Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Corporations, Taxes and the Economy

As I was waiting for “The Amazing Race” to start on Sunday, March 27, I watched Lesley Stahl present her report on 60 Minutes about MultiNational Corporations evading US federal taxes by setting up branches, servers, data, patents and other things in “business friendly” nations. It got me to think about our situation here and how the US can do it better with sound economics. It concerns me that as the nation with probably the most freedom in the world, that we are not the most business friendly nation in the world. Capitalism should flourish here like no place in the world. However, there are people in this country that see the corporation as a greedy bunch of shareholders and board of directors that don’t care about how they make money, just that they make money. I don’t agree with that assessment entirely. The purpose of a corporation is to produce a product or service in order to make money. If there wasn’t money to be made, would there be any incentive to produce new ideas or inventions?


Think of this, if we were to lower taxes on corporations, they could lower the price of their product or service, which in turn spurs demand for the product or service, which means more products sold, which means there is more money to hire more workers to fill the demand. This means more taxes for the federal and state governments because there are more workers earning money. Who pays the taxes for corporations now? Consumers do, when they pay for the goods or services of the corporations. Corporations always add their taxes or fees to the cost of goods sold, and then they adjust the price to what the market can bear. Consumers are essentially taxed twice. Their own income tax and the corporation’s income tax of product or service they purchased. If there were no corporate income tax, the cost to consumers would be lower. Now, I’m not saying this is what will happen in all cases, because as we know there are greedy people in this world, but the market will find them and they will fail because their approach was greed for themselves and not what is good for the corporation.


The argument I usually get back from the people that think corporations are evil and greedy is the CEO will just pay him/her and the officers more money with the extra money they get from paying less taxes. If they do that, then they should be fired by the shareholders/board of directors. They are thinking of themselves before the purpose of their job. The only logical choice is to lower prices and reinvest the money in the corporation in order to make more money and hire more workers, and the cycle continues. Just read or watch what the CEO of Cisco John Chambers told Lesley Stahl.


Chambers told Stahl Cisco has almost $40 billion overseas that could be brought back to the U.S.

The total amount of money U.S. companies have trapped overseas is $1.2 trillion. Chambers is advocating for a one-time tax break to allow them to bring that money home at a rate of, say five percent. That would, he says, stimulate the economy and create jobs.


"What is your downside for money that isn't going to come back anyhow? I'd say your downside is zero," he told Stahl.


But the Obama administration opposed this idea. When it was tried in 2005, the Treasury did rake in billions of dollars, though very few jobs were created.


"What if tomorrow Congress passed a quickie law and the tax rate was 20 percent? Would that solve everything?" Stahl asked.


"I think it is the most important ingredient that we have to think about being competitive," Chambers replied.

"You lower the rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. You lose something like $2 trillion in taxes. We have a horrible deficit crisis, debt crisis. That's almost too much money to lose. What's your answer to that?" Stahl asked.


"My answer's very simple: every other developed country in the world has already done this. I'm not asking to give me a favor, or a hand out," Chambers replied.


"You know what: it sounds it," Stahl remarked.


Chambers replied, "All we're asking is: Give us a level playing field. Get us close."


Mr. Chambers, I want to go a step further. Here is my proposal:


First, change the current federal income tax system to a flat tax of at least 15%, but no more than 18% with no loopholes for anyone. If you work here, no matter your income, you will have a stake in this country. Second, change the tax structure on corporations so it benefits the corporations that use the US as their home for their headquarters, patents, call centers, servers, holdings, and especially employees.


51-100% of all holdings in the US = 0% Corporate income tax

0-50% of all holdings outside the US = 35% Corporate Income Tax.


If we use these numbers and we look at let’s say Ford and Toyota. Both have a global presence, but one has more than 50% of its business in the US and one doesn’t. Ford would be able to lower the cost of a car vs. Toyota, which could mean more sales, more jobs, and so on. Another aspect that could come from this is that the US trade deficit could turn into a surplus. It could bring the manufacturing of products to the US.


If we could just bring home the US companies that move to other countries due to the tax burden, we could see a dramatic increase in the amount of jobs, GDP, and tax revenues (due to the new workers). It’s something to really look at and decide if the US is going to be the friendliest nation to business or continue down a path where we foster innovation, but then watch it go overseas because it’s too expensive to do business in the US.


The decision is ours.



“Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Friday, December 17, 2010

Tron Legacy Review

So, I went to see Tron Legacy in IMAX 3D this afternoon. I guess I was expecting a lot because I was a little disappointed.

It starts out pretty good with some back story, some action, and a little sticking it to the man, and with the trailers, I really thought there was going to be a lot of really good action. Well, the trailers didn't show it all, but a good amount of the action involved. There were surprises, but they weren't jaw dropping. As far as the story, the trailers had me convinced it was about a son searching for his father somewhere on the grid. Not so much, he found him pretty quickly, so there was a lot more story to go. That's where it got slow. I don't want to ruin all of it for you, but needless to say, the story left me wanting more. It just didn't feel right. The writers and director probably did that on purpose, so they can do another movie. I just wish they would have finished this one.

