Who's gonna have to make up for all the lost tax revenue the goverment is losing?

Actually, I'd happily come down on the "$10 billion boondoggle" side.

fudgefactor7

They're so concerned about national security to create such a program, but not so concerned that it won't be made and controlled in-house? WTF is wrong with these people? Are they retarded?

It never fails to amaze me how people still feel that giant, multi-national companies are inherently "American" or whatever based on where their headquarters happen to be located. It also amazes me that people feel that these companies "owe" the government something.

Here's a little math: lowest bid = lower taxes (unlike some jackoffs on this thread, I get no patriotic thrill out of paying higher taxes). How about this one: lower taxes on corporations = cheaper goods for me an you. Or this one: efficient companies = more jobs.

Get over thinking of companies and giant boogeymen out to loot the world, and realize that they are just companies. I work for one, you probably do too. People start them all the time -- good people and bad people.

DemonButtfuzz

Excellent...I also tried to explain that, we'll see if anyone gets it.

Yellowbeard

Let's just leave it at the fact that I don't like the idea of homeland security on the first place, but, stuck with it, I would prefer that contracts went to US based companies.

How about Deloitte? They are US-based, but by popular definition here, they're a London-based company started by 2 Frenchmen and a Japanese navy Admirial.

I prefer American corporations to be getting the money.

They are. They just aren't getting a share of the final profits. As I said, and DemonButtfuzz said, Accenture will pay US taxes, as well as payroll taxes for the employees, and sales tax for anything purchased. So I have to ask you and everyone else: why does that mean the US should get a piece of the tax revenue AGAIN after it's all said and done? Why should the US get a tax piece of a contract that Accenture did for Mexico?

The companies who get these contracts are going to, of necessity, be privy to American secrets.

Well, if you read my earlier post, that's why it's good they are not in the USA. Again, the Patriot Act compels US companies to share information. Let me give you an example:

Here in BC, the gov't is going to contract medical administration to a US-based company. They will have medical and personal data on Canadians. Let's say the US wants to get information on a Canadian in BC. They can go to Ottawa, and Ottawa will say no. They could spy on Canada. Or, they could just secretly invoke the Patriot Act, compel this company to turn over the info, and the Canadian suspect would never know they've been hit.

It's not like they have tons of employees in Bermuda. Their income is based off of the economy and infrastructure of the US. If you benefit from doing business in the United States, you should pay taxes in the United States.

There you go. Your own government is outsourcing the jobs offshore. Vote for anyone but Bush in November.

eraser8

Although I am not a Republican, I did answer your question above. Did my answer suffice? Please excuse the typos in it.

Some good points by a lot of people.

A couple of points I wanted to make before I go:

Let's be real here. Accenture make a big chunk of their profits from the US, and a big portion of their employees there. But really, I don't blame them for setting up headquarters in Bermuda for the purposes of being taxed less.

And I understand the fact that the government would want to choose the lowest bidder, of course. But I have to wonder just how much money the government would have saved by going with Accenture and not Lockheed Martin. After all, by choosing a US company, the government would get a large chunk of their money back in taxes.

I don't have the numbers, so I don't know. But I really get the impression that the government chose this offshore company because they would save a few bucks up front; rather than choosing the American company that might have gotten them a lot more money back through taxes, and with the added bonus of giving it to American workers.

Maybe I'm over-simplifying.

Mr. Kerry wants to end this by making sure that when companies move their manufacturing capabilities overseas, they also move their headquarters and most importantly their capital and do business here any way as foreign investors or businesses...

Oh wait, wasn't that suppose to force said companies bring American jobs home? LOL

Like the government of Bermuda gives a fark.

At best the Kerry plan will allow the government to tax corporations at some mythical foreign business rate that will theoretically be higher. Reality is that the government will forced to give tax breaks to said businesses to get them to do business here, thus negating any additional revenues.

Grow up isolationist wannabes. Pat Buchanan wants his agenda back.

