Scott SoCal said:
""Chambers has made political donations totaling over $180,000 to the Democratic Party and over $1,000,000 to the Republican Party.[8] He served as a co-chair in Republican John McCain's 2008 presidential bid.""
- Status
""Chambers has made political donations totaling over $180,000 to the Democratic Party and over $1,000,000 to the Republican Party.[8] He served as a co-chair in Republican John McCain's 2008 presidential bid.""
redtreviso said:
Unlike government of course.
So, therefore, what? Cisco should pay something they don't legally, morally or ethically owe? To appease you? Pfft. There's nothing you will ever heap on companies like Cisco except contempt. It's all you know.
redtreviso said:
You are something else.
Do you think Obama may be getting donations from tech companies in silicon valley? You want to post those or do you want me to?
Scott SoCal said:
ummm You are sighting Chambers as your tax protester...He like you voted for Sarah Palin.. We get it.. They want to pay no taxes booo hoo. don't we all?
Scott SoCal said:
legally?? to be determined by their legal department, lobbyists and congressmen they own.
Morally???? bwahhhhhhaaaaa They'd cell cisco router killer routers to the russians if the money was right(and it went to a subsidiary in the Caymans.
Ethically??? bwahhaaaaaaa cisco is a thing.. like your car worrying about it being ethical to guide itself with you behind the wheel into a tree.
btw CSCO May 2000 77.31
" Today 15.61
How much of that legally, morally and ethically off shoring were they doing when their stock was almost 80 a share. Where's this return that joe american gets from all this consideration given to csco? A job? Stock splits? a bond election to repave Cisco's road?
and cisco's horse
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,526
- 3,891
- 28,180
I commented on this before, a few times, and am surprised Scott didn't mention it because he originally brought it up.
One of the potential deals talked about in the Obama organization is to cut the corporate rate, but unlike the tax holiday mentioned in the 60 Minutes piece that did raise treasury revenue but didn't create many net jobs, the current discussion involves compelling corporations to spend on direct US items, such as brick and mortar buildings and equipment in the US. I also think it could be extended to employee benefits.
The other direction would involve fundamental changes to NAFTA and GATT. And I'm not even sure half the "liberals" want to go that direction very far.
I think there is a real difference between what Scott and others here think though on what, if any, moral obligation Cicso and others may have to society. Just as there was questions as to whether or not GE really should have paid taxes, whey they not only paid zero, but got a few billion free from the government too. Was that moral? You tell me.
One could argue I suppose that we as citizens have no moral obligation to pay any taxes at all either.
One of the potential deals talked about in the Obama organization is to cut the corporate rate, but unlike the tax holiday mentioned in the 60 Minutes piece that did raise treasury revenue but didn't create many net jobs, the current discussion involves compelling corporations to spend on direct US items, such as brick and mortar buildings and equipment in the US. I also think it could be extended to employee benefits.
The other direction would involve fundamental changes to NAFTA and GATT. And I'm not even sure half the "liberals" want to go that direction very far.
I think there is a real difference between what Scott and others here think though on what, if any, moral obligation Cicso and others may have to society. Just as there was questions as to whether or not GE really should have paid taxes, whey they not only paid zero, but got a few billion free from the government too. Was that moral? You tell me.
One could argue I suppose that we as citizens have no moral obligation to pay any taxes at all either.
redtreviso said:
Chambers was central in the 60 minutes piece you didn't watch.
I don't think Chambers lives in Alaska and I know I don't. So when did either of us vote for Palin? Or by your reasoning you voted for Biden, right?
redtreviso said:
You are he very definition of the "entitlement mentality". Red, you are entitled. Everyone owes you. Everyone and everything.
i'm waiting for red to sell his martin and his sr groupo to give money to the less fortunate. come on red, it's wealth redistribution time, lead the way. 
- Jul 9, 2009
- 7,966
- 1,391
- 20,680
Alpe d'Huez said:
We just don't have the clout. Hell I employ a half dozen American workers, where's my tax break?
Alpe d'Huez said:
This plan is not currently being discussed by the Obama team that I'm aware of, probably because if it worked then there would be evidence established that a lower corporate tax rate would actually be good for the economy and the Obama white house can't have that.