I thought the special effects were spectacular, especially in 3D. They were so good they weren't really noticeable. They blended right in, which is the way I like it. The only aspect of the special effects that wasn't great was young Jeff Bridges. It wasn't the way he looked, but how the mouth moved when he talked. It wasn't believable at all, but I forgive that because I haven't found anyone who could make a human face talk with computers and make it look real.

All in all, it was just a good movie, not great or bad, just good. If you love special effects and don't worry about the story that much, then pay the money to go see it in the IMAX 3D. Otherwise, I would just wait for it to get to RedBox. Oh and one last thing, Olivia Wilde is even hotter 60 feet tall and in 3D.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Shelby Steele: A Referendum on the Redeemer - WSJ.com

Shelby Steele: A Referendum on the Redeemer - WSJ.com

This is a great column by Mr. Steele, and it includes the following statement, which I believe encompasses a progressives way of thinking perfectly.

"It puts Mr. Obama and the Democrats in the position of forever redeeming a fallen nation, rather than leading a great nation."

I don't believe we are a fallen nation. We are the greatest nation ever conceived.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Chris Christie destroys reporter for calling him confrontational

Hot Air » Video: Chris Christie destroys reporter for calling him confrontational

Great Job Gov. Christie!!

It is honest and refreshing to hear an elected official stand up for his principles. We need to see more of this. Please send me articles where you think an elected official is being principled and not a politician.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Economic Scene - In Greece, a Reflection of U.S. Debt Problems - NYTimes.com

Economic Scene - In Greece, a Reflection of U.S. Debt Problems - NYTimes.com

I think someone at the NY Times is finally getting it at least a little. This is the best part of the whole thing...

"The United States will probably not face the same kind of crisis as Greece, for all sorts of reasons. But the basic problem is the same. Both countries have a bigger government than they’re paying for. And politicians, spendthrift as some may be, are not the main source of the problem.

We, the people, are.

We have not figured out the kind of government we want. We’re in favor of Medicare, Social Security, good schools, wide highways, a strong military — and low taxes. Dealing with this disconnect will be the central economic issue of the next decade, in Europe, Japan and this country."


We need to look deep into our soul and figure out which direction we want to go. Do we want all out socialism, or do we want freedom and the responsibility that goes with it?

Let me know your thoughts.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Healthcare

A few questions for you to ponder before I start...

1. If everyone is required to buy health insurance and insurance companies are required to give coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, is there a need for Medicare, Medicaid, or S-CHIP?

2. Do we really need to require someone like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or Oprah Winfrey to buy health insurance when they can afford to pay for any procedures that they may need to be healthy?

3. If the health insurance companies are the enemy of healthcare, then why is the Congress requiring all Americans to buy health insurance from those same companies?

This post is a long time coming, and I'm sure I will ramble a little. I wanted to wait until the vote actually happened before I wrote this. I have had conversations with people from both sides of the healthcare debate, and the one thing we can agree on is that reform is needed. What we can't agree on is what kind of reform needs to happen, and that's fine because smart and decent people can disagree.

The Constitution was created to limit the Federal Government's powers over it's citizens. The lawsuit that is coming over the constitutionality of forcing someone to buy a product will hopefully reinforce the constitution and the Feds limited role in the lives of its citizens. I hope this will be expanded to Medicare and Social Security. I don't believe it is constitutional that the Feds can forcibly take your money and give it to others to use for their medical expenses or their retirement. Now, I love our senior citizens, and I want them to be healthy and have a place to live and food to eat. But how am I supposed to justify this to myself or my children? There are just too many people who are in the current system of Medicare and Social Security for it to be sustainable. Does it seem reasonable for the Feds to require someone that is the age of 65 to enroll into Medicare, even if they have health insurance that is working for them? I don't think it is.

Now, for all of those who believe that health care is a human right, I ask you, is it really a human right if the government that gives you those rights, can also take them away? The point of a right is the fact that a government cannot take them away. For instance, the right of free speech. Can a government really take that away from you? No, you can say whatever you want because you were given the ability to speak. The only thing a government can do to stop your right to speak is stop your ability to speak. This is why the internet has become the biggest forum for people to speak their minds, including this posting.

If we really want to reform health care, then why doesn't the government get out of the way and allow me to buy whatever insurance I need to cover my family. Quit giving tax breaks to companies that provide their employees health insurance. Give the individual tax incentives to get health insurance, so we can take it from job to job, instead of being reliant on a job for health insurance.

Think of this, if I could buy health insurance away from my job, then my insurance company and I could really get to know each other. They could see that I go to get physicals, get preventative treatment, and those things they say will keep my insurance premiums low and keep me healthy, so I don't lose coverage. Wouldn't we be a healthier nation if we received incentives like lower premiums from our insurance companies for being healthy. We have no control over this if our insurance is through our company or through the government.

I have to go, but I will be back tomorrow for more. Let me know if there is anything you want me to expand on.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson