Is there or i'snt there a tax break for going abroad

[asterism]

Nice spin.

Simply, there is a tax break for moving your business. In country or out of the country. And Romney lied about that. For he has used that tax break frequently.

So, do we want a President that trys to eliminate a tax break for moving factories and jobs out of the nation, or do we want a President that has a record of using this tax break to move factories and jobs to China, then lies about it?

Seems to be a clear choice to me.

an honest way to present your question...

Do we want a president who does not understand how operating costs are a write off..

or do we want a president who knows how to apply operating costs as a write off.

FYI...your whole post is a pile of shit.

LOL. Call it operating cost, or anything you like. We, the taxpayer, are rewarding the people that ship our jobs overseas. And you are supporting that. As a middle class working American, I deeply resent your attitude toward me and my fellow working Americans.

We have a clear choice this election. Vote for somebody that will try to keep the jobs here, and make this country stronger and more wealthy, or vote for someone that only cares about making 1% of the nation more wealthy. Simple as that.

You actually think the current President will try to keep the jobs here and can make this country stronger and more wealthy? His record is exactly opposite that.

From 2008 to 2010, U.S. trade with China alone cost about 450,000 American jobs because of the growth of Chinese exports, said Robert E. Scott, a pro-labor advocate at the liberal Economic Policy Institute.

According to a study by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, large American companies in 2010 barely added any workers in the United States, increasing their numbers by 0.1 percent, while they expanded their foreign workforce by 1.5 percent. That was business as usual — between 2004 and 2010, the bureau reported, foreign affiliates hired 2 million workers while 600,000 were added by the companies at home.

Obama’s record on outsourcing draws criticism from the left - The Washington Post

Chris Townsend, political director of the United Electrical Workers labor union that represents roughly 5,500 GE employees in the U.S., said the company has closed more than 30 U.S. plants since Obama took office. GE would not confirm the number.

GE "is a company that, despite the constant claims of growth, continues to shrink in the United States,” Townsend said. “These are a mixture of things from garden-variety, old-line manufacturing plants to electrical apparatus service facilities, sometimes something to do with servicing. Several of them were GE Capital.”

In the last few months, Boeing has ramped up business in China. In September 2011, the company signed a 10-year contract with the state-owned Shanghai Aircraft Manufacturing Co. to build horizontal stabilizers for the 737 jet. The contract is the company’s largest with a Chinese supplier. And in March, Boeing announced partnership with the Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China on energy research.

Several other corporations represented on the jobs council also rely on outsourcing.

Xerox, for example, has a business model that depends on providing its outsourcing services to other companies worldwide. In its most recent annual report, Xerox said it is the “largest worldwide diversified business process outsourcing company in the large and growing BPO market.”

American Express, one of the pioneers of outsourcing call centers to India in the 1980s, still depends on “outsourcing functions … [and] relocating certain functions to lower-cost overseas locations,” according to its most recent SEC filings.

Obama Jobs Council Packed With Outsourcing Companies

 

[Erand7899]

Yes you can get a tax break for moving your company. Regardless if you relocate outside the US.

No, you do not get a tax break, you just get to compute the moving costs as part of the cost of doing business. No different than building a new plant next door. You get to deduct the cost of the new plant, and the costs of moving your stuff into the new plant.

The plain and simple fact is that Democrats have continually lied about some phony gift from the government to induce companies to move overseas. No different that a whole lot of other lies that Democrats firmly believe to be true.

 

[Darkwind]

Money made in a foreign country cannot be taxed in America.

How hard is that to understand?

Drop the oppressive tax rates and you won't see business fleeing overseas.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes you can get a tax break for moving your company. Regardless if you relocate outside the US.

Okay. Then change the law. Not tax break for moving your company at all.

Period.

Works for me. I mean, if you think that they can't tell the difference between an outside the country location and an inside the country location.

NO TAX BREAKS AT ALL.

And higher tariffs.

That's the "cut off your nose attitude" we love about lefties.. Looking for ways to bring jobs BACK -- but always going with "screw them" when companies want to move and expand.

Companies go overseas for several reasons. One is to lower the cost of labor for goods shipped back to American customers. When we first started setting up manufacturing in Asia is wasn't to serve THEIR CITIZENS, but to serve our citizens. Today -- the more important bit of incentive for growing facilities overseas is to ACTUALLY SERVE LOCAL markets there. As incomes increase and the middle classes grow -- these markets are just as viable as selling to the US and W. Europe.

For yu lefties, just think of it as the redistribution of wealth you so much desire. Because back in the 60s/70s all we heard was whining from the left about how unfair it was that America controlled so much of the wealth with such a fraction of the population. It's the 99% story versus the 1% played out on a global scale. And SURPRISE ----- you lefties won what your hearts desired.. Now you're pissed... Go figure..

 

[Erand7899]

Reader Question: Tax Breaks for Moving Overseas

Q: Do corporations actually get a tax break for relocating manufacturing overseas? — johng158, New York City

Annie Lowrey: It is true. The tax code currently does allow companies to deduct certain expenses when they move operations overseas. As part of its plan to aid the manufacturing sector and promote job growth, the Obama administration has proposed ending this deduction, and giving tax credits to companies moving jobs back to the United States.

The Electoral Map - Presidential Race Ratings and Swing States - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

Pure BS! The tax code allows companies to deduct moving costs, period. It has nothing to do with moving jobs overseas.

The tax code allows business deductions for hotel rooms, taxi fares, and airline flights. That applies whether the business is conducted in New York, San Francisco, or Tokyo.

It is all the cost of doing business, and doing business is good for America.

 

[Erand7899]

Excessive regulations aren't only impacting small businessmen and women. Major manufacturers like Richmond, Va.-based MeadWestvaco are facing a barrage of regulations from the EPA. The company's senior expert on environmental regulations testified before a congressional panel that, "The current wave of regulations is unsustainable. Living with such an uncertain regulatory environment not only costs current jobs, but also prevents new jobs from being created."

Companies that find it unprofitable to comply with regulations leave the country.

Then we make it even more unprofitable for them to move their factories.

Huge tariffs on imported goods AND mandetory big labels that say "Made in China" with a big commie Chinese flag on the product.

Now, I recently had to entertain a visitor from one of my companies branches in China. (Yes, unfortunately, I'm part of the same hypocrisy,and will have to attend that.) As we drove through Chicago, she was ABSOLUTELY amazed that Chicago was a big city that had clean air, and you could actually see the buildings from a distance.

So, yeah, I guess if you don't like having clean air and clean water, or making a decent wage, you should totally move your factories to China.

I imagine that the Chinese would like clean air and clean water, just as much as you do. But, they also like to eat, and have a roof over their heads. The same applies to a whole lot of unemployed Americans, whose priorities are not quite the same as yours. Most of them would trade a little clean air and clean water for a good paying job.

Humans, like all living things, pollute the environment by just surviving. Six billion plus people pollute a lot, but few of them are willing to give up life on this planet just so you can have pristine air and water.

We make environmental trade-offs so that people can live comfortably. We regulate to ensure a healthy environment, but we do not over regulate in a futile effort to reach some environmental utopia. Especially, when reaching for that utopia costs the people on the lower edge too much pain.

 

[Erand7899]

Maybe one of you rethugs could answer a simple question; why should any companies be allowed any deductions for moving a company to another country?

And if you don't think deductions are "tax breaks" wtf do you think they are?

When I write off my mortgage interest as a deduction, you think my taxes go up or down for the write off? Let me help. My taxes go down, thereby making the write off a "tax break".

See how simple that was.

Almost as simple as your attempt at logic. A mortgage deduction is a write off. It is an inducement from the federal government to promote home ownership. But, you are not allowed to deduct the cost of your automobile, or the cost of your home. Businesses can do both. If you think that is unfair, take it up with your congressperson.

Businesses are allowed to deduct all of the legitimate costs of doing business. That is not a tax break, that is the way it has to be, or business could not exist. If business could not exist, you wouldn't have a home mortgage interest to deduct.

 

[Erand7899]

Nice spin.

Simply, there is a tax break for moving your business. In country or out of the country. And Romney lied about that. For he has used that tax break frequently.

So, do we want a President that trys to eliminate a tax break for moving factories and jobs out of the nation, or do we want a President that has a record of using this tax break to move factories and jobs to China, then lies about it?

Seems to be a clear choice to me.

an honest way to present your question...

Do we want a president who does not understand how operating costs are a write off..

or do we want a president who knows how to apply operating costs as a write off.

FYI...your whole post is a pile of shit.

LOL. Call it operating cost, or anything you like. We, the taxpayer, are rewarding the people that ship our jobs overseas. And you are supporting that. As a middle class working American, I deeply resent your attitude toward me and my fellow working Americans.

We have a clear choice this election. Vote for somebody that will try to keep the jobs here, and make this country stronger and more wealthy, or vote for someone that only cares about making 1% of the nation more wealthy. Simple as that.

