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

[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.

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?

Expenses are only a "tax break" if you don't understand that profits are taxed. Tax breaks are specific targeted items in the tax code. They aren't expenses. There is no tax break for offshoring.

 

[Seawytch]

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to:
(1) grant business taxpayers a tax credit for up to 20% of insourcing expenses incurred for eliminating a business located outside the United States and relocating it within the United States, and

(2) deny a tax deduction for outsourcing expenses incurred in relocating a U.S. business outside the United States. Requires an increase in the taxpayer's employment of full-time employees in the United States in order to claim the tax credit for insourcing expenses.

Bring Jobs Home Act

Who has a problem with this and why?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Foreign car companies like Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen are not here because Reagan beat them up.. They are here to SAVE MONEY and efficiently serve the US supply channel.

It's not really about "clean air and clean water" is it? It's about America COMPETING with the Chinese on INNOVATION and TECHNOLOGY. And you focus on 8 figure salaries for corporate execs, but watch millionaire sports figures work 6 months out of the year with no apparent problem. You might even think that J.K. Rowling and Hannah Montana deserves her Millions.. Cry me a polluted river about "exec salaries".

The cheap labor advantage of the Chinese won't last another decade. THEY are going to automation and advanced manufacturing. We should BEAT THEM THERE..

When you really want to discuss what has to happen to stop the middle class slide and bring jobs back --- I'll be here...

BTW: 1/2 my clients have facilities in China.. I'm usually trying to help manage the technical chaos of manufacturing on the other side of the world. Those are NOT abused children that I'm dealing with. And as they build a stable economy, their "air and water" will be just fine...

 

[flacaltenn]

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”

If that's an actual Romney quote -- then he can't say that without some hypocrisy.. But it's more complicated that locking the gate and not allowing our companies to go abroad.

If they can serve MARKETS abroad, then it makes their products better and cheaper here as well and more importantly, it promotes US technology and ideas abroad. The idea that a Motorola should serve ALL THEIR worldly markets from an HQ in New Jersey is a non-starter. And those proposing locking the doors from the outside are basically putting lethal limits to our ability to trade and contribute to a global economy..

So --- in that quote above -- WE WANT the HQ to be here in the US. With as many jobs as possible.. But that doesn't mean that Caterpillar shouldn't be making tractors in Russia..

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

A company can take the deductions regardless where they move to, even out of the country. These deductions reduce the amount a tax they pay, a tax break.

 

[Bfgrn]

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 --



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.

Foreign car companies like Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen are not here because Reagan beat them up.. They are here to SAVE MONEY and efficiently serve the US supply channel.

It's not really about "clean air and clean water" is it? It's about America COMPETING with the Chinese on INNOVATION and TECHNOLOGY. And you focus on 8 figure salaries for corporate execs, but watch millionaire sports figures work 6 months out of the year with no apparent problem. You might even think that J.K. Rowling and Hannah Montana deserves her Millions.. Cry me a polluted river about "exec salaries".

The cheap labor advantage of the Chinese won't last another decade. THEY are going to automation and advanced manufacturing. We should BEAT THEM THERE..

When you really want to discuss what has to happen to stop the middle class slide and bring jobs back --- I'll be here...

BTW: 1/2 my clients have facilities in China.. I'm usually trying to help manage the technical chaos of manufacturing on the other side of the world. Those are NOT abused children that I'm dealing with. And as they build a stable economy, their "air and water" will be just fine...

So, good environmental policy is good economic policy, not the opposite. Thanks for that, even if it is unintended.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.’.

So Romney was wrong but that does not make him out to be an idiot. Only a fool, for he brags about his business experience and yet ... well, what else does he not know?

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Okay. fine.

YOu cannot claim moving your factory out of the country as a business expense. You cannot claim a salary paid to a foreigner as a business expense.

I still like my idea of taking out commercials showing the pictures of outsourcers and letting average folks know who these rats are...You know, kind of a Megan's law for outsourcers.

 

[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.

Okay. fine.

