IT Employment

General discussion


Tax companies that send jobs overseas

By Peter Warren ·
We should support candidates that are willing to push back against corporations that send jobs offshore. If corporations insist on paying less overseas for work that can be done in the US, they should be forced to pay for the economic disruption through additional taxation.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

It's a global economy

by Dr Dij In reply to Tax companies that send j ...

Suppose it is a foreign company that simply has some jobs here? tax them for doing biz in US because they have some jobs overseas?

you're idea is unworkable. globalization is not the problem. The current problem is that the US economy is in the dumps and it is going to get worse. 8 million new jobs would have had to be created in US to match population growth. Only a fraction of these have been created.

The US economy is in the dumps: 1) due to overspending by govt. total debt is reaching close to 8 trillion, $107,000 per US citizen.
2) by inflating money supply. the govt actually makes up money for interbank loans to large banks.
This seriously distorts the economy, and makes everyones money worth less. The lowered interest rates that they match the money creation with also distort the economy, e.g. the soon to burst real estate bubble.
3) the govt lies about inflation and growth. the official inflation rate is 4.7%, the actual rate is closer to 10%. This is hidden somewhat by some goods being cheaper due to manufacturing efficiencies and competition, e.g. electronics and computers.
the govt in clinton admin changed way growth is calculated. If companies spend $10 billion on new computers, this is counted as $90 billion in 'productivity investments'.
Software purchases are counted as asset rather than an expense. Software sales is only 4% approx of investment but is counted towards 30-40% of new growth. (source Dr. Richtenbacher letters, see

the internet makes it easier to ship jobs overseas, but there is no real way to control this, politicians or not.

Collapse -

Are we reading the same posts?

by Peter Warren In reply to It's a global economy

You are right. Corporations have only one obligation: to make money for the stockholders. And this is exactly what is wrong with them. You don?t seem capable of understanding this. All you keep saying is that I?m asking for something that, in your mind, I don?t deserve.

Once again, I?m not asking for anything. I?m simply describing a tragic situation. Our current leadership and their corporate masters are waltzing merrily toward destruction, all the while singing the praises of economic responsibility, free trade, compassion and hard work, as if merely speaking the words will make everything OK. The fact is, both publicly and privately, we are being led by the mediocre, for whom economic responsibility, free trade, compassion and hard work mean making sure their own pockets are lined. Why do you have such a tough time with this?

Collapse -

So you live on charity?

by Dr Dij In reply to Are we reading the same p ...

nothing at all wrong with companies making money. they pay there taxes and private charities, govts use their money to help people.

it may be tragic that people lose their jobs to overseas but it is in no way the blame of companies. If you keep companies from re-arranging their work forces we'll all be like Europe where it is very hard to find a job because they have serious trouble firing or laying you off.

In china they had the 'iron rice bowl' guaranteed employment. no more. as a hold-over from these days, 30% of the state run enterprises lose money, lumbering dinosaurs held up by public moneys. How do you feel about your taxes going to support corrupt public enterprises with 'crony capitalism' as it is in China? (actually you wouldn't be able to express your feelings if you were there).

The companies laying off workers here are both 1) part of a natural process, where production shifts globally, and 2) overall job loss due to this but largely due to govt medling with the economy, including printing billions of made up money out of thin air to fund program.

This process heavily distorts the economy, to the point that the US savings rate is MINUS 1.3% ! This also puts HUGE pressures on companies who then do #1 and other means of cutting costs because of this.

So anyway, you are right about the symptoms and they are bad. You are wrong with your percieved cause of this and the cure. There is no easy cure. Even shutting down our borders to imports would not stop this, it basically could not be done as we are a global economy now. I have no problem see what's happening. I just dig a bit deeper to find the real causes.

Blaming the corporations that produce our goods is misguided rattletrap. Even many leftists now realise that global trade is good ( article).

Collapse -

Nothing wrong with making money

by Peter Warren In reply to So you live on charity?

I'm glad you realize that we have serious problems. As for the causes, I would nominate the following:
*government programs that throw money to the wealthy through irresponsible tax cuts
*government welfare to corporations
*short-sighted corporate leadership and shareholders who can't see beyond the current quarter's earnings
*a population that has forgotten its responsibilities regarding savings, education and keeping informed.

