Obama & The Treasury Go After "inversions"

[Mac1958]

Legal mandate? I'd like to see that legislation. Please provide a link.

Thanks.

It's not in legislation. Its part of the US Tax Code
You can google search the US Tax code. If you dare.
No one is going to do your homework for you.
The fact is, these companies are using the Tax Code to its fullest advantage.
This would not be happening if the Code were not loaded up with confiscatory( as compared to other nations) tax burdens on business.
I find it laughable the reasons you libs are interested in this. Mainly it is greed on your part. All you are interested in is feeding the federal govt with MORE tax money so that YOU can satisfy your greed for other people's money.
I also am amused that in your minds( as evidenced by your side's postings) that somehow money to the federal government will somehow find it's way either to you or to your benefit.
This of course is accompanied by the same old argument that if business or individuals oppose additional taxation, your side labels them as greedy and selfish. And that they 'don't want to help the children'. Or some other group in your cause du jour.

I'm gonna guess you're responding to Lone Laugher, my little stalker. Did you quote him? I think this new board format also stops me from seeing his posts even when someone else quotes him.

Awwww. Too bad.

Hey LL, perhaps you can have one of your little friends pass me a note in class.



Anyway, I know how intellectually lazy and incurious folks can be, so here's some help on fiduciary legal responsibility:

From: Fiduciary Responsibilities Corporations - Lawyers.com which I found in a quick little Google search:

Fiduciary Duties of Board of Directors
Every board member owes a legal duty of good faith, full disclosure, fair dealing and undivided loyalty to the corporation.

It wouldn't be tough to find a lot more, if folks would just be a little curious.

.

Yes. I was indeed responding to loner laugher.

Too funny.

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In 1955 $400,000 was the equivalent of almost $3.5 million dollars. How many people do you think actually made that much?

It was a tax on a few hundred people, that's it. It was mostly for symbolism, not for income. It was also a legacy of WWII and the need to fund the Marshall Plan.

Yeah? Let's take a look at Mitt Romney's tax bill under each President since Eisenhower then shall we?

Barack Obama

Romney's Tax Bill: $3,150,000

Romney's actual 2011 Tax Rate: 15.3%

Romney's actual 2011 Tax Contribution: $3,213,000


Eisenhower

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill: $5,250,000

Kennedy

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$5,250,000

Johnson

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$5,649,000

Nixon

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$7,665,000

Ford

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$8,373,750

Carter

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$8,373,750

St. Reagan

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$5,880,000

Bush I

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$6,075,300

Bubba
Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$6,129,900

Bush II

Romney's Approx. Tax Bill:$4,445,700 - $3,150,000

Romney isn't the hypocrite.

Let's look at all of the loopholes Obama used. You'll discover he nor his friends practice what they preach.

Yo distractameister...it's not about Romeny, it's about fucking taxes and what Americans have paid before...you know, like after war and stuff. But hey, just put on the card!

Few Americans paid those rates. Straw man argument.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Funny shit you all write. Hey someone show me where the POTUS has a legal obligation to protect corporate profits.

Seems to me those job creators failed in their duty to produce jobs for Americans. And seems to me the POTUS (of any party) has a responsibility to protect the well being of ALL American citizens. If the POTUS determines that allowing corporations to further reduce their tax obligations is working against the citizens, he is obligated to try and stop it.

Cry about it all you want. But if you want to claim CEO's have this "obligation" then certainly Presidents have an obligation as well. Just not to the corporations.

Would you like to suffer the embarrassment of having all of the wealthy donors and companies which lie in bed with Obama?
Do yourself a favor. Don't go there.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And away we go:

Treasury unveils measures to combat tax inversions - MarketWatch

That'll teach those corporations to follow their legal mandate to maximize shareholder value.

Good thing this administration is so business-friendly.



.

You WR loons are so conflicted. On one hand you scream and cry over the deficit and when the administration tries to curb corporations taking their businesses to other countries to avoid paying taxes, you yell fowl.

You cry over he deficit and at the same time continue to defend unwarranted tax breaks for oil companies and the insanely rich.

The only thing you are not conflicted about is, "I am against ANYTHING he Obama administration does!"