YOu cannot claim moving your factory out of the country as a business expense. You cannot claim a salary paid to a foreigner as a business expense.

I still like my idea of taking out commercials showing the pictures of outsourcers and letting average folks know who these rats are...You know, kind of a Megan's law for outsourcers.

^^^^^^^^^^^
And the Left wonders why they are accused of economic ignorance.

Yes, businesses are just dying to invest in hostile jurisdictions.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Okay. fine.

YOu cannot claim moving your factory out of the country as a business expense. You cannot claim a salary paid to a foreigner as a business expense.

I still like my idea of taking out commercials showing the pictures of outsourcers and letting average folks know who these rats are...You know, kind of a Megan's law for outsourcers.

^^^^^^^^^^^
And the Left wonders why they are accused of economic ignorance.

Yes, businesses are just dying to invest in hostile jurisdictions.

I would like to see a corporate tax code that rewards domestic job creation. Eliminate tax loopholes, then offer reductions based on domestic job creation even down to zero if enough jobs are created.

But, for the businesses that invest in hostile jurisdictions, let them move their corporate offices into the squalor their wages support.

 

[Toro]

Okay. fine.

YOu cannot claim moving your factory out of the country as a business expense. You cannot claim a salary paid to a foreigner as a business expense.

I still like my idea of taking out commercials showing the pictures of outsourcers and letting average folks know who these rats are...You know, kind of a Megan's law for outsourcers.

^^^^^^^^^^^
And the Left wonders why they are accused of economic ignorance.

Yes, businesses are just dying to invest in hostile jurisdictions.

I would like to see a corporate tax code that rewards domestic job creation. Eliminate tax loopholes, then offer reductions based on domestic job creation even down to zero if enough jobs are created.

But, for the businesses that invest in hostile jurisdictions, let them move their corporate offices into the squalor their wages support.

Or move to Switzerland or Ireland or the Caymans.

 

[Bfgrn]

^^^^^^^^^^^
And the Left wonders why they are accused of economic ignorance.

Yes, businesses are just dying to invest in hostile jurisdictions.

I would like to see a corporate tax code that rewards domestic job creation. Eliminate tax loopholes, then offer reductions based on domestic job creation even down to zero if enough jobs are created.

But, for the businesses that invest in hostile jurisdictions, let them move their corporate offices into the squalor their wages support.

Or move to Switzerland or Ireland or the Caymans.

That's fine with me Toro. I am willing to bet many of them would rather remain here, and the ones that don't, as the saying goes, 'don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out'

You like to criticizes liberals for not understanding business. It not a lack of understanding, it is a lack of worship. Conservatives equate wealth with virtue, but liberals understand that you find a lot more virtue around a kitchen table, than you do around a board room table.

 

[Toro]

I would like to see a corporate tax code that rewards domestic job creation. Eliminate tax loopholes, then offer reductions based on domestic job creation even down to zero if enough jobs are created.

But, for the businesses that invest in hostile jurisdictions, let them move their corporate offices into the squalor their wages support.

Or move to Switzerland or Ireland or the Caymans.

That's fine with me Toro. I am willing to bet many of them would rather remain here, and the ones that don't, as the saying goes, 'don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out'

You like to criticizes liberals for not understanding business. It not a lack of understanding, it is a lack of worship. Conservatives equate wealth with virtue, but liberals understand that you find a lot more virtue around a kitchen table, than you do around a board room table.

I like to criticize extremists who say stupid things like JoeAmpad did in the quoted post above. I don't care if they're liberal or conservative.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Foreign car companies like Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen are not here because Reagan beat them up.. They are here to SAVE MONEY and efficiently serve the US supply channel.

It's not really about "clean air and clean water" is it? It's about America COMPETING with the Chinese on INNOVATION and TECHNOLOGY. And you focus on 8 figure salaries for corporate execs, but watch millionaire sports figures work 6 months out of the year with no apparent problem. You might even think that J.K. Rowling and Hannah Montana deserves her Millions.. Cry me a polluted river about "exec salaries".

