Manufacturers moved to China so now they can pay to move themselves back.

[Andylusion]

Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow firms to deduct the entire cost of capital spending associated with relocating from China—known as “immediate expensing”—to lure companies to move to the United States. The bill would pay for this with money collected from U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, he proposed.
snip
The idea of covering 100 percent of moving costs was also recently endorsed by White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow, who said it would be “a very good thing for American companies.”

Lawmaker to Introduce Bill to Help US Manufacturers Move Out of China

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) is set to introduce a bill to help companies move their manufacturing from China to the United States as momentum builds for the country to “decouple” from the Chinese regime as a result of the pandemic. Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow...

www.ntd.com

--------------------------------------------------
BS, who do you think pays the Chinese tariffs, we do. And we do not need to pay to move them back.

I want to start off by saying that I actually on a general level, agree with you. I don't think we should be giving tax breaks for companies moving around.

However, there are couple of claims being made in response to your post, that I disagree with.

First, the claim that companies shouldn't pay anything for moving. Basically that this tax cut will pay for their entire moving expenses.

Wrong. This is a tax deduction. It does not "cover" the cost of moving.

Say the cost to move operations out of China, is roughly $1 Million dollars. That means you can deduct $1 Million dollars from your taxable profits. The current corporate tax rate is 21%.

That means a company spent $1 Million dollars, and saved $210,000 in taxes.

How does $210K in taxes saved.... cover a $1,000K cost of moving expenses? Well it doesn't. There are no taxes, or tax deductions, or tax abatement anywhere, that end up with the company coming out ahead.

The idea is unsupported by the evidence.

Second, the tax is unlikely to even be as effective as I outlined above. Remember, companies only pay tax on their profits. So in order to even save that $210,000 dollars in taxes I mentioned above, you have to actually owe that much in taxes to begin with, which means posting profits.

The problem we have right now, is companies are not posting much in profits. Because everything is shut down, there is low, to no profits to be had. Well if you owe zero taxes, because you have no profit, how much good does a tax deduction do you? None.

Additionally, the fundamentals of where to move a factory, are as always, based on how profitable the action will be.

Meaning that, say you have 3 options on where to move a factory. Canada, US, Mexico. You can move the factory to any of those 3 places. You do the calculations, and find you'll make a profit of:
Canada: $1 Million per year.
Mexico: $10 Million per year.
US Barely break even per year.

Where are you going to build the factory? Mexico.

One short-term tax deduction of $210,000, is never going to get you to move the factory to the US, is you can't make huge profits in the US.

This is why Mexico doesn't need to even after a tax deduction. If you have the best location to make profits, you don't need to give a deduction to get people to move there.

We need to stop with these stupid short term, lame excuses for incentives, and focus on making the economy as a whole more attractive to make a profit in. De-regulate stuff. Reduce expensive requirements. Get the EPA to stop making it so difficult on companies to open new factories. Reduce the red-tape.

You make the US economy the most profitable economy in the world to produce and manufacture things, and we won't need a tax break to get people to build and invest here. They'll be stampeding to be in this market, without any incentives.

Raise tariffs on the goods imported from china

particularly high value electronics like iPhones and computers

it may not production back to America but will move it out of china

Not likely.

Remember, Apple Computer makes far more money outside the US, than inside the US.

Meaning, it would be more cost effective to have a few models built by machine in the US, than move production out of China.

In short, what I wager would happen, is that Americans would be offered fewer choices, of more expensive phones, that are of lower quality to what the rest of the world could get.

Apple is not going to damage world wide sales and profits, just to accommodate the US. They would be foolish to do that.

To put this another way... it would be like you running a business, and having a bigger market outside whatever city or town you are in. If the city came to you and said "You need to move your operations out of the other larger markets you are in!".

Would you do that? Would you sacrifice more than 50% of your income, because your local city.... "didn't like it"? No, of course not.

Well the world makes up 60% of Apples profits. In fact, China alone, makes up a large portion of that.

Apple is simply not going to wreck 60% of their income, because the US alone put in place tariffs. Not going to happen.

In fact, I don't know of a single instance ever, where tariffs had a positive outcome.

 

[OldLady]

Not fond of just giving money to greedy corps that screwed American workers out of jobs. On the other hand, bringing manufacturing back home...

Idk on this one. That's a tough decision.

It is. But the corporations' decision about moving back to the US isn't so tough. I hear their taxes would be much higher here and of course you have the MUCH higher wages, safety standards, EPA regulations, etc. etc.
They aren't coming back, Marion. That global economy thing isn't going away. It's not a theory--it is HERE.

One place I lived cut a deal of no taxes/low taxes to a large manufacturer to bring them to our area. We wanted the jobs. When the tax break ended, they moved to Atlanta. If the government doesn't entirely control what a business does, it will go where it makes the most profit. Period.

 

[Andylusion]

Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow firms to deduct the entire cost of capital spending associated with relocating from China—known as “immediate expensing”—to lure companies to move to the United States. The bill would pay for this with money collected from U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, he proposed.
snip
The idea of covering 100 percent of moving costs was also recently endorsed by White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow, who said it would be “a very good thing for American companies.”

Lawmaker to Introduce Bill to Help US Manufacturers Move Out of China

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) is set to introduce a bill to help companies move their manufacturing from China to the United States as momentum builds for the country to “decouple” from the Chinese regime as a result of the pandemic. Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow...

www.ntd.com

--------------------------------------------------
BS, who do you think pays the Chinese tariffs, we do. And we do not need to pay to move them back.

I want to start off by saying that I actually on a general level, agree with you. I don't think we should be giving tax breaks for companies moving around.

However, there are couple of claims being made in response to your post, that I disagree with.

First, the claim that companies shouldn't pay anything for moving. Basically that this tax cut will pay for their entire moving expenses.

Wrong. This is a tax deduction. It does not "cover" the cost of moving.

Say the cost to move operations out of China, is roughly $1 Million dollars. That means you can deduct $1 Million dollars from your taxable profits. The current corporate tax rate is 21%.

That means a company spent $1 Million dollars, and saved $210,000 in taxes.

How does $210K in taxes saved.... cover a $1,000K cost of moving expenses? Well it doesn't. There are no taxes, or tax deductions, or tax abatement anywhere, that end up with the company coming out ahead.

The idea is unsupported by the evidence.

Second, the tax is unlikely to even be as effective as I outlined above. Remember, companies only pay tax on their profits. So in order to even save that $210,000 dollars in taxes I mentioned above, you have to actually owe that much in taxes to begin with, which means posting profits.

The problem we have right now, is companies are not posting much in profits. Because everything is shut down, there is low, to no profits to be had. Well if you owe zero taxes, because you have no profit, how much good does a tax deduction do you? None.

Additionally, the fundamentals of where to move a factory, are as always, based on how profitable the action will be.

Meaning that, say you have 3 options on where to move a factory. Canada, US, Mexico. You can move the factory to any of those 3 places. You do the calculations, and find you'll make a profit of:
Canada: $1 Million per year.
Mexico: $10 Million per year.
US Barely break even per year.

Where are you going to build the factory? Mexico.

One short-term tax deduction of $210,000, is never going to get you to move the factory to the US, is you can't make huge profits in the US.

This is why Mexico doesn't need to even after a tax deduction. If you have the best location to make profits, you don't need to give a deduction to get people to move there.

We need to stop with these stupid short term, lame excuses for incentives, and focus on making the economy as a whole more attractive to make a profit in. De-regulate stuff. Reduce expensive requirements. Get the EPA to stop making it so difficult on companies to open new factories. Reduce the red-tape.

You make the US economy the most profitable economy in the world to produce and manufacture things, and we won't need a tax break to get people to build and invest here. They'll be stampeding to be in this market, without any incentives.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. " [George Santayana]

The real issue is the US dollar is too highly-priced because it is buoyed by capital inflow from foreigners investing their money in the USA mostly in a manner that is not productive to the US economy. This makes US goods and services less competitive than they would otherwise be in the international markets.

The only way to reduce capital inflow is to tax capital inflow which will produce very large revenue and reduce the US dollar.

Compelling manufacturers to return to the USA is not a winning policy because there is no economic reason for them to do so. They moved overseas because they perceived it would be more profitable. Returning to the USA will reduce their profits.

Then there are the supply chains that support manufacturers in China. If they don't also move to the USA there won't be any benefit because the components used in manufacturing will have to be imported.

I manufacturers move to the USA they will move out again once the flow of free money dries up.

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

I would partially agree. I would suggest that most manufacturers that moved to China, did so not because there was "more" profit, but rather because there was "no profit" in the US.

Speaking from direct experience, my company considered every possible alternative to outsourcing at all, and the math simply didn't add up. We either outsourced, or we simply didn't make the product.

How does it benefit anyone, to not make the product at all? Is laying off everyone, to avoid outsourcing, better than keeping most people employed, and having the product made outside the US?

If they don't also move to the USA there won't be any benefit because the components used in manufacturing will have to be imported.

This is also true. One of the anti-trade people I was working with, who was complaining about outsourcing, I explained that without trade with other countries, his employment wouldn't exist. He of course denied that, at which point I pulled off a roll of computer chips used in our product and pointed to "made in Taiwan".

While most components were sourced locally, many are not. Millions on millions of jobs in the US, only exist because we import products here, and build using those products, or service those products.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow firms to deduct the entire cost of capital spending associated with relocating from China—known as “immediate expensing”—to lure companies to move to the United States. The bill would pay for this with money collected from U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, he proposed.
snip
The idea of covering 100 percent of moving costs was also recently endorsed by White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow, who said it would be “a very good thing for American companies.”

Lawmaker to Introduce Bill to Help US Manufacturers Move Out of China

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) is set to introduce a bill to help companies move their manufacturing from China to the United States as momentum builds for the country to “decouple” from the Chinese regime as a result of the pandemic. Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow...

www.ntd.com

--------------------------------------------------
BS, who do you think pays the Chinese tariffs, we do. And we do not need to pay to move them back.

I want to start off by saying that I actually on a general level, agree with you. I don't think we should be giving tax breaks for companies moving around.

However, there are couple of claims being made in response to your post, that I disagree with.

First, the claim that companies shouldn't pay anything for moving. Basically that this tax cut will pay for their entire moving expenses.

Wrong. This is a tax deduction. It does not "cover" the cost of moving.

Say the cost to move operations out of China, is roughly $1 Million dollars. That means you can deduct $1 Million dollars from your taxable profits. The current corporate tax rate is 21%.

That means a company spent $1 Million dollars, and saved $210,000 in taxes.

How does $210K in taxes saved.... cover a $1,000K cost of moving expenses? Well it doesn't. There are no taxes, or tax deductions, or tax abatement anywhere, that end up with the company coming out ahead.

The idea is unsupported by the evidence.

Second, the tax is unlikely to even be as effective as I outlined above. Remember, companies only pay tax on their profits. So in order to even save that $210,000 dollars in taxes I mentioned above, you have to actually owe that much in taxes to begin with, which means posting profits.

The problem we have right now, is companies are not posting much in profits. Because everything is shut down, there is low, to no profits to be had. Well if you owe zero taxes, because you have no profit, how much good does a tax deduction do you? None.

Additionally, the fundamentals of where to move a factory, are as always, based on how profitable the action will be.

Meaning that, say you have 3 options on where to move a factory. Canada, US, Mexico. You can move the factory to any of those 3 places. You do the calculations, and find you'll make a profit of:
Canada: $1 Million per year.
Mexico: $10 Million per year.
US Barely break even per year.

Where are you going to build the factory? Mexico.

One short-term tax deduction of $210,000, is never going to get you to move the factory to the US, is you can't make huge profits in the US.

This is why Mexico doesn't need to even after a tax deduction. If you have the best location to make profits, you don't need to give a deduction to get people to move there.

We need to stop with these stupid short term, lame excuses for incentives, and focus on making the economy as a whole more attractive to make a profit in. De-regulate stuff. Reduce expensive requirements. Get the EPA to stop making it so difficult on companies to open new factories. Reduce the red-tape.

You make the US economy the most profitable economy in the world to produce and manufacture things, and we won't need a tax break to get people to build and invest here. They'll be stampeding to be in this market, without any incentives.

Raise tariffs on the goods imported from china

particularly high value electronics like iPhones and computers

it may not production back to America but will move it out of china

Not likely.

Remember, Apple Computer makes far more money outside the US, than inside the US.

Meaning, it would be more cost effective to have a few models built by machine in the US, than move production out of China.

In short, what I wager would happen, is that Americans would be offered fewer choices, of more expensive phones, that are of lower quality to what the rest of the world could get.

Apple is not going to damage world wide sales and profits, just to accommodate the US. They would be foolish to do that.

To put this another way... it would be like you running a business, and having a bigger market outside whatever city or town you are in. If the city came to you and said "You need to move your operations out of the other larger markets you are in!".

Would you do that? Would you sacrifice more than 50% of your income, because your local city.... "didn't like it"? No, of course not.

Well the world makes up 60% of Apples profits. In fact, China alone, makes up a large portion of that.

Apple is simply not going to wreck 60% of their income, because the US alone put in place tariffs. Not going to happen.

In fact, I don't know of a single instance ever, where tariffs had a positive outcome.

^Most likely because you are not old enough to. I am not either, but I know of when tariffs were used to entirely fund the Federal government.

 

[OldLady]

De-regulate stuff. Reduce expensive requirements. Get the EPA to stop making it so difficult on companies to open new factories.

That's dangerous, in another way. Back in the day, I lived just down river from a GE plant dumping PCB's into the Hudson River, up where the river was, except for that, clean. It took YEARS to get them to stop dumping them into the river. GE swore PCB's weren't going to hurt anyone.
This is what we know about them now.

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are highly toxic industrial compounds. They pose serious health risks to fetuses, babies and children, who may suffer developmental and neurological problems from prolonged or repeated exposure to small amounts of PCBs. These chemicals are harmful to adults as well.

There is now a layer of poisonous sediment in the riverbed that cannot be disturbed. It will have to be there forever. To remove it would release it back into the water and recontaminate the river.

That is just one small example of what "deregulating stuff" could do. Is that really what you want?

 

[Andylusion]

Not fond of just giving money to greedy corps that screwed American workers out of jobs. On the other hand, bringing manufacturing back home...

Idk on this one. That's a tough decision.

It is. But the corporations' decision about moving back to the US isn't so tough. I hear their taxes would be much higher here and of course you have the MUCH higher wages, safety standards, EPA regulations, etc. etc.
They aren't coming back, Marion. That global economy thing isn't going away. It's not a theory--it is HERE.

One place I lived cut a deal of no taxes/low taxes to a large manufacturer to bring them to our area. We wanted the jobs. When the tax break ended, they moved to Atlanta. If the government doesn't entirely control what a business does, it will go where it makes the most profit. Period.

Right, and corporations are made up of people. You can't just make them slaves, and say "you can never move again!".

I had the same thing happen here in the Columbus Ohio area. We had a company get a tax deduction, and move into this area. When that tax break expired, they move to another, and when that tax break expired, they moved to another. They moved to three different buildings, from suburb to suburb, over the course of 30 years.

I try and compare this to, if you were offered to live tax free, if you moved across the street, would you do it? For most of us they would. Well companies are the same with more larger dollar amounts involved. You moving across the street, is like a company moving to another state, or another country.

If the tax benefits are large enough (meaning the tax they pay here, now, are high enough), then they'll move across the global, like you'd move across the street.

The solution is to simply have competitive tax and regulation policies to begin with, and let whoever comes come.

You can't have uncompetitive policies, and then offer tax breaks. That just keeps companies here until the tax breaks expire, and they move on.

 

[Andylusion]

Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow firms to deduct the entire cost of capital spending associated with relocating from China—known as “immediate expensing”—to lure companies to move to the United States. The bill would pay for this with money collected from U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, he proposed.
snip
The idea of covering 100 percent of moving costs was also recently endorsed by White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow, who said it would be “a very good thing for American companies.”

Lawmaker to Introduce Bill to Help US Manufacturers Move Out of China

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) is set to introduce a bill to help companies move their manufacturing from China to the United States as momentum builds for the country to “decouple” from the Chinese regime as a result of the pandemic. Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow...

www.ntd.com

--------------------------------------------------
BS, who do you think pays the Chinese tariffs, we do. And we do not need to pay to move them back.

I want to start off by saying that I actually on a general level, agree with you. I don't think we should be giving tax breaks for companies moving around.

However, there are couple of claims being made in response to your post, that I disagree with.

First, the claim that companies shouldn't pay anything for moving. Basically that this tax cut will pay for their entire moving expenses.

Wrong. This is a tax deduction. It does not "cover" the cost of moving.

Say the cost to move operations out of China, is roughly $1 Million dollars. That means you can deduct $1 Million dollars from your taxable profits. The current corporate tax rate is 21%.

That means a company spent $1 Million dollars, and saved $210,000 in taxes.

How does $210K in taxes saved.... cover a $1,000K cost of moving expenses? Well it doesn't. There are no taxes, or tax deductions, or tax abatement anywhere, that end up with the company coming out ahead.

The idea is unsupported by the evidence.

Second, the tax is unlikely to even be as effective as I outlined above. Remember, companies only pay tax on their profits. So in order to even save that $210,000 dollars in taxes I mentioned above, you have to actually owe that much in taxes to begin with, which means posting profits.

The problem we have right now, is companies are not posting much in profits. Because everything is shut down, there is low, to no profits to be had. Well if you owe zero taxes, because you have no profit, how much good does a tax deduction do you? None.

Additionally, the fundamentals of where to move a factory, are as always, based on how profitable the action will be.

Meaning that, say you have 3 options on where to move a factory. Canada, US, Mexico. You can move the factory to any of those 3 places. You do the calculations, and find you'll make a profit of:
Canada: $1 Million per year.
Mexico: $10 Million per year.
US Barely break even per year.

Where are you going to build the factory? Mexico.

One short-term tax deduction of $210,000, is never going to get you to move the factory to the US, is you can't make huge profits in the US.

This is why Mexico doesn't need to even after a tax deduction. If you have the best location to make profits, you don't need to give a deduction to get people to move there.

We need to stop with these stupid short term, lame excuses for incentives, and focus on making the economy as a whole more attractive to make a profit in. De-regulate stuff. Reduce expensive requirements. Get the EPA to stop making it so difficult on companies to open new factories. Reduce the red-tape.

You make the US economy the most profitable economy in the world to produce and manufacture things, and we won't need a tax break to get people to build and invest here. They'll be stampeding to be in this market, without any incentives.

Raise tariffs on the goods imported from china

particularly high value electronics like iPhones and computers

it may not production back to America but will move it out of china

Not likely.

Remember, Apple Computer makes far more money outside the US, than inside the US.

Meaning, it would be more cost effective to have a few models built by machine in the US, than move production out of China.

In short, what I wager would happen, is that Americans would be offered fewer choices, of more expensive phones, that are of lower quality to what the rest of the world could get.

Apple is not going to damage world wide sales and profits, just to accommodate the US. They would be foolish to do that.

To put this another way... it would be like you running a business, and having a bigger market outside whatever city or town you are in. If the city came to you and said "You need to move your operations out of the other larger markets you are in!".

Would you do that? Would you sacrifice more than 50% of your income, because your local city.... "didn't like it"? No, of course not.

Well the world makes up 60% of Apples profits. In fact, China alone, makes up a large portion of that.

Apple is simply not going to wreck 60% of their income, because the US alone put in place tariffs. Not going to happen.

In fact, I don't know of a single instance ever, where tariffs had a positive outcome.

^Most likely because you are not old enough to. I am not either, but I know of when tariffs were used to entirely fund the Federal government.

I don't need to be old enough. I have read numerous books on the topic, and listened to dozens if not hundreds of interviews with economists on the topic.

In fact, if protectionism worked, then why are we enforcing protectionism on Russia right now? In response to Russia's invasion of Crimea, and into the Ukraine, we imposed trade restrictions on Russia.

In short, we imposed protection on Russia, blocking the import of goods and services, into Russia.

If protection was a benefit, then are we imposing a "benefit" on Russia?

And why didn't that protectionism on Russia result in an economic boom?

Now, you pointed out that the Federal Government, at one point, was funded by tariffs on imports. That is correct.

However, I would point out that there is a huge difference between protectionism tariffs, and tax generating tariffs.

They are not the same. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Protectionism, will kill imports, generating little to no taxes.

Tax generating tariffs, will be low enough that imports continue, so that taxes can be collected from them.

In fact, this is one of the biggest false claims about tariffs working, is that people point to that time in US history, as an example of protectionism working, when it was anything but protectionism.

Again, if the tariffs were actually high enough to protect US business... then imports would have stopped... and tariffs would not be collected... and the US government would have been bankrupt. As you said, the government was funded by tariffs, and if the tariffs stopped imports, there would be no money for the government to operate on.

No, instead there is no example of protectionism ever working, anywhere, in the US or elsewhere.

 

[Mac-7]

Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow firms to deduct the entire cost of capital spending associated with relocating from China—known as “immediate expensing”—to lure companies to move to the United States. The bill would pay for this with money collected from U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, he proposed.
snip
The idea of covering 100 percent of moving costs was also recently endorsed by White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow, who said it would be “a very good thing for American companies.”

Lawmaker to Introduce Bill to Help US Manufacturers Move Out of China

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) is set to introduce a bill to help companies move their manufacturing from China to the United States as momentum builds for the country to “decouple” from the Chinese regime as a result of the pandemic. Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow...

www.ntd.com

--------------------------------------------------
BS, who do you think pays the Chinese tariffs, we do. And we do not need to pay to move them back.

I want to start off by saying that I actually on a general level, agree with you. I don't think we should be giving tax breaks for companies moving around.

However, there are couple of claims being made in response to your post, that I disagree with.

First, the claim that companies shouldn't pay anything for moving. Basically that this tax cut will pay for their entire moving expenses.

Wrong. This is a tax deduction. It does not "cover" the cost of moving.

Say the cost to move operations out of China, is roughly $1 Million dollars. That means you can deduct $1 Million dollars from your taxable profits. The current corporate tax rate is 21%.

That means a company spent $1 Million dollars, and saved $210,000 in taxes.

How does $210K in taxes saved.... cover a $1,000K cost of moving expenses? Well it doesn't. There are no taxes, or tax deductions, or tax abatement anywhere, that end up with the company coming out ahead.

The idea is unsupported by the evidence.

Second, the tax is unlikely to even be as effective as I outlined above. Remember, companies only pay tax on their profits. So in order to even save that $210,000 dollars in taxes I mentioned above, you have to actually owe that much in taxes to begin with, which means posting profits.

The problem we have right now, is companies are not posting much in profits. Because everything is shut down, there is low, to no profits to be had. Well if you owe zero taxes, because you have no profit, how much good does a tax deduction do you? None.

Additionally, the fundamentals of where to move a factory, are as always, based on how profitable the action will be.

Meaning that, say you have 3 options on where to move a factory. Canada, US, Mexico. You can move the factory to any of those 3 places. You do the calculations, and find you'll make a profit of:
Canada: $1 Million per year.
Mexico: $10 Million per year.
US Barely break even per year.

Where are you going to build the factory? Mexico.

One short-term tax deduction of $210,000, is never going to get you to move the factory to the US, is you can't make huge profits in the US.

This is why Mexico doesn't need to even after a tax deduction. If you have the best location to make profits, you don't need to give a deduction to get people to move there.

We need to stop with these stupid short term, lame excuses for incentives, and focus on making the economy as a whole more attractive to make a profit in. De-regulate stuff. Reduce expensive requirements. Get the EPA to stop making it so difficult on companies to open new factories. Reduce the red-tape.

You make the US economy the most profitable economy in the world to produce and manufacture things, and we won't need a tax break to get people to build and invest here. They'll be stampeding to be in this market, without any incentives.

Raise tariffs on the goods imported from china

particularly high value electronics like iPhones and computers

it may not production back to America but will move it out of china

Not likely.

Remember, Apple Computer makes far more money outside the US, than inside the US.

Meaning, it would be more cost effective to have a few models built by machine in the US, than move production out of China.

In short, what I wager would happen, is that Americans would be offered fewer choices, of more expensive phones, that are of lower quality to what the rest of the world could get.

Apple is not going to damage world wide sales and profits, just to accommodate the US. They would be foolish to do that.

To put this another way... it would be like you running a business, and having a bigger market outside whatever city or town you are in. If the city came to you and said "You need to move your operations out of the other larger markets you are in!".

Would you do that? Would you sacrifice more than 50% of your income, because your local city.... "didn't like it"? No, of course not.

Well the world makes up 60% of Apples profits. In fact, China alone, makes up a large portion of that.

Apple is simply not going to wreck 60% of their income, because the US alone put in place tariffs. Not going to happen.

In fact, I don't know of a single instance ever, where tariffs had a positive outcome.

All nations have tariffs, so its nothing unique to the US

I hope Apple is smart enough to realize that they have protection in the US that they dont have in china

 

[Andylusion]

Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow firms to deduct the entire cost of capital spending associated with relocating from China—known as “immediate expensing”—to lure companies to move to the United States. The bill would pay for this with money collected from U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, he proposed.
snip
The idea of covering 100 percent of moving costs was also recently endorsed by White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow, who said it would be “a very good thing for American companies.”

Lawmaker to Introduce Bill to Help US Manufacturers Move Out of China

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) is set to introduce a bill to help companies move their manufacturing from China to the United States as momentum builds for the country to “decouple” from the Chinese regime as a result of the pandemic. Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow...

www.ntd.com

--------------------------------------------------
BS, who do you think pays the Chinese tariffs, we do. And we do not need to pay to move them back.

I want to start off by saying that I actually on a general level, agree with you. I don't think we should be giving tax breaks for companies moving around.

However, there are couple of claims being made in response to your post, that I disagree with.

First, the claim that companies shouldn't pay anything for moving. Basically that this tax cut will pay for their entire moving expenses.

Wrong. This is a tax deduction. It does not "cover" the cost of moving.

Say the cost to move operations out of China, is roughly $1 Million dollars. That means you can deduct $1 Million dollars from your taxable profits. The current corporate tax rate is 21%.

That means a company spent $1 Million dollars, and saved $210,000 in taxes.

How does $210K in taxes saved.... cover a $1,000K cost of moving expenses? Well it doesn't. There are no taxes, or tax deductions, or tax abatement anywhere, that end up with the company coming out ahead.

The idea is unsupported by the evidence.

Second, the tax is unlikely to even be as effective as I outlined above. Remember, companies only pay tax on their profits. So in order to even save that $210,000 dollars in taxes I mentioned above, you have to actually owe that much in taxes to begin with, which means posting profits.

The problem we have right now, is companies are not posting much in profits. Because everything is shut down, there is low, to no profits to be had. Well if you owe zero taxes, because you have no profit, how much good does a tax deduction do you? None.

Additionally, the fundamentals of where to move a factory, are as always, based on how profitable the action will be.

Meaning that, say you have 3 options on where to move a factory. Canada, US, Mexico. You can move the factory to any of those 3 places. You do the calculations, and find you'll make a profit of:
Canada: $1 Million per year.
Mexico: $10 Million per year.
US Barely break even per year.

Where are you going to build the factory? Mexico.

One short-term tax deduction of $210,000, is never going to get you to move the factory to the US, is you can't make huge profits in the US.

This is why Mexico doesn't need to even after a tax deduction. If you have the best location to make profits, you don't need to give a deduction to get people to move there.

We need to stop with these stupid short term, lame excuses for incentives, and focus on making the economy as a whole more attractive to make a profit in. De-regulate stuff. Reduce expensive requirements. Get the EPA to stop making it so difficult on companies to open new factories. Reduce the red-tape.

You make the US economy the most profitable economy in the world to produce and manufacture things, and we won't need a tax break to get people to build and invest here. They'll be stampeding to be in this market, without any incentives.

Raise tariffs on the goods imported from china

particularly high value electronics like iPhones and computers

it may not production back to America but will move it out of china

Not likely.

Remember, Apple Computer makes far more money outside the US, than inside the US.

Meaning, it would be more cost effective to have a few models built by machine in the US, than move production out of China.

In short, what I wager would happen, is that Americans would be offered fewer choices, of more expensive phones, that are of lower quality to what the rest of the world could get.

Apple is not going to damage world wide sales and profits, just to accommodate the US. They would be foolish to do that.

To put this another way... it would be like you running a business, and having a bigger market outside whatever city or town you are in. If the city came to you and said "You need to move your operations out of the other larger markets you are in!".

Would you do that? Would you sacrifice more than 50% of your income, because your local city.... "didn't like it"? No, of course not.

Well the world makes up 60% of Apples profits. In fact, China alone, makes up a large portion of that.

Apple is simply not going to wreck 60% of their income, because the US alone put in place tariffs. Not going to happen.

In fact, I don't know of a single instance ever, where tariffs had a positive outcome.

All nations have tariffs, so its nothing unique to the US

I hope Apple is smart enough to realize that they have protection in the US that they dont have in china

As I detailed very clearly before, there is a huge difference between tariffs and protectionism. Yes, all countries have tariffs. Very few have protectionism.

What "protection" does Apple have in the US, that they don't have in China?

And again... if they can't make a profit, what amount of "protection" makes up for going out of business?