I agree that we live in a global economy. In my view, global trade can be both a blessing and a curse. I think that as long as we are led by the likes of our current administration and current corporate directors, we will continue to see more of the curse than the blessing.

Collapse -

The law of unintended consequences

by JamesRL In reply to Tax companies that send j ...

If you restrict the rights of companies to move labour where they want through the use of taxes, companies will find ways around that. One possible way is to move the company headquarters overseas and re-incorporate it in the new country.

You may think this is absurd, but take a look at online gambling. Its illegal for a US company to do this, yet there are US casinos that are affiliated with online gambling sites - because they set up separate companies to do this, owned by the US parent.

Restrict capital, lose foreign investment. What would happen if all Japanese, European and even Canadian investors decided to withdraw their investments in a short period of time? Pandemonium and depression.


Collapse -


by Peter Warren In reply to The law of unintended con ...

It's true that some companies will find ways to evade additional taxes. But what use are companies who shirk their responsibility to the societies that make their profitable operation possible? Our so called representative government already allows corporations to "relocate" overseas on paper, in order to evade taxes in the US.

If a company wants to relocate overseas, let them go. But not just on paper. Let them move out physically: lock, stock and barrel. Let their CEOs give up their US citizenship in favor of citizenship in another country. I doubt we'd see a great rush, but if so, we'd have to rebuild our economy on firmer, saner ground.

Collapse -

So we

by Dr Dij In reply to Unintended?

shouldn't allow ceo's from another country to be on corporate boards?

sounds like you haven't thought this out too well. companies would get around it. there's not much point to it.

so maybe they'd simply 'buy' stuff from subcontractors overseas rather than 'own' plants there. would not make alot of difference to them.

In case you haven't learned, corporations exist only to make money. they have no inherent reponsibility to any society. they do give donations as it makes them look like good citizens, is good PR. And they play by laws because they are required to.

Collapse -

play by the law

by Peter Warren In reply to So we

Yes, they play by the law because they are required to do so. That's all I'm saying. If they refuse to play by the law, then those who are responsible for running the corporation have declared themselves outside the law and should be treated as any common criminal. Or do you believe white collar status absolves individuals from all responsibility to the society that affords them the opportunity to make a living?

If a corporation, considered separately from the individuals who run it, is above the law, than why shouldn't a couple of bank robbers incorporate and conduct bank robbing business as an almighty corporation whose only duty is to make money by any means possible. It seems your view of the rights of corporations is wholly unrealistic.

Collapse -


by Dr Dij In reply to play by the law

I was portraying corporations as they ARE.
What else is realistic?

You are portraying as you want them to be, which is unrealistic, to expect them to do, particularly as social responsibility as you define it is not written into the law. Your definition seems to include them feeling guilty for stuff they didn't do.

You don't have a god-given right to a job, material wealth, etc. You work in the economy to obtain those, they are not handed out on a 'need' basis. THat was the definition for communism.

If the majority of people agreed with you it probably would be. But we value letting people keep what they earned and corporations are the machinery for the global economy.

Collapse -

Change is possible

by Peter Warren In reply to Unrealistic?

I can't believe how many people believe that corporations and Ameircan-style capitalism are the new "devine right" of the few. According to you, change is neither possible nor desirable. Who's being unrealistic. If you were right, we'd all still be living in caves, under the thumbs of the most brutal and ruthless.

I'm all in favor of letting people keep what they've earned. It's the criminal theft; the unadulterated greed that absolves itself with the mantle of "free market values" that I object to. Laws can and should be changed when they only serve to oppress and enrich the powerful and connected.

I don't claim a god-given right to anything. I advocate fighting against short sighted, destructive corporate hacks who can't see the forrest for the trees. And frankly, as someone who has worked continuously since the age of twelve, I don't need a lecture about hand outs. Those who cannot see beyond the "survival of the fittest" are living by the law of the jungle. So they have no basis for complaint when the same law destroys them.

Related Discussions

Related Forums