That is your game plan...sad.

it's no longer "the rich"...Now it's the INSANELY rich?
Where did you get the idea that wealth is 'insane'?

 

[zeke]

Funny shit you all write. Hey someone show me where the POTUS has a legal obligation to protect corporate profits.

Seems to me those job creators failed in their duty to produce jobs for Americans. And seems to me the POTUS (of any party) has a responsibility to protect the well being of ALL American citizens. If the POTUS determines that allowing corporations to further reduce their tax obligations is working against the citizens, he is obligated to try and stop it.

Cry about it all you want. But if you want to claim CEO's have this "obligation" then certainly Presidents have an obligation as well. Just not to the corporations.

Would you like to suffer the embarrassment of having all of the wealthy donors and companies which lie in bed with Obama?
Do yourself a favor. Don't go there.

Hey knock yourself out and list ALL the Obama donors that are using this tax loophole and I will gladly condemn those companies and Obama as well for allowing it to happen and continue. Won't embarrass me in the least.

If Obama does put a stop to this kind of tax avoidance, will you applaud Obama?
Do you think a President, any President has an obligation to the citizens of the country or the corporations of the country? Isn't a President the representative of ALL American citizens?

 

[mudwhistle]

Wealth is evil, but only for Republicans.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Funny shit you all write. Hey someone show me where the POTUS has a legal obligation to protect corporate profits.

Seems to me those job creators failed in their duty to produce jobs for Americans. And seems to me the POTUS (of any party) has a responsibility to protect the well being of ALL American citizens. If the POTUS determines that allowing corporations to further reduce their tax obligations is working against the citizens, he is obligated to try and stop it.

Cry about it all you want. But if you want to claim CEO's have this "obligation" then certainly Presidents have an obligation as well. Just not to the corporations.

No one has claimed POTUS has an obligation to maximize corporate profits. It would be a good thing though as profitable corporations hire people and spend money of capital improvements, real estate and inventory.

Corporations have no duty to create jobs. They would love to be in a position where they needed to fill new positions, but in a hostile business environment like Dear Leader has given us, it's a wise decision to hold onto their cash.

I see that like Joe, you really don't understand corporate taxes. If the government raises Exxon's corporate income tax, that tax becomes a business expense and you pay it at the pump, at the grocery store, on your utility bill, everywhere fuel is used to manufacture or deliver product.

And I see that you don't really understand consumerism. Let a corporation raise their prices and then let the corporation watch as people stop buying their product or service.

You ever notice that about capitalism? When the consumer (that would be you and I) quits purchasing a particular companies product, you ever watch how the price comes down?

You all use that "the prices will rise IF the corporation gets taxed more" all the time.. Of course you all act like corporations price their goods and services dependent on their tax treatment. And not on what the market for their goods will bear.

I see YOU don't know much about capitalism and the consumer.

Additional taxation will only cause consumers to limit or eliminate discretionary spending. The resulting tax induced price increases for necessities will be borne by consumers and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
The bottom line is tax increase adversely effect the overall economy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Funny shit you all write. Hey someone show me where the POTUS has a legal obligation to protect corporate profits.

Seems to me those job creators failed in their duty to produce jobs for Americans. And seems to me the POTUS (of any party) has a responsibility to protect the well being of ALL American citizens. If the POTUS determines that allowing corporations to further reduce their tax obligations is working against the citizens, he is obligated to try and stop it.

Cry about it all you want. But if you want to claim CEO's have this "obligation" then certainly Presidents have an obligation as well. Just not to the corporations.

Would you like to suffer the embarrassment of having all of the wealthy donors and companies which lie in bed with Obama?
Do yourself a favor. Don't go there.

Hey knock yourself out and list ALL the Obama donors that are using this tax loophole and I will gladly condemn those companies and Obama as well for allowing it to happen and continue. Won't embarrass me in the least.

If Obama does put a stop to this kind of tax avoidance, will you applaud Obama?
Do you think a President, any President has an obligation to the citizens of the country or the corporations of the country? Isn't a President the representative of ALL American citizens?

No you won't

 

[thereisnospoon]

Funny shit you all write. Hey someone show me where the POTUS has a legal obligation to protect corporate profits.

Seems to me those job creators failed in their duty to produce jobs for Americans. And seems to me the POTUS (of any party) has a responsibility to protect the well being of ALL American citizens. If the POTUS determines that allowing corporations to further reduce their tax obligations is working against the citizens, he is obligated to try and stop it.

Cry about it all you want. But if you want to claim CEO's have this "obligation" then certainly Presidents have an obligation as well. Just not to the corporations.

Would you like to suffer the embarrassment of having all of the wealthy donors and companies which lie in bed with Obama?
Do yourself a favor. Don't go there.

Hey knock yourself out and list ALL the Obama donors that are using this tax loophole and I will gladly condemn those companies and Obama as well for allowing it to happen and continue. Won't embarrass me in the least.

If Obama does put a stop to this kind of tax avoidance, will you applaud Obama?
Do you think a President, any President has an obligation to the citizens of the country or the corporations of the country? Isn't a President the representative of ALL American citizens?

There is a way to stop this so called tax avoidance. That would be to make the Tax Code more equitable

 

[LoneLaugher]

Legal mandate? I'd like to see that legislation. Please provide a link.

Thanks.

It's not in legislation. Its part of the US Tax Code
You can google search the US Tax code. If you dare.
No one is going to do your homework for you.
The fact is, these companies are using the Tax Code to its fullest advantage.
This would not be happening if the Code were not loaded up with confiscatory( as compared to other nations) tax burdens on business.
I find it laughable the reasons you libs are interested in this. Mainly it is greed on your part. All you are interested in is feeding the federal govt with MORE tax money so that YOU can satisfy your greed for other people's money.
I also am amused that in your minds( as evidenced by your side's postings) that somehow money to the federal government will somehow find it's way either to you or to your benefit.
This of course is accompanied by the same old argument that if business or individuals oppose additional taxation, your side labels them as greedy and selfish. And that they 'don't want to help the children'. Or some other group in your cause du jour.

I'm gonna guess you're responding to Lone Laugher, my little stalker. Did you quote him? I think this new board format also stops me from seeing his posts even when someone else quotes him.

Awwww. Too bad.

Hey LL, perhaps you can have one of your little friends pass me a note in class.



Anyway, I know how intellectually lazy and incurious folks can be, so here's some help on fiduciary legal responsibility:

From: Fiduciary Responsibilities Corporations - Lawyers.com which I found in a quick little Google search:

Fiduciary Duties of Board of Directors
Every board member owes a legal duty of good faith, full disclosure, fair dealing and undivided loyalty to the corporation.

It wouldn't be tough to find a lot more, if folks would just be a little curious.

.

Nope.....there is no legal mandate that requires corporations to maximize shareholder value at any time other than when the company is being sold.

http://www.purposeofcorporation.com/dokumenty/project_outputs/company-law-and-msv-16-july-2014.pdf

See number 10.

And....I'm not stalking you, I'm responding to your misinformation.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Legal mandate? I'd like to see that legislation. Please provide a link.

Thanks.

It's not in legislation. Its part of the US Tax Code
You can google search the US Tax code. If you dare.
No one is going to do your homework for you.
The fact is, these companies are using the Tax Code to its fullest advantage.
This would not be happening if the Code were not loaded up with confiscatory( as compared to other nations) tax burdens on business.
I find it laughable the reasons you libs are interested in this. Mainly it is greed on your part. All you are interested in is feeding the federal govt with MORE tax money so that YOU can satisfy your greed for other people's money.
I also am amused that in your minds( as evidenced by your side's postings) that somehow money to the federal government will somehow find it's way either to you or to your benefit.
This of course is accompanied by the same old argument that if business or individuals oppose additional taxation, your side labels them as greedy and selfish. And that they 'don't want to help the children'. Or some other group in your cause du jour.

I'm gonna guess you're responding to Lone Laugher, my little stalker. Did you quote him? I think this new board format also stops me from seeing his posts even when someone else quotes him.

Awwww. Too bad.

Hey LL, perhaps you can have one of your little friends pass me a note in class.