--h

eraser8

I yield, people build sound stages so as not to use them

WTF?

peter_hook

Can I assume that we both think that the patriot act is a nasty piece of work that should be demolished ASAP?

eraser8

Do you get it now? Accenture isn't bad for following the rules; the rules are bad for allowing such disgraceful practices.

Again, it's Bermuda's rules. Their rules aren't bad. The only possible solution for your complaint is double-taxation. Should they pay taxes to every country they do business in for this US contract?

There's nothing wrong with the rule. In fact, if the US made a rule where they get taxes, and then taxed a foreign entity again, the world would never accept it.

If you're saying they should pass a law not allowing offshore companies to bid...again, you'd end up with trade embargoes and the like.

However, there is no quesiton that huge corporations in the US are getting tax breaks of various sorts left and right through political connections. That is not only wrong, but criminal.

I have absolutely no ide where people get the idea that legislatively created tax breaks are criminal. If Congress passed a law today allowing me to commit arson, then (assuming the law was constitutional) arson would no longer be criminal.

That aside, what you call "tax breaks," I call returning money to the people who frickin' made it.

Oh, and DemonButtfuzz, well done.

2004-06-03 10:44:50 AM modernhamlet


It's not like they have tons of employees in Bermuda. Their income is based off of the economy and infrastructure of the US. If you benefit from doing business in the United States, you should pay taxes in the United States.

modernhamlet, that is the point exactly. They DO pay taxes on every bit of revenue generated in the US. The US government just doesn't get to tax them on profit recognized in other jurisdictions. The do benefit from doing business in the US, and they pay taxes for it. But if they benefit from doing business in Holland, what justification does the US government have for taxing that??

Tax evasion made legal
It's the american dream
Outsource yourself
Burma Shave

/I approve this message.

DeepFriedandSanctified

Sorry, I meant criminal in a larger sense. I am not so stupid as to not understand the technical definition.

That aside, what you call "tax breaks," I call returning money to the people who frickin' made it.

You mean the U.S. Mint?


How many failed attempts will it take for you people to figure out that SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS SUCK AND ARE A LOAD OF SHIAT?!

U.S. Says Iran Hiding Nuke Bomb Program from UN
The United States said on Wednesday that Iran continues to cover up a nuclear weapons program and that the latest report by the U.N. atomic watchdog had only made this more apparent.

In response Kerry wants to engage North Korea

This post was made for the sole purpose of flamming ppl out!

Kerry was a millionaire before he married Heinz.

Because he was married to a millionaire before Heinz.

Yellowbeard

Can I assume that we both think that the patriot act is a nasty piece of work that should be demolished ASAP?

Yup. And I wished I knew that Sandal McFlippity-flop Flip Flop Kerry was serious about quashing it.

To me, this election isn't a referendum on Bush, it's Patriot Act. If I am told that Kerry is going to repeal it fully...not partially...not "look at it", etc., but eliminate it, he's gonna get my vote. I don't care if he wants to perform abortions in McDonald's under a burning cross. I don't care what else his platform is. As long as he's gonna get rid of it, I'm gonna vote for him.

If he's not, I'd rather stay the course with the current leadership rather than rock the boat, but I'm still not going to vote for Bush, because in my mind it makes me complicit with his transgressions...I'll vote for Nader or myself or whatever.

The Patriot Act is going to make us just the UK, and that's not cool. That and the DCMA need to go. That's all I care about. Kerry and Bush are the same: Power elites owned by special interests.

Bureaucracies love to grow themselves and I'm actually kind of impressed they went to the private sector instead of doing it by hiring a lot of Homeland Security staff.

Actually, in a way, this makes perfect common sense. If I were going to hire security to protect my company, I'd contract with a 3rd party and make sure that none of my current employees become security officers. Same goes for security for our borders.

Why not use a company that is both familiar with America and knows some of its problems first hand, and now won't have a conflict of interest with regards to where its HQ is?

DemonButtfuzz

Agreed, as long as the work isn't done by the employees in the US.

eraser8

I barely care enough to reply, so I will keep it brief.

You are correct. Kerry was wealthy prior to marrying her because of the first wealthy woman he married in order to elevate his social and political status. He may have used that money in his campaign, or it may have come from he and his wife's shared checkbook. Who knows? His wife personally may own 4% of the stock. But what about his father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, nephews, nieces, etc? If you don't think the needs of the Heinz corporation will not be met under the Kerry presidency, I would have to call you naive.

We The Sheeple

You, sir, are uninformed.

The Heinz family (which by the way are Kerry's wife's late husbands' family) are and have been for a very long time REPUBLICANS. Theresa married John Heinz, one son (and some say not really the brightest, that's why gov't and not business) of the ketchup clan. He was the republican junior senator from Pennsylvania when he died in a crash in Philadelphia.

peter_hook

Look, it's not so much that I love the Democrats (although I am biased, as I was raised one) but that I FARKING HATE the Republicans. And it's not the case that I even hate true Republican ideaology - it has it's points. It's that I FARKING HATE REPUBLICANS. Don't get me wrong, there are some politically correct whale saving Liberals that I could just throttle too, but let me make sure you understand how much I HATE Republicans one more time.

I am sort of on the opposite side of you but agree. I want the patriot act repealed. I also want to get rid of supply side economics. Those are important. Frankly, I don't love Kerry. However, I want Bush out. I really think he has done this country an incalcuable amount of harm and he must go. Jesus, I thought Regan was bad. This guy should be tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.

I want to start my own third party (and am working on the ideology). It is sort of a .... well, it's sort of like libertarianism crossed with socialism. :D I know, I know. That doesn't make any damn sense.... What is obvious to me is to take the good ideas from each party and make a new one out of those plus some more.

We have the technology, we can rebuild the government: make it better, faster, uhhh... maybe not stronger, but not necessarily weaker either.

I think that a key factor is weakening the influence of big business. I have worked for big business, and, contrary to what republicans think, just because you are profit driven does not make you smart, but it damn well makes you more likely to screw over the consumer if you think you stand to make a profit.

I am rambling now. Sorry.

I see your points, but... I still think Military and security hardware should be made here by american companies. Maybe that is an emotive response with no logical basis but... I don't know. I also think that Lockheed has a pretty good chance of doing a better job than Accenture, but I can't really give you reasons, so we'll leave it as an emotive response too.

2004-06-03 10:56:13 AM modernhamlet


DemonButtfuzz

Agreed, as long as the work isn't done by the employees in the US.

modernhamlet, I think it is safe to say that the majority of the work will indeed be done by the US staff, and taxes will be paid appropriately. I RTFA but it was not clear whether the contract was awarded to Anderson US or Anderson GLobal. Given the stuff done out of Bermuda is Global Headquarters related stuff with very few consulting staff, it's pretty safe to say the lions share of the contract will be done by the US staff and the profit generated will be recognized in the US, this subject to local US taxation.

Folks, a lot of this stuff is the media whipping people into a frenzy. Lots of global companies are headquartered here. Just because they are headquartered here does not mean they don't pay tax on their US operations.

If I were a gambling man, I would wager that all the profit on the $10 billion contract will be taxed by the US government.

If this were a $10 billion contract won by Anderson Switzerland, and all the work was done by Anderson Switzerland, then the US would not be able to tax those profits.

Accenture= not a real word
Accenture= Andersen Consulting
Andersen Consulting = greedy bunch of bumbling idiots.

Regardless of tax implications, job will never get done, or will come out a pile of shiat. Partners still make a lot of money and are a bunch of asshats.

Q.E.D.

my dad is a concultant at accenture... i had no idea they were incorperated in bermuda though.

Bush, Kerry, whoever, the enemy as far as conributions go are the contributors themselves. The only was we are going to fix this (and I aim my sights at the Democrats, the Republicans, and third parties equally, here) is to absolutely eliminate all political contributions and lobbyists, other than contributions given to things like the general presidential campaign fund. You are electing dollars, not leaders. People should run for office on money derived from a common pool. Everyone gets the same amount and is ineligible for any more from any source.

