How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs.

[anotherlife]

... Is it logical to accept one criminal to prosecute another by a public servant title?

AnotherLife, within USA jurisdictions, and I suppose also within the jurisdictions of other nations, plea bargaining is often transacted within their systems of justice.
Respectfully, Supposn

In a plea bargain, at least in the contemporary USA, the bargain is managed by the public servants, it is not the crime itself that is managed by the public servants, so your analogy is incorrect.

 

[danielpalos]

[QUOTE="Supposn, post: 17248699, member:20145] Transcribed from 12:13 PM, 12May2017 post:
Daniel Palos, you’re advocating exactly what some of the Republican leadership are advocating, (i.e. “destination based” taxation).
I FULLY AGREE WITH YOUR GOAL. I doubt if the method that Paul Ryan and some Republicans are proposing is feasibly enforceable.
I question if there’s any method to accomplish “destination based taxation” that is feasibly enforceable and does not further stretch IRS’s efforts to respect liberty and privacy of individuals and their enterprises?

It's really is that simple. You’re disregarding the question of enforceability.
Respectfully, Supposn

Why do you believe it would be difficult to enforce via the IRS, just like any other micromanagement of the tax codes?

DanielPalos, refer to 11:14 PM, 11May2017 post.
Respectfully, Supposn

Your post is not relevant. Employers have to provide data for any deductions.

 

[Supposn]

AnotherLife, we’ve strayed far away from this thread’s topic, “How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs”. We’re not even discussing a sub-topic of that.

I’ve opened another thread, “Prosecution of Nazi war crimes”. If my title displeases you or you find it at all objectionable, I’ll post any additional comments on an alternative thread you may choose to open.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

“How trade deficits reduce their nation’s annual GDPs and numbers of jobs”.

a trade deficit doesn't reduce GDP it's just a measure. GDP is reduced when nobody wants to buy your products!!!

 

[danielpalos]

Why are US employers getting a tax break for hiring foreign labor?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why are US employers getting a tax break for hiring foreign labor?

They aren't.

 

[Supposn]

[QUOTE="danielpalos, post: 17256601, member: 53092]Your post is not relevant. Employers have to provide data for any deductions.[/QUOTE]

Transcript of 10:16 11May2017 post:

DanielPalos & ToddsterPatriot, that’s the purpose of the “destination based tax” concept. Currently enterprises’ expenditures for acquiring and importing goods into the USA or benefitting from foreign services are entitled to reduce their enterprises’ incomes subject federal corporate taxes.

DBT would no longer reduce taxable income in consideration for such expenses.
I’m a proponent of the concepts purpose but I doubt if the IRS could effectively enforce it at reasonable enforcement expenses.
If they cannot do that, the proposed destination based tax method is of no worth.

There are many legitimate reasons for USA enterprises to transfer wealth to entities beyond our borders. I question the feasability (at reasonable enforcement costs) for parsing out compensations to foreign entities for the foreign goods or performed services provided.

Those expenditures can be mingled with expenditures for royalties, uses of patents, loans to foreigners, debt service of loans made by foreign lenders, ... etc. ... etc.
Wealth leaving the USA is usually through both USA and foreign financial enterprises but they can be made by couriers.

Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////////////////

DanielPalos, enterprises currently receive tax reductions for their foreign labor expenditures because the federal government taxes foreign earnings brought back to the USA. That’s another proposed destination based income tax; the federal government will cease taxing income earned beyond our borders. That may be acceptable if destination based taxation could be reasonably enforced.

It’s much more common for global enterprises to receive reductions of their U.S. federal taxes due to their expenditures for the products they import into the USA or for services on behalf of their enterprises that are performed overseas. The foreign labor costs are imbedded within the expenditures for those foreign goods and service products.

If the federal tax regulations are based upon the "destination based tax concept", (which is precisely what you're advocating), no enterprise will show payments for foreign labor.

If circumstances prevent an enterprise from entirely concealing payments made to enterprises beyond our borders for foreign goods or service products, those payments will be extremely understated and that will be compensated by overstating other intermingled expenses that are directly or indirectly paid to the same recipients.
Recipients receiving full payments are not concerned as to how those payments are itemized.