Don't pretend that Apple can't go out of business. In the 1990s, after 20 years of unbelievable growth, they were on the verge of bankruptcy and closure.

They can very easily end up like Enron, and disappear.

So what 'protection' is so vital to have?

 

[Andylusion]

De-regulate stuff. Reduce expensive requirements. Get the EPA to stop making it so difficult on companies to open new factories.

That's dangerous, in another way. Back in the day, I lived just down river from a GE plant dumping PCB's into the Hudson River, up where the river was, except for that, clean. It took YEARS to get them to stop dumping them into the river. GE swore PCB's weren't going to hurt anyone.
This is what we know about them now.

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are highly toxic industrial compounds. They pose serious health risks to fetuses, babies and children, who may suffer developmental and neurological problems from prolonged or repeated exposure to small amounts of PCBs. These chemicals are harmful to adults as well.

View attachment 332691

There is now a layer of poisonous sediment in the riverbed that cannot be disturbed. It will have to be there forever. To remove it would release it back into the water and recontaminate the river.

That is just one small example of what "deregulating stuff" could do. Is that really what you want?

Please list which deregulation policy says "GE can dump PCBs into rivers".

Of course no one is promoting that.

This is the problem with discussing deregulation. People instantly go to the most absurd possible outcome, and then say "is that really what you want?".

No, your absurd position, no one wants.

In fact, Trump has already passed some deregulation reforms, and please do tell, how many hundreds of companies are dumping PCBs into rivers across the entire nation? None.

So... can we move on from the absurdities please? Please?

I'm talking about deregulation that makes sense, and should have been done decades ago.

For example, the arsenic requirements put in place by Bill Clinton, that required that mining company waste water, must have a lower level of arsenic... than what is natural in the environment. That is insane. You require the arsenic levels be lower than what is in nature?

Now I think that rule has already been repealed, but that is what I'm talking about.

Another example, was an abandoned factory site, where they found a child could eat the dirt on the site for every day for 2 months before getting sick... They then required a clean up, that lasted a year, to reduce the pollution level so that a child could eat the dirt on the site for a year, before getting sick.

This is ridiculous. A: If you allow your children to play at abandoned factory sites, you are a bad parent. B: if your child is eating dirt every single day, you are either not feeding them, or they need to see a therapist.

C: if you are letting your dirt eating child, eat dirt at abandoned factories for months on end, let alone a year.... we need to call CPS on you, before we worry about EPA regulations on cleaning dirt.

That is the kind of deregulation I am talking about.

Specifically as it relates to Rivers.....

I have a solution to this. Actually, I should say Germany has a solution to this.

You incorporate the river. Rivers in Germany are incorporated. They run the picnic and camp sites along the river, and they sell access to the river, to corporations wishing to use the river.

The river corporations then monitors the pollution of the river, and adjusts fees accordingly to those that access the river.

Corporations then have the option to either pay the higher fee, or reduces their pollution. They can either come up with solutions to reduce pollution themselves, or pay the River Company to reduce pollution for them.

Every river in the US should be incorporated, and allow each River Company, to charge fees for usage, and enact their own policies that best fit the needs of their respective rivers.

 

[gipper]

Well, yeah.

You don't really expect Corporate America to have to cough any money on their own do you?

It’s the American Way for American taxpayers to pay for all manner of benefits government grants big corporations. Those same big corporations make sure to fund the campaigns of the politicians who grant them benefits Americans pay for.

Its a racket the Mafia can only dream of.

When will the American people (really major league SUCKERS) realize the fraud being perpetrated on them?

Nope. they will not. Trump rails against the big corp and then all his legislation enriches them. Trickle down economics is the rich pissing on the poors head.

Exactly as dip shit W and Ears did. No doubt Hilldabeast, Sniffy, fuckface Mitty, and crazy Johnny would governed exactly the same.

 

[Mac-7]

Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow firms to deduct the entire cost of capital spending associated with relocating from China—known as “immediate expensing”—to lure companies to move to the United States. The bill would pay for this with money collected from U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, he proposed.
snip
The idea of covering 100 percent of moving costs was also recently endorsed by White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow, who said it would be “a very good thing for American companies.”

Lawmaker to Introduce Bill to Help US Manufacturers Move Out of China

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) is set to introduce a bill to help companies move their manufacturing from China to the United States as momentum builds for the country to “decouple” from the Chinese regime as a result of the pandemic. Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow...

www.ntd.com

--------------------------------------------------
BS, who do you think pays the Chinese tariffs, we do. And we do not need to pay to move them back.

I want to start off by saying that I actually on a general level, agree with you. I don't think we should be giving tax breaks for companies moving around.

However, there are couple of claims being made in response to your post, that I disagree with.

First, the claim that companies shouldn't pay anything for moving. Basically that this tax cut will pay for their entire moving expenses.

Wrong. This is a tax deduction. It does not "cover" the cost of moving.

Say the cost to move operations out of China, is roughly $1 Million dollars. That means you can deduct $1 Million dollars from your taxable profits. The current corporate tax rate is 21%.

That means a company spent $1 Million dollars, and saved $210,000 in taxes.

How does $210K in taxes saved.... cover a $1,000K cost of moving expenses? Well it doesn't. There are no taxes, or tax deductions, or tax abatement anywhere, that end up with the company coming out ahead.

The idea is unsupported by the evidence.

Second, the tax is unlikely to even be as effective as I outlined above. Remember, companies only pay tax on their profits. So in order to even save that $210,000 dollars in taxes I mentioned above, you have to actually owe that much in taxes to begin with, which means posting profits.

The problem we have right now, is companies are not posting much in profits. Because everything is shut down, there is low, to no profits to be had. Well if you owe zero taxes, because you have no profit, how much good does a tax deduction do you? None.

Additionally, the fundamentals of where to move a factory, are as always, based on how profitable the action will be.

Meaning that, say you have 3 options on where to move a factory. Canada, US, Mexico. You can move the factory to any of those 3 places. You do the calculations, and find you'll make a profit of:
Canada: $1 Million per year.
Mexico: $10 Million per year.
US Barely break even per year.

Where are you going to build the factory? Mexico.

One short-term tax deduction of $210,000, is never going to get you to move the factory to the US, is you can't make huge profits in the US.

This is why Mexico doesn't need to even after a tax deduction. If you have the best location to make profits, you don't need to give a deduction to get people to move there.

We need to stop with these stupid short term, lame excuses for incentives, and focus on making the economy as a whole more attractive to make a profit in. De-regulate stuff. Reduce expensive requirements. Get the EPA to stop making it so difficult on companies to open new factories. Reduce the red-tape.

You make the US economy the most profitable economy in the world to produce and manufacture things, and we won't need a tax break to get people to build and invest here. They'll be stampeding to be in this market, without any incentives.

Raise tariffs on the goods imported from china

particularly high value electronics like iPhones and computers

it may not production back to America but will move it out of china

Not likely.

Remember, Apple Computer makes far more money outside the US, than inside the US.

Meaning, it would be more cost effective to have a few models built by machine in the US, than move production out of China.

In short, what I wager would happen, is that Americans would be offered fewer choices, of more expensive phones, that are of lower quality to what the rest of the world could get.

Apple is not going to damage world wide sales and profits, just to accommodate the US. They would be foolish to do that.

To put this another way... it would be like you running a business, and having a bigger market outside whatever city or town you are in. If the city came to you and said "You need to move your operations out of the other larger markets you are in!".

Would you do that? Would you sacrifice more than 50% of your income, because your local city.... "didn't like it"? No, of course not.

Well the world makes up 60% of Apples profits. In fact, China alone, makes up a large portion of that.

Apple is simply not going to wreck 60% of their income, because the US alone put in place tariffs. Not going to happen.

In fact, I don't know of a single instance ever, where tariffs had a positive outcome.

^Most likely because you are not old enough to. I am not either, but I know of when tariffs were used to entirely fund the Federal government.

I don't need to be old enough. I have read numerous books on the topic, and listened to dozens if not hundreds of interviews with economists on the topic.

In fact, if protectionism worked, then why are we enforcing protectionism on Russia right now? In response to Russia's invasion of Crimea, and into the Ukraine, we imposed trade restrictions on Russia.

In short, we imposed protection on Russia, blocking the import of goods and services, into Russia.

If protection was a benefit, then are we imposing a "benefit" on Russia?

And why didn't that protectionism on Russia result in an economic boom?

Now, you pointed out that the Federal Government, at one point, was funded by tariffs on imports. That is correct.

However, I would point out that there is a huge difference between protectionism tariffs, and tax generating tariffs.

They are not the same. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Protectionism, will kill imports, generating little to no taxes.

Tax generating tariffs, will be low enough that imports continue, so that taxes can be collected from them.

In fact, this is one of the biggest false claims about tariffs working, is that people point to that time in US history, as an example of protectionism working, when it was anything but protectionism.

Again, if the tariffs were actually high enough to protect US business... then imports would have stopped... and tariffs would not be collected... and the US government would have been bankrupt. As you said, the government was funded by tariffs, and if the tariffs stopped imports, there would be no money for the government to operate on.

No, instead there is no example of protectionism ever working, anywhere, in the US or elsewhere.

We did not “impose protection” on

As I detailed very clearly before, there is a huge difference between tariffs and protectionism. Yes, all countries have tariffs. Very few have protectionism.

china practices protectionism

they only grudgingly buy anything from the US but plot continously to manufacture and sell to us

btw, you are mistaken

all tariffs are a form of protectionism

 

[Andylusion]

Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow firms to deduct the entire cost of capital spending associated with relocating from China—known as “immediate expensing”—to lure companies to move to the United States. The bill would pay for this with money collected from U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, he proposed.
snip
The idea of covering 100 percent of moving costs was also recently endorsed by White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow, who said it would be “a very good thing for American companies.”

Lawmaker to Introduce Bill to Help US Manufacturers Move Out of China

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) is set to introduce a bill to help companies move their manufacturing from China to the United States as momentum builds for the country to “decouple” from the Chinese regime as a result of the pandemic. Green told The Epoch Times that his forthcoming bill would allow...

www.ntd.com

--------------------------------------------------
BS, who do you think pays the Chinese tariffs, we do. And we do not need to pay to move them back.

I want to start off by saying that I actually on a general level, agree with you. I don't think we should be giving tax breaks for companies moving around.

However, there are couple of claims being made in response to your post, that I disagree with.

First, the claim that companies shouldn't pay anything for moving. Basically that this tax cut will pay for their entire moving expenses.

Wrong. This is a tax deduction. It does not "cover" the cost of moving.

Say the cost to move operations out of China, is roughly $1 Million dollars. That means you can deduct $1 Million dollars from your taxable profits. The current corporate tax rate is 21%.

That means a company spent $1 Million dollars, and saved $210,000 in taxes.

How does $210K in taxes saved.... cover a $1,000K cost of moving expenses? Well it doesn't. There are no taxes, or tax deductions, or tax abatement anywhere, that end up with the company coming out ahead.

The idea is unsupported by the evidence.

Second, the tax is unlikely to even be as effective as I outlined above. Remember, companies only pay tax on their profits. So in order to even save that $210,000 dollars in taxes I mentioned above, you have to actually owe that much in taxes to begin with, which means posting profits.

The problem we have right now, is companies are not posting much in profits. Because everything is shut down, there is low, to no profits to be had. Well if you owe zero taxes, because you have no profit, how much good does a tax deduction do you? None.

Additionally, the fundamentals of where to move a factory, are as always, based on how profitable the action will be.

Meaning that, say you have 3 options on where to move a factory. Canada, US, Mexico. You can move the factory to any of those 3 places. You do the calculations, and find you'll make a profit of:
Canada: $1 Million per year.
Mexico: $10 Million per year.
US Barely break even per year.

Where are you going to build the factory? Mexico.

One short-term tax deduction of $210,000, is never going to get you to move the factory to the US, is you can't make huge profits in the US.

This is why Mexico doesn't need to even after a tax deduction. If you have the best location to make profits, you don't need to give a deduction to get people to move there.

We need to stop with these stupid short term, lame excuses for incentives, and focus on making the economy as a whole more attractive to make a profit in. De-regulate stuff. Reduce expensive requirements. Get the EPA to stop making it so difficult on companies to open new factories. Reduce the red-tape.

You make the US economy the most profitable economy in the world to produce and manufacture things, and we won't need a tax break to get people to build and invest here. They'll be stampeding to be in this market, without any incentives.

Raise tariffs on the goods imported from china

particularly high value electronics like iPhones and computers

it may not production back to America but will move it out of china

Not likely.

Remember, Apple Computer makes far more money outside the US, than inside the US.

Meaning, it would be more cost effective to have a few models built by machine in the US, than move production out of China.

In short, what I wager would happen, is that Americans would be offered fewer choices, of more expensive phones, that are of lower quality to what the rest of the world could get.

Apple is not going to damage world wide sales and profits, just to accommodate the US. They would be foolish to do that.

To put this another way... it would be like you running a business, and having a bigger market outside whatever city or town you are in. If the city came to you and said "You need to move your operations out of the other larger markets you are in!".

Would you do that? Would you sacrifice more than 50% of your income, because your local city.... "didn't like it"? No, of course not.

Well the world makes up 60% of Apples profits. In fact, China alone, makes up a large portion of that.

Apple is simply not going to wreck 60% of their income, because the US alone put in place tariffs. Not going to happen.

In fact, I don't know of a single instance ever, where tariffs had a positive outcome.

^Most likely because you are not old enough to. I am not either, but I know of when tariffs were used to entirely fund the Federal government.

I don't need to be old enough. I have read numerous books on the topic, and listened to dozens if not hundreds of interviews with economists on the topic.

In fact, if protectionism worked, then why are we enforcing protectionism on Russia right now? In response to Russia's invasion of Crimea, and into the Ukraine, we imposed trade restrictions on Russia.

In short, we imposed protection on Russia, blocking the import of goods and services, into Russia.

If protection was a benefit, then are we imposing a "benefit" on Russia?

And why didn't that protectionism on Russia result in an economic boom?

Now, you pointed out that the Federal Government, at one point, was funded by tariffs on imports. That is correct.

However, I would point out that there is a huge difference between protectionism tariffs, and tax generating tariffs.

They are not the same. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Protectionism, will kill imports, generating little to no taxes.

Tax generating tariffs, will be low enough that imports continue, so that taxes can be collected from them.

In fact, this is one of the biggest false claims about tariffs working, is that people point to that time in US history, as an example of protectionism working, when it was anything but protectionism.

Again, if the tariffs were actually high enough to protect US business... then imports would have stopped... and tariffs would not be collected... and the US government would have been bankrupt. As you said, the government was funded by tariffs, and if the tariffs stopped imports, there would be no money for the government to operate on.

No, instead there is no example of protectionism ever working, anywhere, in the US or elsewhere.

We did not “impose protection” on

As I detailed very clearly before, there is a huge difference between tariffs and protectionism. Yes, all countries have tariffs. Very few have protectionism.

china practices protectionism

they only grudgingly buy anything from the US but plot continously to manufacture and sell to us

btw, you are mistaken

all tariffs are a form of protectionism

You have the right to wrong on that. No, not all tariffs are protectionism. Again, you can remain wrong.

We're the third largest source of goods imported into China. 3rd largest. This according to WITS.

https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CHN/Year/2018/TradeFlow/Import/Partner/by-country

If they are trying to minimize imports from the US, they are doing terrible at it.

Yes, it is true that China does in fact practice some level of protectionism. And it harms them.

Think about that logically......

China taxes it's impoverished citizens, in order to sell the US cheaper Steal.

We're getting cheaper goods, that we can use to build our economy with, on the taxed paid by the impoverished citizens of China.

That should be a reason for Chinese people to be upset, not US people.

 

[Indeependent]

The moment another Neo-Con enters the Oval Office the US will running back to China at Warp Speed.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's a necessary trade-off. If it works, you will regain employment in the U.S and the subsequent tax revenue and economic activity it creates.

I buy US manufactured clothes. I pay $85.00 for a shirt. How many underpaid US workers can afford that?

 

[Mac-7]

We're the third largest source of goods imported into China. 3rd largest. This according to WITS.
https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryP...Year/2018/TradeFlow/Import/Partner/by-country

We’re #3?

I’m honored

they sell $500 bil to us and we sell $88 bil to them

what a deal

while its true we get to buy their cheap junk at a discount they are someday going to own us

not protecting our economy is shortsighted in the extreme

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well, yeah.

You don't really expect Corporate America to have to cough any money on their own do you?

Never, corporate America is evil!!. All they do is invent the products that got us from the stone age to here and provide to us the income we need to buy those products!! Its the greatest welfare plan by a factor of 1000!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's a necessary trade-off. If it works, you will regain employment in the U.S and the subsequent tax revenue and economic activity it creates.

I buy US manufactured clothes. I pay $85.00 for a shirt. How many underpaid US workers can afford that?

good point!! our standard of living is far higher thanks to Republican free trade!! When China switched to free trade 800 million got rich and stopped starving to death. Seems simple but liberals just cant grasp it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

while its true we get to buy their cheap junk at a discount they are someday going to own us
not protecting our economy is shortsighted in the extreme

absurd of course, the more we trade the more their wages go up toward equalization. So no opportunity to own us. The danger to us is anti business socialist Democrats who will continue to cripple our businesses with more of the their idiotic policies that drove jobs offshore in the first place.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

not protecting our economy is shortsighted in the extreme

if you protect it from competition you make it inferior so that no one wants to buy its products. Everyone slowly starves.

We don't want to protect it from competition; we want it to crush the competition. Do you understand? Do you want to give protect your favorite sports team from competition? Do you understand??