But guess what? It's never going to happen unless the people of this country get up off their fat, lazy asses and vote out the corporations who are currently illegally running the country.

In other words: it's never going to happen.

I forget what eight was for

I don't care. I'm not voting for him or Bush.

Yellowbeard
How many failed attempts will it take for you people to figure out that SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS SUCK AND ARE A LOAD OF SHIAT?!

Hell, I'm still waiting for the first failure.

Government does not create crap. It doesn't make cars, pencils, or wealth. It can only establish the conditions whereby private individuals can create wealth or not create wealth. Everything else is just moving wealth from A (who likely worked to create it) to B (who will likely blow it at the dog track).

eraser8
"Their incorporation in Bermuda is little more than a tax shelter"

As someone who does business with Anderson in Bermuda, I am eager for you to qualify that statement.

Just drop corporate taxes all together. That would solve the tax loophole. Right now corporate welfare exceeeds the amount of corporate taxes paid in. So if we just drop corporate taxes and corporate welfare it will solve the problem.

eraser8

Words Never Spoken On Fark: I was incorrect. I am sorry. You were right and I am wrong.

Doesn't change the fact that they are both whores to their parties and refuse to listen to the people they mean to govern.

How much business does Accenture do in Bermuda? How much does it do in the United States?

What does that have to do with anything?

How many of its top officers have their domiciles in Bermuda? How many have them in the United States?

So, you would be satisfied if these hypothetical officers moved to Bermuda and took the $$$ they pay in US income taxes with them? That seems logical.

Start your own list, keylock71. I happen to think that John Locke had some good ideas, but I take an individual-centered approach, not a group- or society-centered approach. Can't have society without individuals, after all.

Hey brywalker,

What do you do to earn so little money that you can't afford insurance? My job gives me health benefits. Even my self-employed friends have insurance.

Mr_Fabulous

But Accenture really is the exception to that rule. They are as truly "international" as any corporation on earth. Your argument, based on "they enjoy the benefits of our infrastructure," could be applied to each of the 110 countries they do business in.

Yes. As I believe it should. Proportionately so.

Accenture (pronounced Ass-enter)

/used to surf farkedcompany.com

2004-06-03 10:42:30 AM DeepFriedandSanctified


fudgefactor7

They're so concerned about national security to create such a program, but not so concerned that it won't be made and controlled in-house? WTF is wrong with these people? Are they retarded?

It never fails to amaze me how people still feel that giant, multi-national companies are inherently "American" or whatever based on where their headquarters happen to be located. It also amazes me that people feel that these companies "owe" the government something.

Here's a little math: lowest bid = lower taxes (unlike some jackoffs on this thread, I get no patriotic thrill out of paying higher taxes). How about this one: lower taxes on corporations = cheaper goods for me an you. Or this one: efficient companies = more jobs.

Get over thinking of companies and giant boogeymen out to loot the world, and realize that they are just companies. I work for one, you probably do too. People start them all the time -- good people and bad people.

That doesn't even closely answer at all what I was posting about, DFaS. Here's what I'm saying: national security is important, right? Ok, so they (the gov't) create this program US-VISIT to track and allow immigrants and visa holders to enter the USA. So far, so good. It's going to be part fo the overall anti-terrorism move that's domestically going on. Fine, but instead of having it developed and controlled in house, they send the contract off-shore. That's where they go wrong in my book. See it's not about outsourcing, it's about controlling the product and secrecy. Axiom: you cannot keep a secret you do not control. This system, by being offshore is no longer secure, and therefore ripe for abuse. Clearly, whomever made the decision to award this contract to a company not here, fully, is stupid. If any of the branches are not on American soil then there is the potential for a leak. Leaks are bad for security for any system that is intended to be secure.

Thus, my initial statement of "wtf?" Were I in charge, this would not have gone through, and the contract would be awarded to a company fully located in the USA with no external branches. Security is only as strong as the weakest link.