If you believe that eliminating deductions for moving costs will keep companies from relocating overseas, then you are a fool. This is just another smoke and mirrors game from the Democrat party to placate the not-so-bright base. There are so many legal ways around such a rule, that the rule would be moot. Democrats get campaign cash from these companies. They are not going to do anything that really affects most of them.

It appears that many of you don't give a damn whether punishing companies moving overseas would be effective or even beneficial to Americans, you just want to see them punished.

 

[JoeB131]

[

That's the "cut off your nose attitude" we love about lefties.. Looking for ways to bring jobs BACK -- but always going with "screw them" when companies want to move and expand.

Companies go overseas for several reasons. One is to lower the cost of labor for goods shipped back to American customers. When we first started setting up manufacturing in Asia is wasn't to serve THEIR CITIZENS, but to serve our citizens. Today -- the more important bit of incentive for growing facilities overseas is to ACTUALLY SERVE LOCAL markets there. As incomes increase and the middle classes grow -- these markets are just as viable as selling to the US and W. Europe.

For yu lefties, just think of it as the redistribution of wealth you so much desire. Because back in the 60s/70s all we heard was whining from the left about how unfair it was that America controlled so much of the wealth with such a fraction of the population. It's the 99% story versus the 1% played out on a global scale. And SURPRISE ----- you lefties won what your hearts desired.. Now you're pissed... Go figure..

Guy, not a lefty...

Just wondering what kind of "American" puts the greed of multi-national corporations ahead of the good of AMerica, and defends their bad behavior.

And frankly, I'm tired of the "Free Trade" koolaid that if we just let them steal some of our jobs, eventually they'll buy some of our products. I've been hearing that horseshit since the 1970's, and I didn't buy it then.

 

[flacaltenn]

[

That's the "cut off your nose attitude" we love about lefties.. Looking for ways to bring jobs BACK -- but always going with "screw them" when companies want to move and expand.

Companies go overseas for several reasons. One is to lower the cost of labor for goods shipped back to American customers. When we first started setting up manufacturing in Asia is wasn't to serve THEIR CITIZENS, but to serve our citizens. Today -- the more important bit of incentive for growing facilities overseas is to ACTUALLY SERVE LOCAL markets there. As incomes increase and the middle classes grow -- these markets are just as viable as selling to the US and W. Europe.

For yu lefties, just think of it as the redistribution of wealth you so much desire. Because back in the 60s/70s all we heard was whining from the left about how unfair it was that America controlled so much of the wealth with such a fraction of the population. It's the 99% story versus the 1% played out on a global scale. And SURPRISE ----- you lefties won what your hearts desired.. Now you're pissed... Go figure..

Guy, not a lefty...

Just wondering what kind of "American" puts the greed of multi-national corporations ahead of the good of AMerica, and defends their bad behavior.

And frankly, I'm tired of the "Free Trade" koolaid that if we just let them steal some of our jobs, eventually they'll buy some of our products. I've been hearing that horseshit since the 1970's, and I didn't buy it then.

Lemme hook you up with some disgruntled Japanese and German workers who are right now complaining that their country ships too many jobs to America. Name a foreign car company who is not yet manufacturing on American soil.. In fact --

What Foreign Companies Insource The Most American Workers?

According to OFII’s statistics, U.S. subsidiaries of global companies employ 5.6 million Americans, support an annual payroll of $408.5 billion, invest heavily in the American manufacturing sector and account for more than 18% of all U.S. exports, or $232.4 billion.

And our exports to China are picking up steam as China prospers. The ugly part of this is to realize that America CAN'T make bicycles and soccer balls for the world anymore. And we can't DICTATE environmental and labor law to other countries. You can't build a fence or tariff your way out of globalism..

We've known for 25 years what America had to do to survive in a global economy, and instead our leadership has chosen to demagogue and whip up nationalistic fervor about job-eatin' commies. NOTHING short of turning America's labor force towards doing the "hard stuff" is gonna protect jobs in this country. Cheap labor is dead. Automation is the REAL THREAT to low skill labor --- and we better sign up for the change or we are doomed.

Go ahead --- call me un-American. I'm working EVERY DAY to bring jobs back to this country. But the factories of the 21st Century aren't gonna have middle class lever pullers or glue machine operators. And we damn well better our kids for the jobs OF THIS CENTURY -- starting right now..

 

[flacaltenn]

Maybe you've never heard of these FOREIGN employers...

EADS North America: The U.S. operations of Netherlands-based global aerospace and defense giant EADS supports more than 200,000 American jobs coast to coast.

Sodexo, Inc.: French-based food workers and facilities management company employs 110,000 American workers.

BAE Systems: British defense and aerospace company employs over 45,000 workers across the country.

Nestle USA: Switzerland-based Nestlé operates 82 U.S. factories and employs over 42,000 American workers.

T-Mobile USA: German wireless services provider, owned by Deutsche Telekom, employs 41,000 Americans.

Thomson Reuters: Information company, 53% Canadian-owned, employs 26,000 Americans.

Sony Corporation of America: Japanese electronics firm has 15,000 American employees.

BASF Corporation: The largest chemical company in the world is headquartered in Germany and has 15,000 American workers.

Volvo Group North America: Swedish car company has over 10,000 American workers.

Alstom: France-based global transportation infrastructure and energy company employs about 6,000 American workers. .

 

[Cowman]

Obama is a lair and knew what he was saying was wrong

I swear to god... if one more person genuinely typos liar with lair again, I'm going to buy everybody on this forum a dictionary and a certificate for a typing class.

I must have seen it happen 60+ times, in thread titles and in posts.

Does it mean something I do not know of?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Let me get this straight, the part where it says "No deduction ... shall be allowable" actually means that deductions are allowed.

You need to re-read.

 

[Lakhota]

Yes there is, it is Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

BTW, Obama tried to get rid of the deduction for business expenses for moving a company abroad, and the GOP, of course, blocked it.

Full Text of S. 3364: Bring Jobs Home Act - GovTrack.us

SEC. 3. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR OUTSOURCING EXPENSES.
(a) In General- Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

‘SEC. 280I. OUTSOURCING EXPENSES.
‘(a) In General- No deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter shall be allowed for any specified outsourcing expense.

‘(b) Specified Outsourcing Expense- For purposes of this section--

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The term ‘specified outsourcing expense’ means--

‘(A) any eligible expense paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the elimination of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located within the United States, and

‘(B) any eligible expense paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the establishment of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located outside the United States,

if such establishment constitutes the relocation of the business unit so eliminated. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a relocation shall not be treated as failing to occur merely because such elimination occurs in a different taxable year than such establishment.

‘(2) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN DEFINITIONS AND RULES-

‘(A) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this section, the terms ‘eligible expenses’, ‘business unit’, and ‘expanded affiliated group’ shall have the respective meanings given such terms by section 45S(b).

‘(B) OPERATING EXPENSES NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT- A rule similar to the rule of section 45S(b)(6) shall apply for purposes of this section.

‘(c) Special Rules-

‘(1) APPLICATION TO DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION- In the case of any portion of a specified outsourcing expense which is not deductible in the taxable year in which paid or incurred, such portion shall neither be chargeable to capital account nor amortizable.

‘(2) POSSESSIONS TREATED AS PART OF THE UNITED STATES- For purposes of this section, the term ‘United States’ shall be treated as including each possession of the United States (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).

‘(d) Regulations- The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations which provide (or create a rebuttable presumption) that certain establishments of business units outside the United States will be treated as relocations (based on timing or such other factors as the Secretary may provide) of business units eliminated within the United States.’.

(b) Limitation on Subpart F Income of Controlled Foreign Corporations Determined Without Regard to Specified Outsourcing Expenses- Subsection (c) of section 952 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘(4) EARNINGS AND PROFITS DETERMINED WITHOUT REGARD TO SPECIFIED OUTSOURCING EXPENSES- For purposes of this subsection, earnings and profits of any controlled foreign corporation shall be determined without regard to any specified outsourcing expense (as defined in section 280I(b)).’.

(c) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

‘Sec. 280I. Outsourcing expenses.’.

Let me get this straight, the part where it says "No deduction ... shall be allowable" actually means that deductions are allowed.

Are you suggesting this has been passed?

 

[JoeB131]

Lemme hook you up with some disgruntled Japanese and German workers who are right now complaining that their country ships too many jobs to America. Name a foreign car company who is not yet manufacturing on American soil.. In fact --

What Foreign Companies Insource The Most American Workers?

According to OFII’s statistics, U.S. subsidiaries of global companies employ 5.6 million Americans, support an annual payroll of $408.5 billion, invest heavily in the American manufacturing sector and account for more than 18% of all U.S. exports, or $232.4 billion.

And our exports to China are picking up steam as China prospers. The ugly part of this is to realize that America CAN'T make bicycles and soccer balls for the world anymore. And we can't DICTATE environmental and labor law to other countries. You can't build a fence or tariff your way out of globalism..