This is where I read the plan originally (I think, anyways);
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/business/20tax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
I really dislike Jeff Imelt. He's no Jack Welch, that's for damn sure. But what is Imelt supposed to do? Not take the loss carry forward? It's a public company. He's supposed to fork over corporate profits that, according to the IRS, GE did not owe so that our government can continue to be run into the ground by the great unqualified corrupt DC crowd? Same question for Cisco. What are they supposed to do?
Instead of the focus on GE why can't we focus on the size and scope of our federal bureaucracy? Should our government have no obligation to conduct itself within it's means?
patricknd said:i'm waiting for red to sell his martin and his sr groupo to give money to the less fortunate. come on red, it's wealth redistribution time, lead the way.
And his guitar.
If I were on Obama's economic team I'd be looking to jump off the sinking ship too. The article suggests he should replace Geithner with someone from the business world. Maybe BO can get Imelt in there?
Geithner to Consider Leaving After Debt Debate
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/geithner-said-to-weigh-leaving-treasury-after-debt-ceiling-debate-resolved.html
Geithner to Consider Leaving After Debt Debate
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/geithner-said-to-weigh-leaving-treasury-after-debt-ceiling-debate-resolved.html
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,526
- 3,891
- 28,180
- Mar 10, 2009
- 7,268
- 1
- 0
Scott SoCal said:
Society: Hi Mr. Company. If you want to enjoy the benefits of this society, you will have to contribute 39%; you will get, educated, skilled people, a reliable rule of law system, a property rights system, upheld and supported by the government and the highest court, a stable democracy, well maintained (ahem) infrastructure, including waterways, roads, railroads, clean air, clean water fresh from the tap, the best financial system in the world, and politicians that rely on your generous contributions.
Mr. Company: That's great, but you know what, I want to contribute less, because I create jobs.
US Society: Yes, well unfortunately, ordinary people who also do "good things" for society on a daily basis and without even considering that their acts benefit this society, (such as not committing crimes, raising their children, clearing snow from the sidewalk in winter) also still have to pay the same amount of taxes. Heck, they don't even get rewarded in the form of corporate profits for those selfless acts, and they still do not get a tax break. You are a company, and creating jobs is what you do; your produce a good and in order to do that, you hire people who you reward for their input. That's just as special as an ordinary citizen doing what he does on a daily basis. So, I am sorry, but these are the terms. If you don't like what we offer, you can always move your entire operations to Mexico and Canada.
Mr. Company: Well, no. I actually want to have a foothold in the US and benefit from your society, but I just don't like to pay so much. I create jobs remember.
US Society: Goodbye.
Mr. Company: alright alright. you drive a hard bargain. I will stay and comply, for now....
-----
Moral of the story; they are not leaving the US despite the 'high' tax rates, because it's way to lucrative to remain inside the US.
Lowering the tax rate will do nothing but reduce government revenue. Do you really think that such rent seeking companies will stop trying to lower their effective tax rate once you lower the existing statutory rate to 15%?
If tax rates are (according to your assessment that all US companies will move their operations from Switzerland to the US in case of a reduced tax rate) the sole driver behind a company's decision to choose a location, why has CSCO still US presence?
I'll reiterate: CSCO is in Switzerland or the Netherlands, because they don't want to be in Germany or France. Not because they want to be in the US. They are already in the US, but since they also need to be in Europe, they chose a country there.
Source? I was talking about the increased productivity inside the US only, I wasn't drawing a comparison between countries.
Companies already come here "despite" the high tax rate. So there is no need to reduce it from statutory 39 (effective 27%) to 15, right. At most you could argue that you close all existing loopholes and thereby increase the effective rate from 27 to ~30
Automation always happens. I never said otherwise. I only said that with extra cash on hand a company might consider putting that to good use - besides share buy backs and drive up their stock prices - by accelerating (not starting) investments in more complex efficiency upgrades.