Anyway, I know how intellectually lazy and incurious folks can be, so here's some help on fiduciary legal responsibility:

From: Fiduciary Responsibilities Corporations - Lawyers.com which I found in a quick little Google search:

Fiduciary Duties of Board of Directors
Every board member owes a legal duty of good faith, full disclosure, fair dealing and undivided loyalty to the corporation.

It wouldn't be tough to find a lot more, if folks would just be a little curious.

.

Nope.....there is no legal mandate that requires corporations to maximize shareholder value at any time other than when the company is being sold.

http://www.purposeofcorporation.com/dokumenty/project_outputs/company-law-and-msv-16-july-2014.pdf

See number 10.

And....I'm not stalking you, I'm responding to your misinformation.

Your problem is you attached the term "legal mandate"...Inaccurate.
There is a difference between 'legal mandate'( a function of government) and 'fiduciary responsibility' which is mandated by company policy.
Investors have an expectation and the Board of Directors have a fiduciary responsibility to increase the value of the stock.

 

[Mac1958]

There is a difference between 'legal mandate'( a function of government) and 'fiduciary responsibility' which is mandated by company policy.
Investors have an expectation and the Board of Directors have a fiduciary responsibility to increase the value of the stock.

The lawsuits they face for not acting as fiduciaries are legal proceedings, and they are legally bound by the decision of the court.

If the left wing partisan ideologues want to parse the term "legal mandate", that's fine with me.

That's just deflection from the point, they can call it whatever the hell they want.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Right, then. There is no legal mandate. Excellent.

What is left is corporate will. And those corporations who grasp the importance of investment in R&D, infrastructure AND THEIR EMPLOYEES are very capable of meeting their responsibility to their shareholders. Even when....as is often the case NOW....the primary shareholders are the decision makers for the corporation.

Now..........you may resume your overblown rhetoric about how liberals hate corporations.

idiots.

 

[JimH52]

You GOP zealots just love to throw insults. I guess it must be a size thing....

I'm not a Republican. Like I said, step aside.

 

[Freewill]

From your provided article:

Three of the moves are aimed at blocking inverted companies from using techniques – sometimes known as “hopscotching” – to get access to their offshore cash without paying U.S. tax on it. Those would apply to deals closed on or after Sept. 22.
Another move makes it more difficult for U.S. firms to skirt current ownership standards in inverting. Still another move would make it harder for U.S. firms to spin off subsidiaries overseas.

Taken together, the administration’s moves are likely to remove at least some of the economic appeal of inversions, which have become more common in recent years, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. Noticeably absent, however, was a much-discussed idea to limit inverted companies’ ability to ship U.S. profits overseas tax free.

Now could you tell me what problem you find with these changes in regards to the products you sell? It seems to me that with Banks and Corporations posting record profits I don't see them in trouble. Not until the bubble burst then these changes really will not matter.

Off the top of my pointy head I don't see significant effect on what I do personally. I think we're clearly headed towards the Euro-social democracy the Left wants, with far more powerful and authoritarian central planning. And I've pretty much come to terms with it, so I'll just watch as other countries take further economic advantage of our decay.

.

You get all of that out of the fed trying to stop inversions? Really? My thoughts are that the corporations are showing record profits and they are hiding cash that for me, maybe not you, would be hard to do. If we are going to have a tax system to pay for things we all need. Like roads, bridges and defense then all US companies should be made to pay the same as we the people. That said, revenue to the federal government is also at record levels. Too bad the fed can't live within their means as we the people are expected.

No, I don't get all of that out of the fed trying to stop inversions. I get it from looking at the macro domestic political landscape and having a working professional knowledge of markets and economies. And this notion that "corporations are showing record profits" - some are some are not, and it always amazes me that so many people don't understand that. Real life is more complicated than bumper sticker slogans.

And regarding the whole "roads & bridges" argument -- yet another bumper sticker slogan -- I'd much rather add two margins to the current tax system at 44.9% and 49.9% and then drop corporate tax rates so that high earners would contribute far more in personal income taxes as a result of their higher gross incomes provided by the flood of repatriated capital and new foreign capital that would result from the lowered corporate tax rates.

I don't look at things from a simplistic partisan political perspective. I think that perspective has caused enough damage.

.

Holy crap! My whole response to you was to try and figure out what your original simplistic post was really all about. Now you are going into the rabbit hole.