The cheap labor advantage of the Chinese won't last another decade. THEY are going to automation and advanced manufacturing. We should BEAT THEM THERE..

When you really want to discuss what has to happen to stop the middle class slide and bring jobs back --- I'll be here...

BTW: 1/2 my clients have facilities in China.. I'm usually trying to help manage the technical chaos of manufacturing on the other side of the world. Those are NOT abused children that I'm dealing with. And as they build a stable economy, their "air and water" will be just fine...

So, good environmental policy is good economic policy, not the opposite. Thanks for that, even if it is unintended.

Where the hell did you get that? The fact is that DEVELOPED successful economies can worry and afford to maintain a clean environment. Just like will happen in China. Just like what happens in Eastern Europe when they are freed to pursue economic independence.

Good ECONOMIC policy comes first. Unless you're a UN fan and want to force Africans into solar technology instead of burning cow dung whilst their youngest are dying of hunger and their political "leaders" are mental midgets.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.’.

So Romney was wrong but that does not make him out to be an idiot. Only a fool, for he brags about his business experience and yet ... well, what else does he not know?

Well you dont know how the game is played...the republicans dont oppose the movement to kill it, but they are using it to bargain for a better tax code, because you just pointed out one of many things wrong with it.......congrats to you....the government isnt always wise and great....now lets clean the rest of it up!

 

[Erand7899]

I would like to see a corporate tax code that rewards domestic job creation. Eliminate tax loopholes, then offer reductions based on domestic job creation even down to zero if enough jobs are created.

But, for the businesses that invest in hostile jurisdictions, let them move their corporate offices into the squalor their wages support.

Or move to Switzerland or Ireland or the Caymans.

That's fine with me Toro. I am willing to bet many of them would rather remain here, and the ones that don't, as the saying goes, 'don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out'

You like to criticizes liberals for not understanding business. It not a lack of understanding, it is a lack of worship. Conservatives equate wealth with virtue, but liberals understand that you find a lot more virtue around a kitchen table, than you do around a board room table.

No, you poor, ignorant soul, conservatives do not equate wealth with virtue. Conservatives equate business with jobs. Americans need jobs, a whole lot more than business needs Americans.

Neither you, nor your liberal friends, will pay extra to buy products made in America, when you can get the same quality down the road for less. Yet, you run off at the mouth about those evil businessmen taking jobs overseas. That makes you a hypocrite, and your morality stinks.

The same applies to wages. You won't shop at a store that pays higher wages because their prices are necessarily higher. Yet, you bitch about businesses cheating their workers with low pay. That also makes you a hypocrite.

How do I know this? Because the Walmart parking lot is always full, in liberal areas as well as conservative ones.

 

[Bfgrn]

Foreign car companies like Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen are not here because Reagan beat them up.. They are here to SAVE MONEY and efficiently serve the US supply channel.

It's not really about "clean air and clean water" is it? It's about America COMPETING with the Chinese on INNOVATION and TECHNOLOGY. And you focus on 8 figure salaries for corporate execs, but watch millionaire sports figures work 6 months out of the year with no apparent problem. You might even think that J.K. Rowling and Hannah Montana deserves her Millions.. Cry me a polluted river about "exec salaries".

The cheap labor advantage of the Chinese won't last another decade. THEY are going to automation and advanced manufacturing. We should BEAT THEM THERE..

When you really want to discuss what has to happen to stop the middle class slide and bring jobs back --- I'll be here...

BTW: 1/2 my clients have facilities in China.. I'm usually trying to help manage the technical chaos of manufacturing on the other side of the world. Those are NOT abused children that I'm dealing with. And as they build a stable economy, their "air and water" will be just fine...

So, good environmental policy is good economic policy, not the opposite. Thanks for that, even if it is unintended.

Where the hell did you get that? The fact is that DEVELOPED successful economies can worry and afford to maintain a clean environment. Just like will happen in China. Just like what happens in Eastern Europe when they are freed to pursue economic independence.

Good ECONOMIC policy comes first. Unless you're a UN fan and want to force Africans into solar technology instead of burning cow dung whilst their youngest are dying of hunger and their political "leaders" are mental midgets.

