U.S. made products to speak of.
Is sending or most important technologies offshore to avoid usurious Federal Taxes even a remotely sensible idea?
It is high time the regressive idea of an income tax that funds the Federal Government is debunked as a legitimate way to treat a free people. The entire system should be scraped for the bad idea that it is. A total reworking of the government funding system should be a priority for any person in politics today.
We should go back to tariffs and fees to support a Federal Government that is reduced by at least 2/3rds with most powers returned to the states where they belong.
It's true. Only individuals pay taxes.
Individual consumers pay via higher prices.
Individual workers pay via lower wages.
Individual investors pay via reduced ROI.
Communists believe the wealth should be owned by the ‘State’. Since, of course, YOU didn’t build that, YOU don’t actually own the business.
Socialist don’t have to OWN the means of production. They get the same result through regulation and taxation. You will operate the business according to their whims and they will share in your profits. In some cases, the government’s share is larger than the owner’s.
Looks to me that all is going well according to plan. More small businesses are closing than are opening. More monopolies (easier to control) are forming.
Right on, right on , right on.
I also have to wonder if they are projecting Obamacare stifling their entire business model.
Sad for Kzoo, but it is inevitable. We could solve this by further punishing those evil corporations.
Any idiot can see why socialism and communism cannot work in the real world. It’s not a voluntary system, and therefore who enforces it? Whoever does is going to have total power over all the resources everyone depends on to live. So it’s not just an “economic system” as they claim. But that’s just an excuse for something else which they’re not willing to admit. What they really want is control over everyone’s thoughts and minds, and the power to eliminate anyone who won’t comply with theirs. Socialism is just a means to an end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.