You make light of taxes paying for things we all need. WTF do you even drive to work? I don't like paying taxes who does? But I like having bridges I can cross without the fear of it dropping into the river.

As for record corporate profits. What are you saying? Just because all corporations may not be showing record profits that means as a whole they are not setting records? Really?

Corporate Profits Were the Highest on Record Last Quarter

What I am sure you will call simplistic view:

Corporate profits have been doing extremely well for a while. Since their cyclical low in the fourth quarter of 2008, profits have grown for seven consecutive quarters, at some of the fastest rates in history. As a share of gross domestic product, corporate profits also have been increasing, and they now represent 11.2 percent of total output. That is the highest share since the fourth quarter of 2006, when they accounted for 11.7 percent of output.

This breakneck pace can be partly attributed to strong productivity growth — which means companies have been able to make more with less — as well as the fact that some of the profits of American companies come from abroad. Economic conditions in the United States may still be sluggish, but many emerging markets like India and China are expanding rapidly.

Precisely where did I "make light of taxes paying for things we all need"? Did you not see where I would increase personal income tax revenue to the government, both at the marginal level and as a result of increased business activity? Did you read what I wrote?

And why in the world do you think emerging markets like India and China are expanding?

And that's a delightful cut and paste and all, but I'm sure you can show me which corporations are enjoying record profits and which are not. Which corporations are underperforming and which are not. What percentage of corporations are enjoying record profits and what percentage are not.

I have access to that information in my software, so I know it's readily available. Since you're so sure that your bumper sticker slogan is accurate.

Yes, you're being simplistic. Looks like I'm wasting my time here.

.

Ah, right here: And regarding the whole "roads & bridges" argument -- yet another bumper sticker slogan --

WTF? You started out with a rant about inversion with what you call a cut and paste. then when questioned you go into a rant about you having a more better idea on how to increase taxes.

 

[Mac1958]

Off the top of my pointy head I don't see significant effect on what I do personally. I think we're clearly headed towards the Euro-social democracy the Left wants, with far more powerful and authoritarian central planning. And I've pretty much come to terms with it, so I'll just watch as other countries take further economic advantage of our decay.

.

You get all of that out of the fed trying to stop inversions? Really? My thoughts are that the corporations are showing record profits and they are hiding cash that for me, maybe not you, would be hard to do. If we are going to have a tax system to pay for things we all need. Like roads, bridges and defense then all US companies should be made to pay the same as we the people. That said, revenue to the federal government is also at record levels. Too bad the fed can't live within their means as we the people are expected.

No, I don't get all of that out of the fed trying to stop inversions. I get it from looking at the macro domestic political landscape and having a working professional knowledge of markets and economies. And this notion that "corporations are showing record profits" - some are some are not, and it always amazes me that so many people don't understand that. Real life is more complicated than bumper sticker slogans.

And regarding the whole "roads & bridges" argument -- yet another bumper sticker slogan -- I'd much rather add two margins to the current tax system at 44.9% and 49.9% and then drop corporate tax rates so that high earners would contribute far more in personal income taxes as a result of their higher gross incomes provided by the flood of repatriated capital and new foreign capital that would result from the lowered corporate tax rates.

I don't look at things from a simplistic partisan political perspective. I think that perspective has caused enough damage.

.

Holy crap! My whole response to you was to try and figure out what your original simplistic post was really all about. Now you are going into the rabbit hole.

You make light of taxes paying for things we all need. WTF do you even drive to work? I don't like paying taxes who does? But I like having bridges I can cross without the fear of it dropping into the river.

As for record corporate profits. What are you saying? Just because all corporations may not be showing record profits that means as a whole they are not setting records? Really?

Corporate Profits Were the Highest on Record Last Quarter

What I am sure you will call simplistic view:

Corporate profits have been doing extremely well for a while. Since their cyclical low in the fourth quarter of 2008, profits have grown for seven consecutive quarters, at some of the fastest rates in history. As a share of gross domestic product, corporate profits also have been increasing, and they now represent 11.2 percent of total output. That is the highest share since the fourth quarter of 2006, when they accounted for 11.7 percent of output.

This breakneck pace can be partly attributed to strong productivity growth — which means companies have been able to make more with less — as well as the fact that some of the profits of American companies come from abroad. Economic conditions in the United States may still be sluggish, but many emerging markets like India and China are expanding rapidly.

Precisely where did I "make light of taxes paying for things we all need"? Did you not see where I would increase personal income tax revenue to the government, both at the marginal level and as a result of increased business activity? Did you read what I wrote?

And why in the world do you think emerging markets like India and China are expanding?

And that's a delightful cut and paste and all, but I'm sure you can show me which corporations are enjoying record profits and which are not. Which corporations are underperforming and which are not. What percentage of corporations are enjoying record profits and what percentage are not.

I have access to that information in my software, so I know it's readily available. Since you're so sure that your bumper sticker slogan is accurate.

Yes, you're being simplistic. Looks like I'm wasting my time here.

.

Ah, right here: And regarding the whole "roads & bridges" argument -- yet another bumper sticker slogan --

WTF? You started out with a rant about inversion with what you call a cut and paste. then when questioned you go into a rant about you having a more better idea on how to increase taxes.

You do realize there's a difference between corporate taxes and individual taxes, yes?

And indeed, bumper sticker sloganeering is worthless in a conversation on a complicated subject.

.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

One of the common statements that we hear from those who have difficulty making their arguments hold water is some version of "I am wasting my time with you".

We all encounter an intransigent or otherwise difficult opponent every now and then. That's quite expected in an open forum with so many visitors.

But....when a poster consistently claims that their time is being wasted....or that their opponents are incapable of having a meaningful dialogue.......the onus falls on the complainant. Especially when the other poster is a regular and well known to the whining bitch.........Mac.

 

[Dot Com]

Funny shit you all write. Hey someone show me where the POTUS has a legal obligation to protect corporate profits.

Seems to me those job creators failed in their duty to produce jobs for Americans. And seems to me the POTUS (of any party) has a responsibility to protect the well being of ALL American citizens. If the POTUS determines that allowing corporations to further reduce their tax obligations is working against the citizens, he is obligated to try and stop it.

Cry about it all you want. But if you want to claim CEO's have this "obligation" then certainly Presidents have an obligation as well. Just not to the corporations.

No one has claimed POTUS has an obligation to maximize corporate profits. It would be a good thing though as profitable corporations hire people and spend money of capital improvements, real estate and inventory.

Corporations have no duty to create jobs. They would love to be in a position where they needed to fill new positions, but in a hostile business environment like Dear Leader has given us, it's a wise decision to hold onto their cash.

I see that like Joe, you really don't understand corporate taxes. If the government raises Exxon's corporate income tax, that tax becomes a business expense and you pay it at the pump, at the grocery store, on your utility bill, everywhere fuel is used to manufacture or deliver product.

And I see that you don't really understand consumerism. Let a corporation raise their prices and then let the corporation watch as people stop buying their product or service.

You ever notice that about capitalism? When the consumer (that would be you and I) quits purchasing a particular companies product, you ever watch how the price comes down?

You all use that "the prices will rise IF the corporation gets taxed more" all the time.. Of course you all act like corporations price their goods and services dependent on their tax treatment. And not on what the market for their goods will bear.

I see YOU don't know much about capitalism and the consumer.

Additional taxation will only cause consumers to limit or eliminate discretionary spending. The resulting tax induced price increases for necessities will be borne by consumers and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
The bottom line is tax increase adversely effect the overall economy.

Like happened under Clinton? I call

 

[JoeB131]

[

Cuz then we'd have a lot more m.]But joe hates corporations and will gladly pay more for his happy meal if it means Mickey D's will pay their "fair share".

Actualy, I'd be happy if they stopped pushing the cost of their labor force off on the rest of us.

 

[JoeB131]

The officers of a corporation are mandated by law to work in a fiduciary capacity at all times.

American law.

American law.

That means their job is to maximize shareholder value.

If they do not, they can and will be sued by their shareholders.

And they will lose.

If you want to change that law, and I know you do, great. Do it. We can trust the government to run stuff.

.

They can sue all day.

HUGE tarriffs on companies that offshore. And they are outed publically.

Betcha they find a way to make it work after that.