6/25/2014 1:15 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
And lowering (or eliminating) corporate taxes will keep some of those businesses in the US rather than fleeing to other countries with more corporation-friendly tax laws, which means MORE jobs which means MORE tax revenue.

Liberals always seem to miss that point when crying for higher corporate taxes.
Companies take jobs overseas to avoid US labor costs, mostly. There is no tax rate low enough to make US employees attractive when Chinese workers can do the job for $1.50 an hour.
Companies take jobs oversees in order to reduce expenses.  Lowering or eliminating corporate taxes would significantly reduce expenses, offsetting the "burden" of US labor costs.

Unless you think all corporations are evil, and will still go offshore anyways, no matter what.

It's not evil. But any company (at least a public company) is essentially obligated to their shareholders to take jobs overseas if it makes financial sense. Cutting the corporate tax, a tax that most large companies are able to, at least partially, get around, doesn't come close to offsetting the gap between the labor cost of an American worker and the cost of an overseas worker.
Sounds like you have no problem with companies sending jobs offshore.

Interesting.

It's not great for the people losing jobs but it's legal and rational. I'd prefer we put policies in place to slow jobs moving overseas.

Bill James's idea might do that:

deadspin.com/bill-james-calls-for-revolutionary-changes-to-the-ameri-1595361407
6/25/2014 1:15 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:56:00 PM (view original):
So some business expenses are taxed but others aren't and if a business buys something used from someone who hasn't already paid taxes on the item, the business has to pay the tax upfront and then file to get a rebate. But if the person has already paid the tax on the item, then the business buying the used item doesn't have to pay the tax.

Not only is this just as complicated as the current system, it's even easier to get around because all parties will have an incentive to lie.

Right now, a business pays a vendor and then 1099's that vendor/contractor so that the business can write off the expense. And the vendor pays taxes based on the 1099's filed.
None of that is taxable. Businesses don't pay taxes. Only consumers.

If I'm selling to a 1099 vendor then I'm selling to a business that will be using the product, truck, etc FOR BUSINESS to produce a good or service (which is then taxable when purchased by the consumer).

The tax cost of DOING business in the US is $0... So products can be assembled much cheaper and sold at a much lower cost especially to be comletitive in a global market where china can sell goods cheaply. BTW emerging country incomes are rising so as China , India, and Brazil pay their workers more their goods may not be as 'cheap' in the future.
6/25/2014 1:28 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
And lowering (or eliminating) corporate taxes will keep some of those businesses in the US rather than fleeing to other countries with more corporation-friendly tax laws, which means MORE jobs which means MORE tax revenue.

Liberals always seem to miss that point when crying for higher corporate taxes.
Companies take jobs overseas to avoid US labor costs, mostly. There is no tax rate low enough to make US employees attractive when Chinese workers can do the job for $1.50 an hour.
Companies take jobs oversees in order to reduce expenses.  Lowering or eliminating corporate taxes would significantly reduce expenses, offsetting the "burden" of US labor costs.

Unless you think all corporations are evil, and will still go offshore anyways, no matter what.

It's not evil. But any company (at least a public company) is essentially obligated to their shareholders to take jobs overseas if it makes financial sense. Cutting the corporate tax, a tax that most large companies are able to, at least partially, get around, doesn't come close to offsetting the gap between the labor cost of an American worker and the cost of an overseas worker.
Sounds like you have no problem with companies sending jobs offshore.

Interesting.

It's not great for the people losing jobs but it's legal and rational. I'd prefer we put policies in place to slow jobs moving overseas.

Bill James's idea might do that:

deadspin.com/bill-james-calls-for-revolutionary-changes-to-the-ameri-1595361407
If I ever thought you came up with dumb ideas.... This guy just took the cake. You don't just want jobs to leave the country you want entire Busiesses to leave the country.

You had just said companies send jobs offshore for cost savings.... So with this guys 10:1 idea either we raise employees making $10/hr to $100/hr which means to outsource labor becomes even more enticing.... Or we leave labor at $10/hr which means a CEO will only make $100/hr. Who will sacrifice the time and stress it takes to run a large business for that little sum of money?
6/25/2014 1:25 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
And lowering (or eliminating) corporate taxes will keep some of those businesses in the US rather than fleeing to other countries with more corporation-friendly tax laws, which means MORE jobs which means MORE tax revenue.

Liberals always seem to miss that point when crying for higher corporate taxes.
Companies take jobs overseas to avoid US labor costs, mostly. There is no tax rate low enough to make US employees attractive when Chinese workers can do the job for $1.50 an hour.
Companies take jobs oversees in order to reduce expenses.  Lowering or eliminating corporate taxes would significantly reduce expenses, offsetting the "burden" of US labor costs.

Unless you think all corporations are evil, and will still go offshore anyways, no matter what.

It's not evil. But any company (at least a public company) is essentially obligated to their shareholders to take jobs overseas if it makes financial sense. Cutting the corporate tax, a tax that most large companies are able to, at least partially, get around, doesn't come close to offsetting the gap between the labor cost of an American worker and the cost of an overseas worker.
Sounds like you have no problem with companies sending jobs offshore.

Interesting.

It's not great for the people losing jobs but it's legal and rational. I'd prefer we put policies in place to slow jobs moving overseas.

Bill James's idea might do that:

deadspin.com/bill-james-calls-for-revolutionary-changes-to-the-ameri-1595361407
LOL.

I didn't think it was possible for you to move beyond "full retard" mode, but you've somehow done it.

Good job.
6/25/2014 1:38 PM
Posted by moy23 on 6/25/2014 1:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2014 11:26:00 AM (view original):
And lowering (or eliminating) corporate taxes will keep some of those businesses in the US rather than fleeing to other countries with more corporation-friendly tax laws, which means MORE jobs which means MORE tax revenue.

Liberals always seem to miss that point when crying for higher corporate taxes.
Companies take jobs overseas to avoid US labor costs, mostly. There is no tax rate low enough to make US employees attractive when Chinese workers can do the job for $1.50 an hour.
Companies take jobs oversees in order to reduce expenses.  Lowering or eliminating corporate taxes would significantly reduce expenses, offsetting the "burden" of US labor costs.

Unless you think all corporations are evil, and will still go offshore anyways, no matter what.

It's not evil. But any company (at least a public company) is essentially obligated to their shareholders to take jobs overseas if it makes financial sense. Cutting the corporate tax, a tax that most large companies are able to, at least partially, get around, doesn't come close to offsetting the gap between the labor cost of an American worker and the cost of an overseas worker.
Sounds like you have no problem with companies sending jobs offshore.

Interesting.

It's not great for the people losing jobs but it's legal and rational. I'd prefer we put policies in place to slow jobs moving overseas.

Bill James's idea might do that:

deadspin.com/bill-james-calls-for-revolutionary-changes-to-the-ameri-1595361407
If I ever thought you came up with dumb ideas.... This guy just took the cake. You don't just want jobs to leave the country you want entire Busiesses to leave the country.

You had just said companies send jobs offshore for cost savings.... So with this guys 10:1 idea either we raise employees making $10/hr to $100/hr which means to outsource labor becomes even more enticing.... Or we leave labor at $10/hr which means a CEO will only make $100/hr. Who will sacrifice the time and stress it takes to run a large business for that little sum of money?
Pay the employees better. It will be easy when you aren't paying CEOs $10,000 an hour.
6/25/2014 1:48 PM
For ****'s sake.   Am I the only person seeing the death of full-time, low paying jobs in the BJ/BL proposal?   Or the farming out of those jobs to contractors?

For instance, Peyton Manning makes 20m.   That means assistant coaches, trainers, ticket clerks, cheerleaders, etc, etc, must be paid 2m by the Denver Broncos.  All of those jobs are now farmed out to *** Coaches r Us, Training made Easy, Tickettaker.com and **** for Rent.    Of course, they could hire part-time employees for all those spots.  

6/25/2014 1:49 PM
And, FWIW, assistant coaches and trainers aren't even low paying jobs.  Manning just prices them out of the market.
6/25/2014 1:54 PM
But . . . but . . . but . .

Bill James proposed it!  It must be awesome!!

6/25/2014 1:57 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2014 1:54:00 PM (view original):
But . . . but . . . but . .

Bill James proposed it!  It must be awesome!!

I read it because it was written on James's site, but it's a good idea regardless.
6/25/2014 2:00 PM
And, if you think "Well, yeah, but sports is an extreme example", the receptionist at your doctor's office is going to be making 6 figures. 
6/25/2014 2:02 PM
Mike . . . Mike . . . MIKE!!

IT'S BILL ******* JAMES!!!!

6/25/2014 2:04 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2014 2:00:00 PM (view original):
And, if you think "Well, yeah, but sports is an extreme example", the receptionist at your doctor's office is going to be making 6 figures. 
The doctor at your local Dr.'s office isn't drawing a $1 million a year in salary.
6/25/2014 2:14 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2014 2:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/25/2014 2:00:00 PM (view original):
And, if you think "Well, yeah, but sports is an extreme example", the receptionist at your doctor's office is going to be making 6 figures. 
The doctor at your local Dr.'s office isn't drawing a $1 million a year in salary.
Hollywood actors might as well move out of their homes... They won't be able to pay the property tax making $100/hr.
6/25/2014 2:16 PM
moy, Hollywood is dead under this new law.    Who the **** is going to pay someone 5m to fetch coffee?
6/25/2014 2:17 PM
I think we can just file that under "Stupid idea" unless, of course, we have to pay someone 75k to do filing.
of 125

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.