Good environmental policy is ALWAYS good economic policy, UNLESS you undervalue your natural resources and have ZERO regard for your counties most important resources, the PEOPLE.

Africans burning cow dung are not 'DEVELOPED successful economies'

China approached the World Bank in 2003 to develop an estimate of how much environmental air and water pollution costs China – including in human health impact terms.

In fact, it's the most comprehensive report on economic costs and human health impacts of environmental pollution ever undertaken in China. The report clearly lays out the key environmental challenges facing China. In particular:

• the combined health and non-health cost of outdoor air and water pollution for China's economy comes to around $US100 billion a year (or about 5.8% of the country's GDP)

• air pollution, especially in large cities, is leading to higher incidences of lung diseases, including cancer, respiratory system problems and therefore higher levels of work and school absenteeism

• water pollution is also causing growing levels of cancer and diarrhea particularly in children under-5

• water pollution is further exacerbating China's severe water scarcity problems, bringing the overall cost of water scarcity to about 1% of GDP.

• regardless of income levels in China, the willingness to pay for reduced health risks associated with environmental pollution is about the same.

In March 2007, SEPA – our joint research partner – agreed to a draft edition of the report being released for discussion at a special environmental conference in Beijing funded by the World Bank, SEPA and the Government of Norway. Before it was printed, comprehensive comments were received by the Chinese Government, particularly the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) and independent Chinese and non-Chinese reviewers.

What WASN'T in the published report:

China 'buried smog death finding'

"[A preliminary] version of the report did not include some of the issues that are still under discussion."

The Financial Times said the Bank report, entitled 'Cost of Pollution in China', found up to 760,000 people die prematurely each year in China because of air and water pollution.

High levels of air pollution in China's cities leads to 350,000-400,000 premature deaths, it said. Another 300,000 die because of poor-quality air indoors.

The newspaper article, quoting World Bank advisers and Chinese officials, also said research showing that there are 60,000 premature deaths each year because of poor-quality water was also left out of the report.

'Social unrest'

"The World Bank was told that it could not publish this information. It was too sensitive and could cause social unrest," one adviser to the study told the Financial Times.

It said the bank "reluctantly" agreed to take out the sensitive information.

BBC

 

[Erand7899]

You don't understand how business works. When China decided to break the US steel industry the US slapped a hefty tariff on Chinese steel. China, being a totalitarian country, just increased subsidies to Chinese steel companies that kept the price down until our industry was devastated. When our industry is gone and the price of imported product is outrageous, there will be plenty of calls to end the tariffs. It's only a matter of time.

It's even worse now, because the US is just another country. The Chinese don't have to sell us anything. They can sell to India, Russia, any number of countries. In fact, as obama pumps 40 billion dollars of worthless money into the economy, our dollar won't be worth as much as an Indian rupee.

The answer is not to make imports unprofitable, it's to make American goods more profitable. With worthless money, crushing regulations and confiscatory taxation that's not going to happen. At least not with this royal regime.

Hey, I noticed you skipped over the part where my Chinese associate marvelled at the fact we had clean air in this country.

Why don't we section off a little pice of the country, and exile all the asshole Conservatives, Christians and other people there. They can drink dirty water, breathe dirty air, work for shit wages and be as free as a bird. Until you all die of horrible diseases in an act of truly Darwinian justice.

We can easily tell the Chinese to screw themselves. We just refuse to because assholes are making money.

Yes, we do have clean air in this country, but it did not come cheap. Millions of people lost their jobs in our drive for clean air and water. I am not so sure they are as pleased with the results as you are. However, as a liberal, you probably think of them as the chaff that needed to be sacrified for the greater good.

 

[Bfgrn]

You don't understand how business works. When China decided to break the US steel industry the US slapped a hefty tariff on Chinese steel. China, being a totalitarian country, just increased subsidies to Chinese steel companies that kept the price down until our industry was devastated. When our industry is gone and the price of imported product is outrageous, there will be plenty of calls to end the tariffs. It's only a matter of time.

