Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Philly.com)   None of the CEOs avoiding American taxes by off-shoring their headquarters want to talk to Congress for some reason   (philly.com) divider line 133
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2657 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Jul 2014 at 7:48 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-22 06:12:51 PM  
Inversion is certainly worth going after, but I would like Congress to look at this nonsense that Walmart is trying to foist on the American public in their recent American Jobs advertising campaign. Walmart is trying to convince us that they are concerned about bringing jobs back to the U.S., which is very strange considering how much money and how many jobs Walmart has sent off-shore. It kills me that Walmart's ads end with "Let's get to work," like Walmart is going to partner with Americans to bring those jobs back to the U.S.. This is the same Walmart that brought in several hundred H-1Bs and L-1s to their ISD in Bentonville back in the late 2000s, all the while telling in-house employees not to worry -- the new folks were being brought in to augment the staff; not to replace them. They also told their employees that ALL IT work would continue to be done in Bentonville. Then, in one fell swoop, hidden behind another publicly announced lay-off, Walmart laid off about 800 of its American IT workers, citing "the economy." They kept the importeds H-1Bs and L-1s in Bentonville. They also began off-shoring major amounts of software project work. More U.S. workers were laid off over time as the outsourcing/off-shoring really took off. They're still operating this way now. Yet, here they are, advertising that they are concerned about jobs for American workers. Why doesn't someone in Congress haul the Walton family in to testify about this kind of stuff? While the inversion practice discussed in TFA certainly cheats the tax man, practices of companies like Walmart -- which is still headquartered here in the U.S. -- also cheat the tax man and the American worker.
 
2014-07-22 06:27:26 PM  

Fark Me To Tears: Inversion is certainly worth going after, but I would like Congress to look at this nonsense that Walmart is trying to foist on the American public in their recent American Jobs advertising campaign. Walmart is trying to convince us that they are concerned about bringing jobs back to the U.S., which is very strange considering how much money and how many jobs Walmart has sent off-shore. It kills me that Walmart's ads end with "Let's get to work," like Walmart is going to partner with Americans to bring those jobs back to the U.S.. This is the same Walmart that brought in several hundred H-1Bs and L-1s to their ISD in Bentonville back in the late 2000s, all the while telling in-house employees not to worry -- the new folks were being brought in to augment the staff; not to replace them. They also told their employees that ALL IT work would continue to be done in Bentonville. Then, in one fell swoop, hidden behind another publicly announced lay-off, Walmart laid off about 800 of its American IT workers, citing "the economy." They kept the importeds H-1Bs and L-1s in Bentonville. They also began off-shoring major amounts of software project work. More U.S. workers were laid off over time as the outsourcing/off-shoring really took off. They're still operating this way now. Yet, here they are, advertising that they are concerned about jobs for American workers. Why doesn't someone in Congress haul the Walton family in to testify about this kind of stuff? While the inversion practice discussed in TFA certainly cheats the tax man, practices of companies like Walmart -- which is still headquartered here in the U.S. -- also cheat the tax man and the American worker.


Hillary Clinton was on the board of WalMart.  Imagine what she'd do in the White House.
 
2014-07-22 06:48:32 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Fark Me To Tears: Inversion is certainly worth going after, but I would like Congress to look at this nonsense that Walmart is trying to foist on the American public in their recent American Jobs advertising campaign. Walmart is trying to convince us that they are concerned about bringing jobs back to the U.S., which is very strange considering how much money and how many jobs Walmart has sent off-shore. It kills me that Walmart's ads end with "Let's get to work," like Walmart is going to partner with Americans to bring those jobs back to the U.S.. This is the same Walmart that brought in several hundred H-1Bs and L-1s to their ISD in Bentonville back in the late 2000s, all the while telling in-house employees not to worry -- the new folks were being brought in to augment the staff; not to replace them. They also told their employees that ALL IT work would continue to be done in Bentonville. Then, in one fell swoop, hidden behind another publicly announced lay-off, Walmart laid off about 800 of its American IT workers, citing "the economy." They kept the importeds H-1Bs and L-1s in Bentonville. They also began off-shoring major amounts of software project work. More U.S. workers were laid off over time as the outsourcing/off-shoring really took off. They're still operating this way now. Yet, here they are, advertising that they are concerned about jobs for American workers. Why doesn't someone in Congress haul the Walton family in to testify about this kind of stuff? While the inversion practice discussed in TFA certainly cheats the tax man, practices of companies like Walmart -- which is still headquartered here in the U.S. -- also cheat the tax man and the American worker.