I am also glad you acknowledge that a perceived negative (automation = loss of jobs) also creates other opportunities (other sectors = creation of jobs; innovation etc)
This premise however also applies when government passes so called "job-killing" laws and regulations. Environmental regulations are said to have negative effects on a polluters for example, but at the same time, it creates opportunities in the 'regulatory services sector' (for example PWC will be hired to do audits), for businesses that measure and clean up waste, for businesses that instantly become competitive because they already priced in the costs of negative externalities.
They are part of society. Why should they not be concerned about the level of education. Philips in the Netherlands for example is worried about the lack of qualified people with a tech back ground; politicians voice that concern. You pay taxes, CSCO pays taxes. You are concerned about infrastructure, or terrorism, or corporate tax rates. Why would CSCO not share all those concerns in the US. They are not "responsible", nor are you responsible for the state of education in the US. Nor politicians, who could be said to merely represent the opinion of their constituents. If constituents don't care about education, why should their politicians?
To be clear, I never said they need to do something. I said I think it's shortsighted for their future operations in the US to only focus on a corporate tax rates and concentrate all their efforts on achieving that goal only. Just like it's short sighted for unions to only focus on wages. But that's arguably the problem in the US. First, there is no long term plan, or strategy, there appears to be a lack of vision. Who was the last president who has gave this country any direction? Secondly, there is never any compromise. How often does labor ever sit around the table with the Chamber of Commerce to discuss problems? The only thing I see is a barrage of provocative and self-serving press releases and speeches, and politicians who act as their respective mouthpieces. An expanding body of law, a large patch work of disparate little bills, a quagmire of rules, some dating from the 1930s, reflects that. (Not to say that other societies are necessarily better).
Where does the US want to be in 20 years, and how does anyone try to achieve that? That requires actors, from the chamber to unions, to teachers, to wall street to CEOs, to shareholders, to doctors, to insurance companies and politicians, to compromise. Unfortunately, aiming for compromise from the start here means you have undermined your bargaining position, and you will thus receive the short end of the stick. Classic prisoner's dilemma.
Thanks for the link
patricknd said:i'm waiting for red to sell his martin and his sr groupo to give money to the less fortunate. come on red, it's wealth redistribution time, lead the way.
martin(s),.,.. no sr groupos.. athena groupos with sr 9 per side,, hand adjusted spoke holding thingys...
now go back to your csco BNing and republican cSing
Alpe d'Huez said:
With republicans it is moral and legal even after the prison cell door slams behind them. Skilling and Fastow and Ebers are just being unjustly persecuted by anti business libruls..
Bala Verde said:Society: Hi Mr. Company. If you want to enjoy the benefits of this society, you will have to contribute 39%; you will get, educated, skilled people, a reliable rule of law system, a property rights system, upheld and supported by the government and the highest court, a stable democracy, well maintained (ahem) infrastructure, including waterways, roads, railroads, clean air, clean water fresh from the tap, the best financial system in the world, and politicians that rely on your generous contributions.
Mr. Company: That's great, but you know what, I want to contribute less, because I create jobs.
US Society: Yes, well unfortunately, ordinary people who also do "good things" for society on a daily basis and without even considering that their acts benefit this society, (such as not committing crimes, raising their children, clearing snow from the sidewalk in winter) also still have to pay the same amount of taxes. Heck, they don't even get rewarded in the form of corporate profits for those selfless acts, and they still do not get a tax break. You are a company, and creating jobs is what you do; your produce a good and in order to do that, you hire people who you reward for their input. That's just as special as an ordinary citizen doing what he does on a daily basis. So, I am sorry, but these are the terms. If you don't like what we offer, you can always move your entire operations to Mexico and Canada.
Mr. Company: Well, no. I actually want to have a foothold in the US and benefit from your society, but I just don't like to pay so much. I create jobs remember.
US Society: Goodbye.
Mr. Company: alright alright. you drive a hard bargain. I will stay and comply, for now....
-----
Moral of the story; they are not leaving the US despite the 'high' tax rates, because it's way to lucrative to remain inside the US.
Lowering the tax rate will do nothing but reduce government revenue. Do you really think that such rent seeking companies will stop trying to lower their effective tax rate once you lower the existing statutory rate to 15%?