Similar to many other tax evasion schemes, despite much greater enforcement expenditures, a good portion of our federal tax revenue will not be realized.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Why are US employers getting a tax break for hiring foreign labor?

They aren't.

Labor costs are tax deductible. Are you claiming the right wing distinguishes between native labor and foreign labor?

 

[danielpalos]

[QUOTE="danielpalos, post: 17256601, member: 53092]Your post is not relevant. Employers have to provide data for any deductions.

Transcript of 10:16 11May2017 post:

DanielPalos & ToddsterPatriot, that’s the purpose of the “destination based tax” concept. Currently enterprises’ expenditures for acquiring and importing goods into the USA or benefitting from foreign services are entitled to reduce their enterprises’ incomes subject federal corporate taxes.

DBT would no longer reduce taxable income in consideration for such expenses.
I’m a proponent of the concepts purpose but I doubt if the IRS could effectively enforce it at reasonable enforcement expenses.
If they cannot do that, the proposed destination based tax method is of no worth.

There are many legitimate reasons for USA enterprises to transfer wealth to entities beyond our borders. I question the feasability (at reasonable enforcement costs) for parsing out compensations to foreign entities for the foreign goods or performed services provided.

Those expenditures can be mingled with expenditures for royalties, uses of patents, loans to foreigners, debt service of loans made by foreign lenders, ... etc. ... etc.
Wealth leaving the USA is usually through both USA and foreign financial enterprises but they can be made by couriers.

Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////////////////

DanielPalos, enterprises currently receive tax reductions for their foreign labor expenditures because the federal government taxes foreign earnings brought back to the USA. That’s another proposed destination based income tax; the federal government will cease taxing income earned beyond our borders. That may be acceptable if destination based taxation could be reasonably enforced.

It’s much more common for global enterprises to receive reductions of their U.S. federal taxes due to their expenditures for the products they import into the USA or for services on behalf of their enterprises that are performed overseas. The foreign labor costs are imbedded within the expenditures for those foreign goods and service products.

If the federal tax regulations are based upon the "destination based tax concept", (which is precisely what you're advocating), no enterprise will show payments for foreign labor.

If circumstances prevent an enterprise from entirely concealing payments made to enterprises beyond our borders for foreign goods or service products, those payments will be extremely understated and that will be compensated by overstating other intermingled expenses that are directly or indirectly paid to the same recipients.
Recipients receiving full payments are not concerned as to how those payments are itemized.

Similar to many other tax evasion schemes, despite much greater enforcement expenditures, a good portion of our federal tax revenue will not be realized.

Respectfully, Supposn

Labor is either, US or foreign; it should be that way for tax purposes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why are US employers getting a tax break for hiring foreign labor?

They aren't.

Labor costs are tax deductible. Are you claiming the right wing distinguishes between native labor and foreign labor?

Labor costs are tax deductible.

Yup.

 

[Supposn]

Labor is either, US or foreign; it should be that way for tax purposes.

DanielPalos, I agree with you; it should be.
Now just figure a method to effectively enforce what we agree should be.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Labor is either, US or foreign; it should be that way for tax purposes.

DanielPalos, I agree with you; it should be.
Now just figure a method to effectively enforce what we agree should be.
Respectfully, Supposn

I make a motion the same form be used that is already used to claim the deduction for labor costs. US labor qualifies a firm for a tax break, foreign labor does not.

 

[Supposn]

I make a motion the same form be used that is already used to claim the deduction for labor costs. US labor qualifies a firm for a tax break, foreign labor does not.

Excerpted from 11:35 PM, 13May2017 post:
“It makes no sense to disallow payments for foreign labor unless you disallow tax write-offs for ALL imported goods and services. (Even if a foreign representative is performing customer service tasks on behalf of the USA enterprise, and never themselves enter the USA, that’s in effect an imported service product)”.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Daniel Palos, I would support “destination based” income taxes, (which is what you’re advocating), if a creditable U.S. Treasury Department or IRS civil service executive would testify to the U.S. congress that the draft of what they’re considering is reasonably enforceable.
I would expect but not be satisfied with just the word of an elected or politically appointed federal official.


I’m a proponent of the trade proposal described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.

It requires that the federal government be able to assess the dollar value of shipments passing through our borders. Although, similar to most such trade policies, the entire policy’s net costs are passed on to purchasers of imported goods, I consider the need for such assessments as the trade policies major disadvantage to destination based tax concept.

Import Certificate policy’s advantage is, (to the extent that we can be certain of any government enacted policy), the policy would accomplish its purpose. It would most significantly if not entirely eliminate our chronic annual trade deficits of globally traded goods, increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise, and thus be of net benefit to USA’s economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

I make a motion the same form be used that is already used to claim the deduction for labor costs. US labor qualifies a firm for a tax break, foreign labor does not.

Excerpted from 11:35 PM, 13May2017 post:
“It makes no sense to disallow payments for foreign labor unless you disallow tax write-offs for ALL imported goods and services. (Even if a foreign representative is performing customer service tasks on behalf of the USA enterprise, and never themselves enter the USA, that’s in effect an imported service product)”.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Daniel Palos, I would support “destination based” income taxes, (which is what you’re advocating), if a creditable U.S. Treasury Department or IRS civil service executive would testify to the U.S. congress that the draft of what they’re considering is reasonably enforceable.
I would expect but not be satisfied with just the word of an elected or politically appointed federal official.


I’m a proponent of the trade proposal described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.

It requires that the federal government be able to assess the dollar value of shipments passing through our borders. Although, similar to most such trade policies, the entire policy’s net costs are passed on to purchasers of imported goods, I consider the need for such assessments as the trade policies major disadvantage to destination based tax concept.

Import Certificate policy’s advantage is, (to the extent that we can be certain of any government enacted policy), the policy would accomplish its purpose. It would most significantly if not entirely eliminate our chronic annual trade deficits of globally traded goods, increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise, and thus be of net benefit to USA’s economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

That is your red herring. I am only advancing that one issue. There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break; only US labor should qualify US firms for that tax break.

The right wing is disingenuous for blaming labor and unions, for US firms leaving the US solely for cheaper labor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I make a motion the same form be used that is already used to claim the deduction for labor costs. US labor qualifies a firm for a tax break, foreign labor does not.

Excerpted from 11:35 PM, 13May2017 post:
“It makes no sense to disallow payments for foreign labor unless you disallow tax write-offs for ALL imported goods and services. (Even if a foreign representative is performing customer service tasks on behalf of the USA enterprise, and never themselves enter the USA, that’s in effect an imported service product)”.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Daniel Palos, I would support “destination based” income taxes, (which is what you’re advocating), if a creditable U.S. Treasury Department or IRS civil service executive would testify to the U.S. congress that the draft of what they’re considering is reasonably enforceable.
I would expect but not be satisfied with just the word of an elected or politically appointed federal official.


I’m a proponent of the trade proposal described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.

It requires that the federal government be able to assess the dollar value of shipments passing through our borders. Although, similar to most such trade policies, the entire policy’s net costs are passed on to purchasers of imported goods, I consider the need for such assessments as the trade policies major disadvantage to destination based tax concept.

Import Certificate policy’s advantage is, (to the extent that we can be certain of any government enacted policy), the policy would accomplish its purpose. It would most significantly if not entirely eliminate our chronic annual trade deficits of globally traded goods, increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise, and thus be of net benefit to USA’s economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

That is your red herring. I am only advancing that one issue. There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break; only US labor should qualify US firms for that tax break.

The right wing is disingenuous for blaming labor and unions, for US firms leaving the US solely for cheaper labor.

There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break;

IBM, for example, hires foreign labor in India to manage a data center in India.

IBM cannot deduct those wages from their US taxes.

You're complaining about something that does not occur.

 

[danielpalos]

I make a motion the same form be used that is already used to claim the deduction for labor costs. US labor qualifies a firm for a tax break, foreign labor does not.

Excerpted from 11:35 PM, 13May2017 post:
“It makes no sense to disallow payments for foreign labor unless you disallow tax write-offs for ALL imported goods and services. (Even if a foreign representative is performing customer service tasks on behalf of the USA enterprise, and never themselves enter the USA, that’s in effect an imported service product)”.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Daniel Palos, I would support “destination based” income taxes, (which is what you’re advocating), if a creditable U.S. Treasury Department or IRS civil service executive would testify to the U.S. congress that the draft of what they’re considering is reasonably enforceable.
I would expect but not be satisfied with just the word of an elected or politically appointed federal official.


I’m a proponent of the trade proposal described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.

It requires that the federal government be able to assess the dollar value of shipments passing through our borders. Although, similar to most such trade policies, the entire policy’s net costs are passed on to purchasers of imported goods, I consider the need for such assessments as the trade policies major disadvantage to destination based tax concept.

Import Certificate policy’s advantage is, (to the extent that we can be certain of any government enacted policy), the policy would accomplish its purpose. It would most significantly if not entirely eliminate our chronic annual trade deficits of globally traded goods, increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise, and thus be of net benefit to USA’s economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

That is your red herring. I am only advancing that one issue. There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break; only US labor should qualify US firms for that tax break.

The right wing is disingenuous for blaming labor and unions, for US firms leaving the US solely for cheaper labor.

There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break;

IBM, for example, hires foreign labor in India to manage a data center in India.

IBM cannot deduct those wages from their US taxes.

You're complaining about something that does not occur.

In other words, You are claiming US firms overseas are not eligible to deduct the labor cost of foreign labor they employ, in foreign States?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I make a motion the same form be used that is already used to claim the deduction for labor costs. US labor qualifies a firm for a tax break, foreign labor does not.

Excerpted from 11:35 PM, 13May2017 post:
“It makes no sense to disallow payments for foreign labor unless you disallow tax write-offs for ALL imported goods and services. (Even if a foreign representative is performing customer service tasks on behalf of the USA enterprise, and never themselves enter the USA, that’s in effect an imported service product)”.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Daniel Palos, I would support “destination based” income taxes, (which is what you’re advocating), if a creditable U.S. Treasury Department or IRS civil service executive would testify to the U.S. congress that the draft of what they’re considering is reasonably enforceable.
I would expect but not be satisfied with just the word of an elected or politically appointed federal official.


I’m a proponent of the trade proposal described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.

It requires that the federal government be able to assess the dollar value of shipments passing through our borders. Although, similar to most such trade policies, the entire policy’s net costs are passed on to purchasers of imported goods, I consider the need for such assessments as the trade policies major disadvantage to destination based tax concept.

Import Certificate policy’s advantage is, (to the extent that we can be certain of any government enacted policy), the policy would accomplish its purpose. It would most significantly if not entirely eliminate our chronic annual trade deficits of globally traded goods, increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise, and thus be of net benefit to USA’s economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

That is your red herring. I am only advancing that one issue. There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break; only US labor should qualify US firms for that tax break.

The right wing is disingenuous for blaming labor and unions, for US firms leaving the US solely for cheaper labor.

There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break;

IBM, for example, hires foreign labor in India to manage a data center in India.

IBM cannot deduct those wages from their US taxes.

You're complaining about something that does not occur.

In other words, You are claiming US firms overseas are not eligible to deduct the labor cost of foreign labor they employ, in foreign States?

Us firms pay US taxes on US earnings. They can't deduct foreign labor from US earnings.

 

[danielpalos]

I make a motion the same form be used that is already used to claim the deduction for labor costs. US labor qualifies a firm for a tax break, foreign labor does not.

Excerpted from 11:35 PM, 13May2017 post:
“It makes no sense to disallow payments for foreign labor unless you disallow tax write-offs for ALL imported goods and services. (Even if a foreign representative is performing customer service tasks on behalf of the USA enterprise, and never themselves enter the USA, that’s in effect an imported service product)”.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Daniel Palos, I would support “destination based” income taxes, (which is what you’re advocating), if a creditable U.S. Treasury Department or IRS civil service executive would testify to the U.S. congress that the draft of what they’re considering is reasonably enforceable.
I would expect but not be satisfied with just the word of an elected or politically appointed federal official.


I’m a proponent of the trade proposal described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.

It requires that the federal government be able to assess the dollar value of shipments passing through our borders. Although, similar to most such trade policies, the entire policy’s net costs are passed on to purchasers of imported goods, I consider the need for such assessments as the trade policies major disadvantage to destination based tax concept.

Import Certificate policy’s advantage is, (to the extent that we can be certain of any government enacted policy), the policy would accomplish its purpose. It would most significantly if not entirely eliminate our chronic annual trade deficits of globally traded goods, increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise, and thus be of net benefit to USA’s economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

That is your red herring. I am only advancing that one issue. There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break; only US labor should qualify US firms for that tax break.

The right wing is disingenuous for blaming labor and unions, for US firms leaving the US solely for cheaper labor.

There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break;

IBM, for example, hires foreign labor in India to manage a data center in India.

IBM cannot deduct those wages from their US taxes.

You're complaining about something that does not occur.

In other words, You are claiming US firms overseas are not eligible to deduct the labor cost of foreign labor they employ, in foreign States?

Us firms pay US taxes on US earnings. They can't deduct foreign labor from US earnings.

Why would they not take that relatively standard deduction for labor costs?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excerpted from 11:35 PM, 13May2017 post:
“It makes no sense to disallow payments for foreign labor unless you disallow tax write-offs for ALL imported goods and services. (Even if a foreign representative is performing customer service tasks on behalf of the USA enterprise, and never themselves enter the USA, that’s in effect an imported service product)”.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Daniel Palos, I would support “destination based” income taxes, (which is what you’re advocating), if a creditable U.S. Treasury Department or IRS civil service executive would testify to the U.S. congress that the draft of what they’re considering is reasonably enforceable.
I would expect but not be satisfied with just the word of an elected or politically appointed federal official.


I’m a proponent of the trade proposal described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.

It requires that the federal government be able to assess the dollar value of shipments passing through our borders. Although, similar to most such trade policies, the entire policy’s net costs are passed on to purchasers of imported goods, I consider the need for such assessments as the trade policies major disadvantage to destination based tax concept.

Import Certificate policy’s advantage is, (to the extent that we can be certain of any government enacted policy), the policy would accomplish its purpose. It would most significantly if not entirely eliminate our chronic annual trade deficits of globally traded goods, increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise, and thus be of net benefit to USA’s economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

That is your red herring. I am only advancing that one issue. There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break; only US labor should qualify US firms for that tax break.

The right wing is disingenuous for blaming labor and unions, for US firms leaving the US solely for cheaper labor.

There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break;

IBM, for example, hires foreign labor in India to manage a data center in India.

IBM cannot deduct those wages from their US taxes.

You're complaining about something that does not occur.

In other words, You are claiming US firms overseas are not eligible to deduct the labor cost of foreign labor they employ, in foreign States?

Us firms pay US taxes on US earnings. They can't deduct foreign labor from US earnings.

Why would they not take that relatively standard deduction for labor costs?

Foreign employees aren't deductible from US earnings.

 

[danielpalos]

That is your red herring. I am only advancing that one issue. There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break; only US labor should qualify US firms for that tax break.

The right wing is disingenuous for blaming labor and unions, for US firms leaving the US solely for cheaper labor.

There is no reason for foreign labor to qualify US firms for a tax break;

IBM, for example, hires foreign labor in India to manage a data center in India.

IBM cannot deduct those wages from their US taxes.

You're complaining about something that does not occur.

In other words, You are claiming US firms overseas are not eligible to deduct the labor cost of foreign labor they employ, in foreign States?

Us firms pay US taxes on US earnings. They can't deduct foreign labor from US earnings.

Why would they not take that relatively standard deduction for labor costs?

Foreign employees aren't deductible from US earnings.

Are labor costs deductible for firms?