Hillary Clinton was on the board of WalMart.  Imagine what she'd do in the White House.


A lot of people on a lot of boards do their best to fight the power; not all boards are comprised of yes wo/men.
You know that is true.
Yes, I know some are farked up.

If you have proof she did anything untoward during that time, show us that proof.
 
2014-07-22 07:10:43 PM  
That's because congress already answers to them.
 
2014-07-22 07:12:02 PM  

Fark Me To Tears: Inversion is certainly worth going after, but I would like Congress to look at this nonsense that Walmart is trying to foist on the American public in their recent American Jobs advertising campaign. Walmart is trying to convince us that they are concerned about bringing jobs back to the U.S., which is very strange considering how much money and how many jobs Walmart has sent off-shore. It kills me that Walmart's ads end with "Let's get to work," like Walmart is going to partner with Americans to bring those jobs back to the U.S.. This is the same Walmart that brought in several hundred H-1Bs and L-1s to their ISD in Bentonville back in the late 2000s, all the while telling in-house employees not to worry -- the new folks were being brought in to augment the staff; not to replace them. They also told their employees that ALL IT work would continue to be done in Bentonville. Then, in one fell swoop, hidden behind another publicly announced lay-off, Walmart laid off about 800 of its American IT workers, citing "the economy." They kept the importeds H-1Bs and L-1s in Bentonville. They also began off-shoring major amounts of software project work. More U.S. workers were laid off over time as the outsourcing/off-shoring really took off. They're still operating this way now. Yet, here they are, advertising that they are concerned about jobs for American workers. Why doesn't someone in Congress haul the Walton family in to testify about this kind of stuff? While the inversion practice discussed in TFA certainly cheats the tax man, practices of companies like Walmart -- which is still headquartered here in the U.S. -- also cheat the tax man and the American worker.


well, duh
 
2014-07-22 08:00:39 PM  
Gee, you think maybe these firms are seeking to move elsewhere because we have the highest rates in the industrialized world and are one of the few to tax earnings made in other jurisdictions?

Can't be surprised that they are voting with their feet.
 
2014-07-22 08:07:21 PM  
Wait, so the gop acknowledges that corporations are cheating the United States out of lawful tax revenue but demands remediation stay tax neutral? Either it's a problem and corporations need to be held accountable for shirking their patriotic duty to maintain and improve the civil, martial, economic, intellectual, and physical infrastructures that allow their companies to thrive or the gop needs to stfu and diaf.
 
2014-07-22 08:14:06 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Gee, you think maybe these firms are seeking to move elsewhere because we have the highest rates in the industrialized world and are one of the few to tax earnings made in other jurisdictions?

Can't be surprised that they are voting with their feet.


Then they should have no problem making sure Congress knows that.
 
2014-07-22 08:15:22 PM  
Sandra Fluke has bigger balls than these CEOs.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-07-22 08:19:05 PM  
Hillary is a corporate shill, just like all the other candidates.  She's worked for Walmart and she defended Monsanto when she worked for the Rose law firm.  Let's face it America is no longer a democratic republic.  America has become an Oligarchy and either you like it, lump it, or leave.  You only get to vote for the candidates America's corporations want you to vote for.  We have waged wars for corporate interests and we will continue to do so.

The truly sad part is that the corporate propaganda machine as convinced the intellectually numb that it's in our best interest to eliminate regulations and programs which protect our health, our economy, our national security and our international standing.  Destroy it all for profit!
 
2014-07-22 08:28:11 PM  

Fark Me To Tears: Inversion is certainly worth going after, but I would like Congress to look at this nonsense that Walmart is trying to foist on the American public in their recent American Jobs advertising campaign. Walmart is trying to convince us that they are concerned about bringing jobs back to the U.S., which is very strange considering how much money and how many jobs Walmart has sent off-shore. It kills me that Walmart's ads end with "Let's get to work," like Walmart is going to partner with Americans to bring those jobs back to the U.S.. This is the same Walmart that brought in several hundred H-1Bs and L-1s to their ISD in Bentonville back in the late 2000s, all the while telling in-house employees not to worry -- the new folks were being brought in to augment the staff; not to replace them. They also told their employees that ALL IT work would continue to be done in Bentonville. Then, in one fell swoop, hidden behind another publicly announced lay-off, Walmart laid off about 800 of its American IT workers, citing "the economy." They kept the importeds H-1Bs and L-1s in Bentonville. They also began off-shoring major amounts of software project work. More U.S. workers were laid off over time as the outsourcing/off-shoring really took off. They're still operating this way now. Yet, here they are, advertising that they are concerned about jobs for American workers. Why doesn't someone in Congress haul the Walton family in to testify about this kind of stuff? While the inversion practice discussed in TFA certainly cheats the tax man, practices of companies like Walmart -- which is still headquartered here in the U.S. -- also cheat the tax man and the American worker.


Because no one cares. Wal-Mart is the same company that crammed red, white, & blue up everyone's ass and when they were caught bringing in Chinese goods no one did jack. The only people that cared were the owners of the local general store that went out of business because a Wal-Mart opened two hamlets over.

Railing against Wal-Mart is all fine and good but that war is over, it was lost a long time ago.
 
2014-07-22 08:28:38 PM  

12349876: Debeo Summa Credo: Gee, you think maybe these firms are seeking to move elsewhere because we have the highest rates in the industrialized world and are one of the few to tax earnings made in other jurisdictions?

Can't be surprised that they are voting with their feet.

Then they should have no problem making sure Congress knows that.


Congress knows that already. Or they should unless they are as laughably clueless as a pack of troglodytic farklibs.

Why should CEOs doing their fiduciary duty to shareholders by maximizing after tax income bother to accept invitations to be hassled by grandstanding douchebags?
 
2014-07-22 08:38:18 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: 12349876: Debeo Summa Credo: Gee, you think maybe these firms are seeking to move elsewhere because we have the highest rates in the industrialized world and are one of the few to tax earnings made in other jurisdictions?

Can't be surprised that they are voting with their feet.

Then they should have no problem making sure Congress knows that.

Congress knows that already. Or they should unless they are as laughably clueless as a pack of troglodytic farklibs.

Why should CEOs doing their fiduciary duty to shareholders by maximizing after tax income bother to accept invitations to be hassled by grandstanding douchebags?


Because everyone from the Harvard MBA program forgets that long term fiduciary duty involves not using a scorched earth strategy to company management?
 
2014-07-22 08:43:17 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Gee, you think maybe these firms are seeking to move elsewhere because we have the highest rates in the industrialized world and are one of the few to tax earnings made in other jurisdictions?

Can't be surprised that they are voting with their feet.


Maybe that's because companies can make more money here than anywhere else, and because they already have plenty of tricks to move profits overseas, not too mention tons of tricks to get out of paying taxes on money earned here.

Corporations get off way too easy on taxes as it is right now.  Maybe we don't need to raise the rates, but we do need to enforce the rules and close the loopholes so that they start to pay what the current rates mandate.
 
2014-07-22 08:46:02 PM  

whither_apophis: Because no one cares. Wal-Mart is the same company that crammed red, white, & blue up everyone's ass and when they were caught bringing in Chinese goods no one did jack. The only people that cared were the owners of the local general store that went out of business because a Wal-Mart opened two hamlets over.

Railing against Wal-Mart is all fine and good but that war is over, it was lost a long time ago.


At 32, I'm 99% sure that it was lost before I could vote with my money. Actually, I'm 99% sure nothing going on today is my fault in any way, shape or form because it all hit the fan roughly when I joined the Army.

/don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul
//Then plugged my nose and voted for Romney
 
2014-07-22 08:47:58 PM  

ajgeek: whither_apophis: Because no one cares. Wal-Mart is the same company that crammed red, white, & blue up everyone's ass and when they were caught bringing in Chinese goods no one did jack. The only people that cared were the owners of the local general store that went out of business because a Wal-Mart opened two hamlets over.

Railing against Wal-Mart is all fine and good but that war is over, it was lost a long time ago.

At 32, I'm 99% sure that it was lost before I could vote with my money. Actually, I'm 99% sure nothing going on today is my fault in any way, shape or form because it all hit the fan roughly when I joined the Army.

/don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul
//Then plugged my nose and voted for Romney


So, since you think the war is lost you've just decided to go turncoat?
 
2014-07-22 08:52:09 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: So, since you think the war is lost you've just decided to go turncoat?


Look, I've admitted regularly I'm an idiot and am trying to fix that. You can hardly blame me for the idiotic mistakes of the ajgeek of old.

/seriously, who the hell is worth voting for anyway?
//EVERYONE on the list is a shill.
 
2014-07-22 09:00:42 PM  
I take it these are the same sociopathic asshats who flew in private jets to a Congressional hearing, and were publicly censured for it.

I would take this as a tacit admission of guilt, for the crime of treason (they want the U.S. gov't to protect their interests,  but they won't pay for the gov't's services, thereby undermining the long term health of the nation.  Farking treason).
 
2014-07-22 09:04:40 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Gee, you think maybe these firms are seeking to move elsewhere because we have the highest rates in the industrialized world and are one of the few to tax earnings made in other jurisdictions?

Can't be surprised that they are voting with their feet.


Um, we have the highest tax rates in the industrialized world? HOOOOOLY shiat do you actually believe that? Put down the tea pipe and back away slowly, dude.
 
2014-07-22 09:17:12 PM  
Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, the finance committee's top Republican, said, "The ultimate answer to this problem - and the only way to completely address the issue of inversions - is to reform our tax code.

Translation: We'd be OK with sealing the loophole if we make it legal for them to just not pay the taxes anyway.
 
2014-07-22 09:25:15 PM  

NFA: Let's face it America is no longer a democratic republic.


Oh for f ...
I agree with you on Clinton. However, we still can make changes. This isn't the first time banks and the wealthy and elite had it over the people, and it wont' be the last. People will rise up and take back power from them, as has been done in the past.

We just need more people to 'wake up' and vote. Voting does change things. We just need to vote. In every election. Every year. Yes, that's right, every year.

Sorry. Continue.
 
2014-07-22 09:27:54 PM  

Laobaojun: I take it these are the same sociopathic asshats who flew in private jets to a Congressional hearing, and were publicly censured for it.

I would take this as a tacit admission of guilt, for the crime of treason (they want the U.S. gov't to protect their interests,  but they won't pay for the gov't's services, thereby undermining the long term health of the nation.  Farking treason).



Well, if corporations are "people", moving headquarters overseas seems an awful lot like changing citizenship, especially if they start to pay taxes like they are "citizens" of Country B instead of Country A.

And if they are no longer American Corporate Citizens, perhaps they will now run afoul of election financing laws that forbid donations from foreign nationals.

/LOL.  As if they won't find a new way to launder the bribes.
 
2014-07-22 09:32:57 PM  
I'm surprised anyone in congress can get their gob off of a CEO's knob long enough to ask a question.
 
2014-07-22 09:37:46 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: 12349876: Debeo Summa Credo: Gee, you think maybe these firms are seeking to move elsewhere because we have the highest rates in the industrialized world and are one of the few to tax earnings made in other jurisdictions?

Can't be surprised that they are voting with their feet.

Then they should have no problem making sure Congress knows that.

Congress knows that already. Or they should unless they are as laughably clueless as a pack of troglodytic farklibs.

Why should CEOs doing their fiduciary duty to shareholders by maximizing after tax income bother to accept invitations to be hassled by grandstanding douchebags?


So they can school those grandstanding douchebags and convince them to cut taxes or enough of the general public to vote them out of office in November.
 
2014-07-22 09:40:13 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Gee, you think maybe these firms are seeking to move elsewhere because we have the highest rates in the industrialized world and are one of the few to tax earnings made in other jurisdictions?


Yeah, that's totally the problem: Taxes are too damn high and corporations can't make any money unless they move overseas.
 
2014-07-22 09:58:59 PM  

Heraclitus: I'm surprised anyone in congress can get their gob off of a CEO's knob long enough to ask a question.


Ron Wyden is a class act, as his voting history shows.
 
2014-07-22 10:00:11 PM  
John Delorean did the same thing in back in 1980 which is 34 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_DMC-12
 
2014-07-22 10:01:24 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: close the loopholes


The sucker's game.

Close one, ten others open.

LemSkroob: We'd be OK with sealing the loophole if we make it legal for them to just not pay the taxes anyway.


And there's not a thing wrong with that.

Wipe out corporate taxes and subsidies, and if there's a difference to be made up, it can be handled by bumping up the tax burden progressively on individuals - who are the ones paying the bill in the end anyway.

It may be difficult to believe, but when it comes time for a business to pay its tax bill, they don't just roll over to their Scrooge McDuck vault to wheel out a couple carts full of cash for the taxman.

The money to pay the bill comes from, in rough order:

1) employees, who lose out on higher compensation and better benefits when they're not losing their jobs altogether

2) investors...and that's not just Romney LeDouche types. Some of the biggest investors are state pension funds. You know, the funds that pay for the retirements of all those cops, teachers, firefighters and government workers who are all utterly essential and flawlessly competent and if we let even one of them go next thing you know it's gonna be Mogadishu here? Turns out the people you voted for promised the moon and stars to those folks for their dotage. Either that pension fund does really well, or those pension checks are coming out of YOUR hide.

3) consumers, who get to pay what is in essence a hidden sales tax on damn near everything. How high's that hidden tax? Best guess as a percentage of household income (as per the NY Times, iirc) is that it's somewhere around 2%. So if your household spends 50 grand a year, figure on $1000 of that being you paying somebody else's tax bill.
 
2014-07-22 10:01:48 PM  

Nadie_AZ: NFA: Let's face it America is no longer a democratic republic.

Oh for f ...
I agree with you on Clinton. However, we still can make changes. This isn't the first time banks and the wealthy and elite had it over the people, and it wont' be the last. People will rise up and take back power from them, as has been done in the past.

We just need more people to 'wake up' and vote. Voting does change things. We just need to vote. In every election. Every year. Yes, that's right, every year.

Sorry. Continue.


When both parties are owned by the same people, voting is a futile action.
 
2014-07-22 10:18:32 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: 12349876: Debeo Summa Credo: Gee, you think maybe these firms are seeking to move elsewhere because we have the highest rates in the industrialized world and are one of the few to tax earnings made in other jurisdictions?

Can't be surprised that they are voting with their feet.

Then they should have no problem making sure Congress knows that.

Congress knows that already. Or they should unless they are as laughably clueless as a pack of troglodytic farklibs.

Why should CEOs doing their fiduciary duty to shareholders by maximizing after tax income bother to accept invitations to be hassled by grandstanding douchebags?


Because a corporations FIRST duty is to its customers, not its shareholders. That's a farked up view of the world and THE attitude that's going to see the demise of this country once and for all. You capitalist farks aren't going to see it until we hit the bottom.
 
2014-07-22 10:20:40 PM  

Bonzo_1116: Laobaojun: I take it these are the same sociopathic asshats who flew in private jets to a Congressional hearing, and were publicly censured for it.

I would take this as a tacit admission of guilt, for the crime of treason (they want the U.S. gov't to protect their interests,  but they won't pay for the gov't's services, thereby undermining the long term health of the nation.  Farking treason).


Well, if corporations are "people", moving headquarters overseas seems an awful lot like changing citizenship, especially if they start to pay taxes like they are "citizens" of Country B instead of Country A.

And if they are no longer American Corporate Citizens, perhaps they will now run afoul of election financing laws that forbid donations from foreign nationals.

/LOL.  As if they won't find a new way to launder the bribes.


For that matter, if corporations are people, why do we need a corporate tax rate, separate from the personal tax rate?
 
2014-07-22 10:25:34 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Why should CEOs doing their fiduciary duty to shareholders by maximizing after tax income bother to accept invitations to be hassled by grandstanding douchebags?


No kidding.  I mean, what questions would they be asked?  "Why are you doing this?" as if the answer isn't obvious.  That, and the finer details of how it is being done would best be asked to the lawyers actually getting it done for the companies.
 
2014-07-22 11:15:28 PM  

SurfaceTension: Debeo Summa Credo: 12349876: Debeo Summa Credo: Gee, you think maybe these firms are seeking to move elsewhere because we have the highest rates in the industrialized world and are one of the few to tax earnings made in other jurisdictions?

Can't be surprised that they are voting with their feet.

Then they should have no problem making sure Congress knows that.

Congress knows that already. Or they should unless they are as laughably clueless as a pack of troglodytic farklibs.

Why should CEOs doing their fiduciary duty to shareholders by maximizing after tax income bother to accept invitations to be hassled by grandstanding douchebags?

Because a corporations FIRST duty is to its customers, not its shareholders. That's a farked up view of the world and THE attitude that's going to see the demise of this country once and for all. You capitalist farks aren't going to see it until we hit the bottom.


A company also has a duty to its employees and the community in which it's based (including the local environment).  I don't know if one or both of those rank above duty to its customers, but the point is debatable.  In any case, shareholders are down at the bottom of that list.
 
2014-07-23 12:04:56 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: SurfaceTension: Debeo Summa Credo: 12349876: Debeo Summa Credo: Gee, you think maybe these firms are seeking to move elsewhere because we have the highest rates in the industrialized world and are one of the few to tax earnings made in other jurisdictions?

Can't be surprised that they are voting with their feet.

Then they should have no problem making sure Congress knows that.

Congress knows that already. Or they should unless they are as laughably clueless as a pack of troglodytic farklibs.

Why should CEOs doing their fiduciary duty to shareholders by maximizing after tax income bother to accept invitations to be hassled by grandstanding douchebags?

Because a corporations FIRST duty is to its customers, not its shareholders. That's a farked up view of the world and THE attitude that's going to see the demise of this country once and for all. You capitalist farks aren't going to see it until we hit the bottom.

A company also has a duty to its employees and the community in which it's based (including the local environment).  I don't know if one or both of those rank above duty to its customers, but the point is debatable.  In any case, shareholders are down at the bottom of that list.


Bottom of the list? In what world do you live?
 
2014-07-23 12:06:45 AM  

NFA: America has become an Oligarchy and either you like it, lump it, or leave.


Or, toss as many monkeywrenches and fistfuls of sand into the gears to make the system as unworkable as possible for the Powers That Be. A little bit of good old-fashioned non-criminal anarchy, in small amounts but committed by many people over a period of time, can topple empires.

All it takes is enough people to simply say "No!". Or, at least enough people doing as little as possible to feed the Engine.

Remember how in THX 1138, the regime went all-out to apprehend the escaping hero, but only up until projected expenses began to climb and it reached a point where it was no longer worth continuing the pursuit. If enough people make the Oligarchy too costly and high-maintenance for the 1% to run, they will have to give it up.
 
2014-07-23 12:07:00 AM  

Demodiki: TuteTibiImperes: SurfaceTension: Debeo Summa Credo: 12349876: Debeo Summa Credo: Gee, you think maybe these firms are seeking to move elsewhere because we have the highest rates in the industrialized world and are one of the few to tax earnings made in other jurisdictions?

Can't be surprised that they are voting with their feet.

Then they should have no problem making sure Congress knows that.

Congress knows that already. Or they should unless they are as laughably clueless as a pack of troglodytic farklibs.

Why should CEOs doing their fiduciary duty to shareholders by maximizing after tax income bother to accept invitations to be hassled by grandstanding douchebags?

Because a corporations FIRST duty is to its customers, not its shareholders. That's a farked up view of the world and THE attitude that's going to see the demise of this country once and for all. You capitalist farks aren't going to see it until we hit the bottom.

A company also has a duty to its employees and the community in which it's based (including the local environment).  I don't know if one or both of those rank above duty to its customers, but the point is debatable.  In any case, shareholders are down at the bottom of that list.

Bottom of the list? In what world do you live?


Not the absolute bottom, but in the perfect world it should come after their duty to their employees, the community/environment, and their customers.  I realize that unfortunately most companies do not follow that hierarchy, but the world would be a better place if they did.
 
2014-07-23 12:40:33 AM  
You know, I'd quite like to be able to live in the US but route all my work deliverables through an e-mail account based in Dubai so I could enjoy all the benefits of living in the US while being tax domiciled in a more competitive tax jurisdiction. I can haz 0% income tax? Or is that only an option for super-person-corporations?
 
2014-07-23 01:05:01 AM  
BTW the effective corporate tax rate in the US is lower than the OECD average. So yeah, corporate taxes aren't actually particularly high in the US. Whatever the statutory rate is really immaterial, it's the effective rate that matters.

Debeo Summa Credo: Why should CEOs doing their fiduciary duty to shareholders by maximizing after tax income bother to accept invitations to be hassled by grandstanding douchebags?


Look up what fiduciary duty is. Also why is it this line of prattle never existed until just recently? It was never invoked in the 50s, 60s, 70s or even 80s really.
 
M-G
2014-07-23 01:18:01 AM  
This would come to a halt if it could somehow be required that officers of these companies had their income taxed in whatever country they move their HQ to.
 
2014-07-23 01:28:35 AM  
BTW there's an easy way to stop this with public companies, just tell them if they move their HQ overseas their stock issues will be voided and they were never be allowed to operate as public companies in the US again.
 
2014-07-23 01:31:57 AM  

WhyteRaven74: BTW the effective corporate tax rate in the US is lower than the OECD average. So yeah, corporate taxes aren't actually particularly high in the US. Whatever the statutory rate is really immaterial, it's the effective rate that matters.

Debeo Summa Credo: Why should CEOs doing their fiduciary duty to shareholders by maximizing after tax income bother to accept invitations to be hassled by grandstanding douchebags?