If tax rates are (according to your assessment that all US companies will move their operations from Switzerland to the US in case of a reduced tax rate) the sole driver behind a company's decision to choose a location, why has CSCO still US presence?
I'll reiterate: CSCO is in Switzerland or the Netherlands, because they don't want to be in Germany or France. Not because they want to be in the US. They are already in the US, but since they also need to be in Europe, they chose a country there.
Source? I was talking about the increased productivity inside the US only, I wasn't drawing a comparison between countries.
Companies already come here "despite" the high tax rate. So there is no need to reduce it from statutory 39 (effective 27%) to 15, right. At most you could argue that you close all existing loopholes and thereby increase the effective rate from 27 to ~30
Automation always happens. I never said otherwise. I only said that with extra cash on hand a company might consider putting that to good use - besides share buy backs and drive up their stock prices - by accelerating (not starting) investments in more complex efficiency upgrades.
I am also glad you acknowledge that a perceived negative (automation = loss of jobs) also creates other opportunities (other sectors = creation of jobs; innovation etc)
This premise however also applies when government passes so called "job-killing" laws and regulations. Environmental regulations are said to have negative effects on a polluters for example, but at the same time, it creates opportunities in the 'regulatory services sector' (for example PWC will be hired to do audits), for businesses that measure and clean up waste, for businesses that instantly become competitive because they already priced in the costs of negative externalities.
They are part of society. Why should they not be concerned about the level of education. Philips in the Netherlands for example is worried about the lack of qualified people with a tech back ground; politicians voice that concern. You pay taxes, CSCO pays taxes. You are concerned about infrastructure, or terrorism, or corporate tax rates. Why would CSCO not share all those concerns in the US. They are not "responsible", nor are you responsible for the state of education in the US. Nor politicians, who could be said to merely represent the opinion of their constituents. If constituents don't care about education, why should their politicians?
To be clear, I never said they need to do something. I said I think it's shortsighted for their future operations in the US to only focus on a corporate tax rates and concentrate all their efforts on achieving that goal only. Just like it's short sighted for unions to only focus on wages. But that's arguably the problem in the US. First, there is no long term plan, or strategy, there appears to be a lack of vision. Who was the last president who has gave this country any direction? Secondly, there is never any compromise. How often does labor ever sit around the table with the Chamber of Commerce to discuss problems? The only thing I see is a barrage of provocative and self-serving press releases and speeches, and politicians who act as their respective mouthpieces. An expanding body of law, a large patch work of disparate little bills, a quagmire of rules, some dating from the 1930s, reflects that. (Not to say that other societies are necessarily better).
Where does the US want to be in 20 years, and how does anyone try to achieve that? That requires actors, from the chamber to unions, to teachers, to wall street to CEOs, to shareholders, to doctors, to insurance companies and politicians, to compromise. Unfortunately, aiming for compromise from the start here means you have undermined your bargaining position, and you will thus receive the short end of the stick. Classic prisoner's dilemma.
Thanks for the link
Lots of data out there.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/business/main3228735.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/ns/business-world_business/t/un-us-workers-are-worlds-most-productive/
http://thebravergroup.com/the-productivity-of-the-american-worker/
Google is your friend.
For the moment but it's already shifting. They are here because of the size of the marketplace... but it's shrinking and China an India are growing. They are here in spite of our silliness, not because of it.
As far as repatriated money, the US govt is getting nothing now. Nothing. As in zero. I think if our tax structure was on the lower side of average and made permanent you'd see a flood of business taking a hard look at the US and I suspect it would make real sense for a lot of corporate entities bring what they have to offer here. Trust me, this will never happen as the govt is run by folks who are clueless and corrupt and who have very little sense, direction or vision not to mention their only real concern is getting re-elected. But hey, let's let them run our lives. They are doing such a great job with economics and all.
I suspect all Cisco is looking for is a level playing field. I suspect Cisco has spent a ridiculous amount of money to find their lowest tax liability. Why? Because they have to remain competitive. Period, end of story.
JFK and to a slightly lesser degree Ronald Reagan. We've had crap since.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard thread: Love in Iberia- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 10K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram