|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"Good bill for Obama?"
Ahtumbreez 10456 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
05-04-09, 09:17 AM (EST)
 
  |
|
"Good bill for Obama?" |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090504/pl_nm/us_obama_economy_taxesAs with any bill I'm sure there are weaknesses galore in this bill. But on the surface, this is the stuff that elections are won on. The middle class vs big business with big business taking an uppercut. I have to agree. I think if there are loopholes they should be closed. And for all of you OTers with Swiss bank accounts, I'm thinking you should be heading for that secret island you bought for that "just in case" time.
The U.S. government is now suing UBS in a civil case to reveal the identities of 52,000 Americans suspected of using accounts at the bank to hide about $14.8 billion of assets and evade U.S. taxes.
Mangalicious by The Slice
09/25/2008 Bre left for Iraq
04/29/2009 Bre left Iraq
06/09/2009 Bre gets a hug from Mom
|
|
|
Top |
| |
 |
|
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
05-04-09, 10:27 AM (EST)
|
|
5. "RE: Good bill for Obama?" |
But this proposal has little to do with money that was made here. If the money was made here, it's subject to U.S. tax. This is about extending U.S. taxation to money that was made offshore and never comes to the U.S.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
05-04-09, 10:17 AM (EST)
|
|
3. "RE: Good bill for Obama?" |
LAST EDITED ON 05-04-09 AT 10:21 AM (EST)At this point, all I know about these bills is what the Obama press release says. The idea that "deferral" is harmful is laughable, and the fact that this press release presents it as such should be worrisome to anyone that doesn't like the fact that U.S. manufacturers are losing out to foreign competitors. Depending on how aggressively the government targets deferral, we could see the collapse of U.S. multinationals such as Boeing and GE. Basically, here's the idea of deferral. A U.S. company sets up a subsidiary in Ireland (let's call it "Microsoft"). The subsidiary makes money but pays no dividends back to the U.S. Instead, the earnings are taxed in Ireland, and Microsoft uses the after-tax money to make other investments outside the U.S. Thus, U.S. taxes on the money are "deferred" until the money is used to pay dividends back to the U.S., unless the earnings are subject to a provision referred to as "Subpart F", which permits immediate taxation of the foreign earnings under many circumstances, even if the money isn't repatriated to the U.S. The situations under which Subpart F does not apply are referred to as deferral. Thus, Ford doesn't have to pay U.S. taxes on all the earnings of Volvo, generally only on those earnings of Volvo related to a U.S. trade or business (e.g., selling Volvos in the U.S.) plus any amounts repatriated to Ford. Depending upon the specifics of Obama's proposal, however, the after-tax money might be taxed immediately by the U.S. under many more or under all circumstances. In that case, foreign-based companies (e.g., Toyota, Honda, Fiat) would have a marked advantage over U.S. companies (e.g., Ford) in operations in all overseas markets. But, until I know the specifics of Obama's proposal, I have no idea whether it would cripple legitimate overseas businesses, as a complete end to deferral unquestionably would. Edited to add: The Bush administration spent years winning court fights to expose the people behind the UBS scam, just as it focused on other such offshore scams for the past five years. UBS finally agreed to give up the names last year. The Obama administration played no part in that effort, even if it is somehow claiming credit in its press releases.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
geekboy 1788 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Herbal Healing Drugs Endorser"
|
05-04-09, 12:31 PM (EST)
|
|
9. "RE: Good bill for Obama?" |
"Closing a loophole in the US Tax Code"The US Tax Code is such a mess of spaghetti, it is one huge loophole. If Obama is really for "change", why doesn't he just dismantle the whole tax code and rewrite it as a "flat tax". Orr if he really wants change, replace the current "income tax" with a true "consumption tax". Now that would be "real change" coming to DC. geekboy 
"I think what Randy Travis was trying to say was 'What the hell was that?!'" - S. Cowell
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
05-04-09, 07:34 PM (EST)
|
|
10. "Good explanation" |
I've read a lot of confusion about what's going on here. This AP article is a reasonable attempt to begin to explain it:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibSMh-jZ80xqPzHTBljs7SSqNe4wD97VLL8O0 In one scenario, a U.S. company could use operations in the Virgin Islands to avoid paying taxes on investments in Sweden. The company does this by setting up three new corporations: a subsidiary in Sweden, a holding company in the Virgin Islands as well as another subsidiary owned by the holding company. The Virgin Islands subsidiary makes a loan to the Sweden subsidiary for a new facility there. The interest on the loan would be income for the subsidiary in the Virgin Islands and a tax deduction for the Swedish subsidiary. Many companies use such set ups to funnel income from high-tax Europe to no-tax Caribbean. While the company would pay taxes on the transaction if it occurred in the U.S., "check the box" rules allow the company to avoid paying taxes in both Sweden and the U.S. Q: What happens to money stored in tax havens? A: In most cases it stays there. Companies can avoid paying taxes on overseas profits indefinitely, as long as they don't bring it back to the U.S. "They never bring the profits back, or if they do, they only bring a very small amount back," said Amy Mathias, an analyst with the investment adviser, Washington Research Group. Most companies use the money to build new facilities, hire more workers and expand business overseas. This is somewhat wrong. The BVI subsidiary has to borrow the money to make the loan to the Swedish subsidiary. It generally borrows the money from a real bank, so it owes interest to that bank. It then lends the money to Sweden at a slightly higher rate of interest. Because there is no income tax in BVI, the "spread" between the interest rate charged to the BVI subsidiary and the interest rate that the BVI subsidiary charges to the Swedish subsidiary is not taxed. For U.S. purposes, the check-the-box rules let the parent treat this as if everything is happening in BVI, so there is no "subpart F" income related to the payments from Sweden to BVI. The interest rates can't vary too much, because Sweden would disallow an excess interest rate. But some money can be sheltered from the rapacious claims of the U.S. and Sweden by doing this. The company can then use this money to fund its foreign operations. The money can never come back to the U.S. shareholders, or it would be immediately taxed, and the foreign operations cannot engage in U.S. sales, because that would subject every step of the structure to U.S. taxation, subpart F or not, but this enables American companies to compete in the world market against lower-taxed competitors. It comes as no surprise that Obama, who has never met a tax that he didn't adore, would want to tax U.S. corporations out of foreign markets. The problem is, foreign corporations can only be taxed by the U.S. when they operate in the U.S. It should come as no surprise when you see a U.S. company like Anheuser-Busch get swallowed up by a foreign competitor like the Brazilian-Belgian Inbev. Look for that a lot over however many years Obama has left, if he manages to ram this tax bill through. Those of you that voted for Obama -- hope you're fluent in foreign languages.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
05-04-09, 11:26 PM (EST)
|
|
12. "RE: Good explanation" |
Sehr gut.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
05-05-09, 07:25 AM (EST)
|
|
15. "RE: Good bill for Obama?" |
That was part of the Bush stimulus program. But it cost the U.S. Treasury money, and so it had to go.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