Look up what fiduciary duty is. Also why is it this line of prattle never existed until just recently? It was never invoked in the 50s, 60s, 70s or even 80s really.


I think the "fiduciary duty" angle gets played up harder now due to the fact that we've lost the personal/social/moral connection of company ownership and the company's actions. If you're the sole proprietor of a company, its actions will reflect on you, and if that company does something dickish, you might feel some glimmering of shame.

But if you are merely the representative of a group of owners of a corp (like you're a pension or mutual fund manager), maybe you won't care as much. And if you have shares in that pension or fund, you likely don't even know what slices of corps you own. We are to distanced from what our collective money does to be properly outraged or shamed.

Who here knows if their 401k was invested in Chevron when its hired security were raping locals who n West Africa 10 years ago?
 
2014-07-23 01:33:29 AM  

Bonzo_1116: WhyteRaven74: BTW the effective corporate tax rate in the US is lower than the OECD average. So yeah, corporate taxes aren't actually particularly high in the US. Whatever the statutory rate is really immaterial, it's the effective rate that matters.

Debeo Summa Credo: Why should CEOs doing their fiduciary duty to shareholders by maximizing after tax income bother to accept invitations to be hassled by grandstanding douchebags?

Look up what fiduciary duty is. Also why is it this line of prattle never existed until just recently? It was never invoked in the 50s, 60s, 70s or even 80s really.

I think the "fiduciary duty" angle gets played up harder now due to the fact that we've lost the personal/social/moral connection of company ownership and the company's actions. If you're the sole proprietor of a company, its actions will reflect on you, and if that company does something dickish, you might feel some glimmering of shame.

But if you are merely the representative of a group of owners of a corp (like you're a pension or mutual fund manager), maybe you won't care as much. And if you have shares in that pension or fund, you likely don't even know what slices of corps you own. We are to distanced from what our collective money does to be properly outraged or shamed.

Who here knows if their 401k was invested in Chevron when its hired security were raping locals who n West Africa 10 years ago?


Apologies for f-ing mobile phone garbled posting with beer.
 
2014-07-23 01:43:46 AM  

Bonzo_1116: I think the "fiduciary duty" angle gets played up harder now due to the fact that we've lost the personal/social/moral connection of company ownership and the company's actions.


Thing is, it doesn't exist. The usually cited precedent for the whole shareholders first thing, only mentioned responsibility, nothing about fiduciary duty. Indeed the concept can't even apply to a CEO in charge of a company. What's more the idea that shareholders come first the way it's talked about now was only created in the 60s and 70s. And plenty of lawyers have pointed out there's no actual legal justification to it either.
 
2014-07-23 02:34:13 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Bonzo_1116: I think the "fiduciary duty" angle gets played up harder now due to the fact that we've lost the personal/social/moral connection of company ownership and the company's actions.

Thing is, it doesn't exist. The usually cited precedent for the whole shareholders first thing, only mentioned responsibility, nothing about fiduciary duty. Indeed the concept can't even apply to a CEO in charge of a company. What's more the idea that shareholders come first the way it's talked about now was only created in the 60s and 70s. And plenty of lawyers have pointed out there's no actual legal justification to it either.


What I'm getting at is that the wishes/obligations of the owner of the company are now obscured, because it is now very hard to tell who the owners are, and what they want. In the absence of knowing what the owners of a corp *actually* want, the fallback is what makes the faceless owners more money. Not even what makes more money over the next ten years, but what actions make the most money *now*.

Do this often enough, and then you get statements like "the market dropped today on news of uncertainty on the role of Qatar's Iran position in the Persian Gulf". Just utter bullshiat, because there's no moral imperative.
 
2014-07-23 04:00:18 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: A company also has a duty to its employees and the community in which it's based (including the local environment)


We have regulations for that. You've heard of OSHA, the EPA, etc.

Having those regulations in place AND a corporate tax system allows the biggest players to game both the taxes and the regulations. They thrive on complexity keeping upstart competitors at bay with the help of government erecting barriers to entry.

Pull the cost of the corporate tax and its attendant compliance costs out of the mix, and there won't be nearly as many reflexively sympathetic ears when businesses claim overregulation.
 
2014-07-23 06:09:15 AM  
last time I checked its actually the corporations customers that pay taxes, why tax us twice?
 
2014-07-23 06:44:19 AM  

neongoats: Debeo Summa Credo: Gee, you think maybe these firms are seeking to move elsewhere because we have the highest rates in the industrialized world and are one of the few to tax earnings made in other jurisdictions?