It's even worse now, because the US is just another country. The Chinese don't have to sell us anything. They can sell to India, Russia, any number of countries. In fact, as obama pumps 40 billion dollars of worthless money into the economy, our dollar won't be worth as much as an Indian rupee.

The answer is not to make imports unprofitable, it's to make American goods more profitable. With worthless money, crushing regulations and confiscatory taxation that's not going to happen. At least not with this royal regime.

Hey, I noticed you skipped over the part where my Chinese associate marvelled at the fact we had clean air in this country.

Why don't we section off a little pice of the country, and exile all the asshole Conservatives, Christians and other people there. They can drink dirty water, breathe dirty air, work for shit wages and be as free as a bird. Until you all die of horrible diseases in an act of truly Darwinian justice.

We can easily tell the Chinese to screw themselves. We just refuse to because assholes are making money.

Yes, we do have clean air in this country, but it did not come cheap. Millions of people lost their jobs in our drive for clean air and water. I am not so sure they are as pleased with the results as you are. However, as a liberal, you probably think of them as the chaff that needed to be sacrified for the greater good.

You don't know what you are talking about. Do you know what cost externalization is?

In his book Tyranny of the Bottom Line, Ralph Estes examined the extent of this cost externalization in the case of U.S. corporations. Factoring in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, Estes found that external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995, four times higher than the profits of U.S. corporations that year ($822 billion). This sort of externalization toll is routinely evident in hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

Recent conservative attacks on Obama and the EPA...

We're OK With the EPA's New Air-Quality Regulations

Your editorial "The EPA Permitorium" (Nov. 22) mischaracterizes the EPA's air-quality regulations. These are required under the Clean Air Act, which a bipartisan Congress and a Republican president amended in 1990, and many are in response to court orders requiring the EPA to fix regulations that courts ruled invalid.

The electric sector has known that these rules were coming. Many companies, including ours, have already invested in modern air-pollution control technologies and cleaner and more efficient power plants. For over a decade, companies have recognized that the industry would need to install controls to comply with the act's air toxicity requirements, and the technology exists to cost effectively control such emissions, including mercury and acid gases. The EPA is now under a court deadline to finalize that rule before the end of 2011 because of the previous delays.

To suggest that plants are retiring because of the EPA's regulations fails to recognize that lower power prices and depressed demand are the primary retirement drivers. The units retiring are generally small, old and inefficient. These retirements are long overdue.

Contrary to the claims that the EPA's agenda will have negative economic consequences, our companies' experience complying with air quality regulations demonstrates that regulations can yield important economic benefits, including job creation, while maintaining reliability.

The time to make greater use of existing modern units and to further modernize our nation's generating fleet is now. Our companies are committed to ensuring the EPA develops and implements the regulations consistent with the act's requirements.

Peter Darbee, chairman,president and CEO,PG&E Corp.; Jack Fusco, president and CEO, Calpine Corp.; Lewis Hay, chairman and CEO, NextEra Energy, Inc.; Ralph Izzo, chairman, president and CEO, Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.; Thomas King, president, National Grid USA,; John Rowe, chairman and CEO, Exelon Corp.; Mayo Shattuck, chairman, president and CEO, Constellation Energy Group; Larry Weis, general manager, Austin Energy

Letters to the Editor: We're OK With the EPA's New Air-Quality Regulations - WSJ.com

 

[Wiseacre]

Back to the OP issue, as I understand it a business can deduct some expenses for moving elsewhere, whether it's across town or out of the country. That ain't a loophole or a tax break, and it's not an incentive to leave the country. The intention is to try to keep the company alive, not ship jobs overseas. You gotta understand, if a business isn't profitable enough to the point where they want to go offshore, then those jobs are gone here anyway. Maybe some jobs remain here, it ain't a total loss if the company stays in business but sends some operations out of the country. So, what happens if the democrats have their way and kill the deduction if you go overseas? They go out of business in the USA and start a new country in some other country and we lose ALL the jobs. Shrewed. And screwed.