We've known for 25 years what America had to do to survive in a global economy, and instead our leadership has chosen to demagogue and whip up nationalistic fervor about job-eatin' commies. NOTHING short of turning America's labor force towards doing the "hard stuff" is gonna protect jobs in this country. Cheap labor is dead. Automation is the REAL THREAT to low skill labor --- and we better sign up for the change or we are doomed.

Go ahead --- call me un-American. I'm working EVERY DAY to bring jobs back to this country. But the factories of the 21st Century aren't gonna have middle class lever pullers or glue machine operators. And we damn well better our kids for the jobs OF THIS CENTURY -- starting right now..

I'm sorry, guy.

I work for a company that has factories in China and the US.

In fact, last month, I had to drive some commodity manager around to visit some of our vendors.

Do you know what amazed her about Chicago. It was a big city, and the air was clean. We drove by Lake Michigan and the water was clean.

Whenever assholes on the right talk about how we have to make sacrifices, it never means the executives give up their 8 figure salaries. It means we have to accept less in wages, less in safety, less in air quality and water quality.

Now, since you brought up the fact foreign car companies manufacture here, it's largely because Reagan called them on "dumping", and threatened to put quotas and limits. Yes, Ronald Reagan. That guy.

 

[zeke]

Maybe one of you rethugs could answer a simple question; why should any companies be allowed any deductions for moving a company to another country?

And if you don't think deductions are "tax breaks" wtf do you think they are?

When I write off my mortgage interest as a deduction, you think my taxes go up or down for the write off? Let me help. My taxes go down, thereby making the write off a "tax break".

See how simple that was.

Almost as simple as your attempt at logic. A mortgage deduction is a write off. It is an inducement from the federal government to promote home ownership. But, you are not allowed to deduct the cost of your automobile, or the cost of your home. Businesses can do both. If you think that is unfair, take it up with your congressperson.

Businesses are allowed to deduct all of the legitimate costs of doing business. That is not a tax break, that is the way it has to be, or business could not exist. If business could not exist, you wouldn't have a home mortgage interest to deduct.

You are ate up. ANY write off, whether it be for business or personal, is a write off to reduce the tax obligation of the entity writing off the particular item.

And to say that I, as an individual running a small business can't write off my truck, or the cost of an office in my home..........shows you don't know what the fuk you are talking about.

But don't let that stop you from sharing your dismal "knowledge".

 

[editec]

Romney seemed pretty confident that there is not a tax break when he used the "I dont know what you are talking about" line

There does not need to be a special tax break to make migrating off shore effect one's tax rate.

The very act of moving offshore will generate expenses that reduce the bottom line.

So if Romney truly doesn't understand THAT?

He's an idiot.

But I do NOT think Romney is an idiot.

I think he's just another GOP liar.

 

[Toro]

There is no offshoring tax break. The tax code taxes profits, not revenues. Expenses reduce profits and thus reduce taxes. Liberals are arguing that expenses are tax breaks. That's silly. A tax break is a specific targeted provision in the tax code. There is no tax break for offshoring, unless liberals want to argue that paying wages or expensing depreciation or buying inputs are also tax breaks. But then, they'd reinforce that they are clueless on business and the economy.

 

[Seawytch]

There is no offshoring tax break. The tax code taxes profits, not revenues. Expenses reduce profits and thus reduce taxes. Liberals are arguing that expenses are tax breaks. That's silly. A tax break is a specific targeted provision in the tax code. There is no tax break for offshoring, unless liberals want to argue that paying wages or expensing depreciation or buying inputs are also tax breaks. But then, they'd reinforce that they are clueless on business and the economy.

There IS a tax break for moving expenses...and you get it if you move your business to another country. The bill put forth by the Democrats would have given the break ONLY if you moved your business within or back to the United States and would have eliminated it ONLY for those companies wishing to move to another country.

What is the opposition to that?

 

[Bfgrn]

Romney seemed pretty confident that there is not a tax break when he used the "I dont know what you are talking about" line.

However, apparently Obama has been very busy "being president" doing things like deficit reduction planning; who to tax; who not to tax, etc......so I am sure he must know if there truly is a tax break as he asserted last night and many times during the campaign.

So either Romney is an idiot and wrong
or
Obama is a lair and knew what he was saying was wrong
or
Obama is not doing the things as president daily that he says he is "busy doing".

Which is it?

I have stated more than once on this board that no such deduction exists, no one has ever tried to prove me wrong.

Really? Please explain how Romney can say out of one side of his mouth "I dont know what you are talking about" and say THIS out the other?:

“Amendments to the tax code need to be crafted in a way that does not encourage corporations to game the system and export jobs or to move their U.S. headquarters abroad”