Can't be surprised that they are voting with their feet.

Um, we have the highest tax rates in the industrialized world? HOOOOOLY shiat do you actually believe that? Put down the tea pipe and back away slowly, dude.


He's a liar. If he says the sky is blue, you bet on "it's green."
 
2014-07-23 06:54:35 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: A company also has a duty to its employees and the community in which it's based (including the local environment). I don't know if one or both of those rank above duty to its customers, but the point is debatable. In any case, shareholders are down at the bottom of that list.

Demodiki: Bottom of the list? In what world do you live?

The one where corporations try to stay solvent.  You aren't in business without customers, and you can't satisfy customers without productivity, and productivity is zero without employees.  Whenever you are wrapping up the month's finances, you pay your debtors, contractors, suppliers, employees, government (the order can vary depending on who's the most pissed off) and then you get around to paying the shareholders.  It ALWAYS works this way.  Hopefully you have enough left over that there's something for the shareholders at all.  This isn't some librul anti-corporate wishful thinking; it's how corporations HAVE to operate.  Shareholders are always dead last -- not because they're not important, but because they're the only players in the mix that you can piss off and still have a running business at the end of the day.  When a business reports a loss and declares bankruptcy, what happens -- do they stop payroll or do they tell the shareholders to suck it until they're back on their feet?  It's almost always the latter -- a company not making payroll is circling the drain, whereas a company reporting a loss doesn't even impact its short-term outlook.  They might eliminate some benefits or lay off a bunch of workers, but any business not about to go under pays its bills.  When corporations put their shareholders first the result is invariably a short-term spike followed by collapse.  It's simple -- after their initial investment shareholders contribute absolutely nothing to a business, and the extra money comes from somewhere so any time shareholders are bumped up in priority you're carving a pound of flesh from the day-to-day operations.  This is something well-understood for centuries until the Americans suddenly decided they'd had enough of slow sustainable growth and started killing geese en masse because they weren't laying golden eggs fast enough.  I mean, literally, our economic focus has shifted to a philosophy dumber than a second grader who didn't fall asleep while reading parables.
 
2014-07-23 07:01:49 AM  

tennesseemike: last time I checked its actually the corporations customers that pay taxes, why tax us twice?


Customers come third after employees and investors because customers are easiest to lose if a business simply passed along all of its tax bill as higher prices. They're farked on price if a competitor passes along its costs some other way.

Employees, on the other hand, are much less likely to bolt if their employer passes on its tax bill to them. It's hard to just leave because you didn't get a raise, not without another place to land.

Investors might leave, but they might also choose ride out the lower returns.
 
2014-07-23 07:04:54 AM  

dragonchild: TuteTibiImperes: A company also has a duty to its employees and the community in which it's based (including the local environment). I don't know if one or both of those rank above duty to its customers, but the point is debatable. In any case, shareholders are down at the bottom of that list.
Demodiki: Bottom of the list? In what world do you live?
The one where corporations try to stay solvent.  You aren't in business without customers, and you can't satisfy customers without productivity, and productivity is zero without employees.  Whenever you are wrapping up the month's finances, you pay your debtors, contractors, suppliers, employees, government (the order can vary depending on who's the most pissed off) and then you get around to paying the shareholders.  It ALWAYS works this way.  Hopefully you have enough left over that there's something for the shareholders at all.  This isn't some librul anti-corporate wishful thinking; it's how corporations HAVE to operate.  Shareholders are always dead last -- not because they're not important, but because they're the only players in the mix that you can piss off and still have a running business at the end of the day.  When a business reports a loss and declares bankruptcy, what happens -- do they stop payroll or do they tell the shareholders to suck it until they're back on their feet?  It's almost always the latter -- a company not making payroll is circling the drain, whereas a company reporting a loss doesn't even impact its short-term outlook.  They might eliminate some benefits or lay off a bunch of workers, but any business not about to go under pays its bills.  When corporations put their shareholders first the result is invariably a short-term spike followed by collapse.  It's simple -- after their initial investment shareholders contribute absolutely nothing to a business, and the extra money comes from somewhere so any time shareholders are bumped up in priority you're carving a pound of flesh from the day- ...


I came here to say that companies do indeed have a fiduciary duty, and it's ensuring the long-term viability of their business rather than keeping the checks rolling in to a bunch of absentee landlords. I see I've been outstripped, so I'll leave satisfied.
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report