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.

(Reuters)   Headline: "When companies flee U.S. tax system, investors often don't reap big returns". Actual: 19 outperformed, 19 underperformed, 10 were bought out, 3 closed and one moved back to the States   (reuters.com) divider line 37
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

758 clicks; posted to Business » on 18 Aug 2014 at 11:53 AM (9 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-08-18 11:14:17 AM  
So maybe no one got "big" returns. That's the beautiful thing about subjective unquantifiable words like that.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-08-18 11:39:49 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So maybe no one got "big" returns. That's the beautiful thing about subjective unquantifiable words like that.


Yes, it forces you to read the second sentence in the headline and who want's to do that?
 
2014-08-18 12:00:53 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So maybe no one got "big" returns. That's the beautiful thing about subjective unquantifiable words like that.


I'm sure the CEO's got a decent bonus.
 
2014-08-18 12:01:22 PM  
These companies don't really care if the investors got returns on moving to a tax shelter.  That's not the point.

It's a philosophical issue now, plus they want to leech as much out of the system while putting as little into it as possible.  Which is a long way of saying "Socialize the risk, privatize the profits".
 
2014-08-18 12:26:02 PM  
But they all probably did better than how those individual companies would have done absent the redomestication.
 
2014-08-18 12:33:42 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: But they all probably did better than how those individual companies would have done absent the redomestication.


I would need to see a Venn diagram to be convinced.
 
2014-08-18 12:35:13 PM  
This is no different than GE, just a different tactic. Holder will not dare go after them, though.
 
2014-08-18 12:37:02 PM  

mcreadyblue: Debeo Summa Credo: But they all probably did better than how those individual companies would have done absent the redomestication.

I would need to see a Venn diagram to be convinced.


www.conceptdraw.com
 
2014-08-18 12:40:10 PM  

mcreadyblue: The Stealth Hippopotamus: So maybe no one got "big" returns. That's the beautiful thing about subjective unquantifiable words like that.

I'm sure the CEO's got a decent bonus.


And that's the problem with most major corporations these days.  They're not run for the benefit of the shareholders or employees; they're run solely for the benefit of the CEO and board.  The company is run like it was a sole proprietorship with low emphasis on long term health of the company.
 
2014-08-18 12:47:43 PM  
Funny how they're fleeing the US tax system, and not the US itself.  All the rewards, none of the costs.
 
2014-08-18 01:28:43 PM  
I don't see why any major company would want to be based in the USA. Their sales and profits are world wide.Move the company to the Caymans. The weather is lovely and the taxes much less punishing.
 
2014-08-18 01:29:53 PM  
Tardmitter: Headline: "When companies flee U.S. tax system, investors often don't reap big returns". Actual: 19 outperformed, 19 underperformed, 10 were bought out, 3 closed and one moved back to the States

Actual article: 22 of  52, or 42%, clearly didn't reap big returns.42% is pretty damned often.

Headline is accurate; submitter is a troll.
 
2014-08-18 01:39:21 PM  

Broom: Tardmitter: Headline: "When companies flee U.S. tax system, investors often don't reap big returns". Actual: 19 outperformed, 19 underperformed, 10 were bought out, 3 closed and one moved back to the States

Actual article: 22 of  52, or 42%, clearly didn't reap big returns.42% is pretty damned often.

Headline is accurate; submitter is a troll.


Isn't that necessary to get a green? IDK I've never tried.
 
2014-08-18 01:40:44 PM  
Headline: "When companies flee U.S. tax system................the Nation and its Citizens take it up the ass without lube.


True.
 
2014-08-18 01:41:30 PM  

Linux_Yes: Headline: "When companies flee U.S. tax system................the Nation and its Citizens take it up the ass without lube.


True.



except the Stock Owners, of course.
 
2014-08-18 01:43:36 PM  

CujoQuarrel: I don't see why any major company would want to be based in the USA. Their sales and profits are world wide.Move the company to the Caymans. The weather is lovely and the taxes much less punishing.


I don't see why any major company that does sales worldwide could be considered to be headquartered in only one of the countries they do business.
 
2014-08-18 01:44:53 PM  
That is the Beauty of Crony Capitalists in 'murica:  they love all the benefits of living in 'murica, they just don't want to pay anything back into the system.  it upsets their poor, little stock owners who enjoy living of off others' labor.


they, like corporate welfare folks, want everything for Free.   typical Socialists.  they don't owe this Fading Democracy a damn thing.
 
2014-08-18 01:45:15 PM  

Linux_Yes: Linux_Yes: Headline: "When companies flee U.S. tax system................the Nation and its Citizens take it up the ass without lube.


True.


except the Stock Owners, of course.


58% of the time. The other 42%, as the headline points out...
 
2014-08-18 01:48:15 PM  

meat0918: "Socialize the risk, privatize the profits".



Yep.  it's sweet for the Stock Owners.  not so sweet for the bottom 95%.
 
2014-08-18 01:48:35 PM  

neversubmit: Broom: Tardmitter: Headline: "When companies flee U.S. tax system, investors often don't reap big returns". Actual: 19 outperformed, 19 underperformed, 10 were bought out, 3 closed and one moved back to the States

Actual article: 22 of  52, or 42%, clearly didn't reap big returns.42% is pretty damned often.

Headline is accurate; submitter is a troll.

Isn't that necessary to get a green? IDK I've never tried.


Not strictly necessary, but it certainly doesn't hurt.
 
2014-08-18 01:49:14 PM  

Champion of the Sun: Funny how they're fleeing the US tax system, and not the US itself.  All the rewards, none of the costs.



Bingo!   you win.
 
2014-08-18 02:03:05 PM  
 It's almost as if the headline were accurate and the Fark snark were pointless!
 
2014-08-18 02:03:58 PM  

rwdavis: CujoQuarrel: I don't see why any major company would want to be based in the USA. Their sales and profits are world wide.Move the company to the Caymans. The weather is lovely and the taxes much less punishing.

I don't see why any major company that does sales worldwide could be considered to be headquartered in only one of the countries they do business.


You have a certain point, but no company wants to calculate fractional income taxes for every country they do business in, nor do they want to be sued in every one of those countries for every corporate misstep they make.
 
2014-08-18 02:27:31 PM  

Broom: You have a certain point, but no company wants to calculate fractional income taxes for every country they do business in, nor do they want to be sued in every one of those countries for every corporate misstep they make.


i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-08-18 02:37:51 PM  

Broom: You have a certain point, but no company wants to calculate fractional income taxes for every country they do business in, nor do they want to be sued in every one of those countries for every corporate misstep they make.


They already do this.  It's simple (by corporate standards) accounting.

Holding businesses (peace be upon them) accountable shouldn't engender so much backlash.
 
2014-08-18 02:51:28 PM  

Champion of the Sun: Funny how they're fleeing the US tax system, and not the US itself.  All the rewards, none of the costs.


I've often said that a company that does this "inversion" should have its charter to do business in the US revoked.

/I'm sure that'll go over well
//not
 
2014-08-18 03:40:32 PM  

Champion of the Sun: Broom: You have a certain point, but no company wants to calculate fractional income taxes for every country they do business in, nor do they want to be sued in every one of those countries for every corporate misstep they make.

They already do this.  It's simple (by corporate standards) accounting.

Holding businesses (peace be upon them) accountable shouldn't engender so much backlash.


Ah, got it. I yield to the honorable delegate from the Sun.
 
2014-08-18 06:10:04 PM  

SurfaceTension: Champion of the Sun: Funny how they're fleeing the US tax system, and not the US itself.  All the rewards, none of the costs.

I've often said that a company that does this "inversion" should have its charter to do business in the US revoked.

/I'm sure that'll go over well
//not


Should foreign competitors (who, by virtue of being foreign, enjoy the lower tax rates abroad) still be able to do business in the US?
 
2014-08-18 06:17:49 PM  

rwdavis: CujoQuarrel: I don't see why any major company would want to be based in the USA. Their sales and profits are world wide.Move the company to the Caymans. The weather is lovely and the taxes much less punishing.

I don't see why any major company that does sales worldwide could be considered to be headquartered in only one of the countries they do business.


Generally you pay taxes where you earn your income.

The US is the only large country that has a "worldwide" tax system. Under such a system, a US based company is taxed on the income it earns anywhere.

Most other countries (Canada, Switzerland, UK, France, Japan, etc) have a "territorial" tax system that only taxes income earned in that country.

So a US company that has operations in Chile would pay 20% (chile's corp tax rate) on any income earned in Chile to chile, plus 15% (35% US tax rate less 20% chile rate) of any income earned in chile to the US. Whereas a UK or Canadian company with operations in chile would only pay the 20% to chile.
 
2014-08-18 06:54:03 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: rwdavis: CujoQuarrel: I don't see why any major company would want to be based in the USA. Their sales and profits are world wide.Move the company to the Caymans. The weather is lovely and the taxes much less punishing.

I don't see why any major company that does sales worldwide could be considered to be headquartered in only one of the countries they do business.

Generally you pay taxes where you earn your income.

The US is the only large country that has a "worldwide" tax system. Under such a system, a US based company is taxed on the income it earns anywhere.

Most other countries (Canada, Switzerland, UK, France, Japan, etc) have a "territorial" tax system that only taxes income earned in that country.

So a US company that has operations in Chile would pay 20% (chile's corp tax rate) on any income earned in Chile to chile, plus 15% (35% US tax rate less 20% chile rate) of any income earned in chile to the US. Whereas a UK or Canadian company with operations in chile would only pay the 20% to chile.


I think the argument here its if its that painful then the CEO and the board should move to Chile, and list themselves on the Chile stock exchange and not just get P O Box in Mailboxes Chile in a strip mall somewhere in the jungle. If you want the stability of living in the US and using its (mostly) 1st world infrastructure, someone has to pay for it.
 
2014-08-18 07:12:42 PM  

snowshovel: Debeo Summa Credo: rwdavis: CujoQuarrel: I don't see why any major company would want to be based in the USA. Their sales and profits are world wide.Move the company to the Caymans. The weather is lovely and the taxes much less punishing.

I don't see why any major company that does sales worldwide could be considered to be headquartered in only one of the countries they do business.

Generally you pay taxes where you earn your income.

The US is the only large country that has a "worldwide" tax system. Under such a system, a US based company is taxed on the income it earns anywhere.

Most other countries (Canada, Switzerland, UK, France, Japan, etc) have a "territorial" tax system that only taxes income earned in that country.

So a US company that has operations in Chile would pay 20% (chile's corp tax rate) on any income earned in Chile to chile, plus 15% (35% US tax rate less 20% chile rate) of any income earned in chile to the US. Whereas a UK or Canadian company with operations in chile would only pay the 20% to chile.

I think the argument here its if its that painful then the CEO and the board should move to Chile, and list themselves on the Chile stock exchange and not just get P O Box in Mailboxes Chile in a strip mall somewhere in the jungle. If you want the stability of living in the US and using its (mostly) 1st world infrastructure, someone has to pay for it.


Pretty much this, if somebody in Germany buys a Camry then at a bare minimum you're involving three countries in the transaction: Germany, the place of purchase; the United States. the place of manufacture; and Japan, the place of administration. Why should only one of those countries receive the taxes and if it can only be one which one should it be? In this case, three nations' infrastructures have been used to facilitate this transaction each nation should be compensated for that luxury.
 
2014-08-18 09:11:00 PM  
Honestly, I'd support a 0% corporate tax rate on the condition that capital gains and the dividend section of ordinary income taxes get the appropriate boosts to make up the shortfall.

With no tax burden, the company relocates to places where populations are capable of working - educated, safe countries with good infrastructure and courts. Add in a couple of heavy import tariffs to discourage outsourcing everything but one office guy ("We're American! See? We have an office and a secretary and everything!"), and see how things shake out.
 
2014-08-18 10:10:05 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: rwdavis: CujoQuarrel: I don't see why any major company would want to be based in the USA. Their sales and profits are world wide.Move the company to the Caymans. The weather is lovely and the taxes much less punishing.

I don't see why any major company that does sales worldwide could be considered to be headquartered in only one of the countries they do business.

Generally you pay taxes where you earn your income.

The US is the only large country that has a "worldwide" tax system. Under such a system, a US based company is taxed on the income it earns anywhere.

Most other countries (Canada, Switzerland, UK, France, Japan, etc) have a "territorial" tax system that only taxes income earned in that country.

So a US company that has operations in Chile would pay 20% (chile's corp tax rate) on any income earned in Chile to chile, plus 15% (35% US tax rate less 20% chile rate) of any income earned in chile to the US. Whereas a UK or Canadian company with operations in chile would only pay the 20% to chile.


So the average corporate tax rate paid by US Corporations is 35%?
 
2014-08-18 10:11:55 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Honestly, I'd support a 0% corporate tax rate on the condition that capital gains and the dividend section of ordinary income taxes get the appropriate boosts to make up the shortfall.

With no tax burden, the company relocates to places where populations are capable of working - educated, safe countries with good infrastructure and courts. Add in a couple of heavy import tariffs to discourage outsourcing everything but one office guy ("We're American! See? We have an office and a secretary and everything!"), and see how things shake out.


If you look at average corporate tax rates paid (and the decreasing proportion of US revenue coming from corporate taxes), the US is heading in that direction.
 
2014-08-18 10:52:17 PM  

meat0918: mcreadyblue: Debeo Summa Credo: But they all probably did better than how those individual companies would have done absent the redomestication.

I would need to see a Venn diagram to be convinced.

[www.conceptdraw.com image 850x639]


Of course, if it worked in real life, most corporations would be somewhere near mars on that venn diagram....
 
2014-08-19 09:45:26 AM  

Champion of the Sun: Funny how they're fleeing the US tax system, and not the US itself.  All the rewards, none of the costs.


In other words, parasites.
 
2014-08-19 12:52:02 PM  
As with most entertainers* these days, CEOs need to remember their place; they are hired hands, not the proprietors. Boards of directors need to remember that, too. That blow-dried guy in the suit is still just their employee: They, and their shareholders,  are the master, he the servant.

I know I'm naive, but maybe the whole stock-option-as-incentive racket should be somehow curtailed.

*"Sing and dance for us, and cook will have something for you in the kitchen after."
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report