What should be done, if anything, to bring home $5 trillion held overseas by American businesses?

[Markle]

That's what they're doing now so obviously your tax the shit out of them plan isn't working to get more investment here. I don't worry about trivial things like if someone makes more than me. I also think the entire tax system is a joke. We need a flat tax if you want it to be fair to everyone equally.

Nope, that plan is working as designed. Want your money here? Pay your taxes on it. Why should they be allowed to avoid paying tax on their income but others, like myself, cannot?

Well you're sure teaching those rich people a lesson. In the mean time they just keep the money over seas. You're showing them though, keep up the good work.

Just a thought though. Maybe you're paying too much or too little in taxes? I mean if you think you deserve 50% or whatever amount of their money to go to the government how much of yours should go there? Are you willing to match what they pay?

It's not about teaching them a lesson. It's about paying taxes. If they bring their money back here, they pay the taxes on that money. No one else gets a break on their taxes where they can avoid paying much of the taxes they owe. Neither should anyone doing business overseas.

Why shouldn't an American company build and sell their products in a foreign country?

I didn't say they shouldn't. What I did say is that they should pay the taxes on profit they wish to bring back into the U.S., per current U.S. tax laws.

SURPRISE! To you if no one else. They do pay taxes on the profit they bring into the U.S.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I'm fine with that, provided it's EBITDA as reported in the company's 10K. And yes, that would solve the "sheltering" problem because the sums reported in the consolidated statement of income are global sums.

See that. We agree.

Apple's EBITDA for 2016 was about $70 B.

15% of that would be $10.5 billion,

Seems reasonable to me.

Apple's EBITDA for 2016 was about $70 B.

15% of that would be $10.5 billion, Seems reasonable to me.

In all honestly, the specific tax rate and resulting sums paid from applying that rate to income (EBITDA) isn't something over which I'm all that fussed. So long as the totality of earnings are "captured" and the tax rate applied to them, I'm good. You an others can "carry on" about the rate and sums collected/paid.

FWIW, however, yes, 15% seems like a reasonable tax rate to me, but then so does 10%, 20% or even 25% because the effective rate of only a relatively few individuals exceeds 25%; thus it's seems appropriate that corporations should, seeing as they have "person status" in law, pay at a rate roughly comparable to that paid by similarly earning individuals.

I feel you.

When you add up all the taxes paid, many individuals and corporations pay over 50% to Fed, state, and local governments.

Property taxes, state sales tax, fees and taxes associated with driving or anything else. Local municipalities tax for many things. I love when they call them "FEES" instead of taxes. Like it makes a difference to those paying.

When you add up all the taxes paid, many individuals and corporations pay over 50% to Fed, state, and local governments.

I have seen no evidence that is so. Indeed, what I've seen indicates nothing remotely close to that is so. I will agree that "many" individuals/entities may pay more, but only because the U.S. population and quantity of companies are large enough for even a small percentage of the totality that experience a total effective tax rate at 50% (or anything over 40%, for that matter) may still be a "big number." I find it very hard to believe that three quarters or more, or even most (>50%), of country's individuals, or the same share of companies, realize an total effective tax rate of 50%. After all, some number lower than or near a million people earn enough to even be initially subject to (based on gross income) the top marginal rates. (See also: Tax Brackets in 2017 - Tax Foundation)

So, yes, there may be hundreds of thousands of folks who do pay something around 33% or more in total tax, and, yes, "hundreds of thousands" qualifies in my book as "many." Am I particularly concerned, from a tax equity standpoint, that such people may have a total tax burden at 50% or so? No. And I say that as one of those people and with regard to my own circumstances. (FWIW, my total effective tax rate isn't anything close to 50%; it's not even close to 40%.)

• The Best And Worst States For Taxes In 2016 -- The information here reflects effective rather than marginal rates
  
• Effective tax rates paid (on average) by state -- The linked page has a table which is easier to read than the same information which, at the prior site, is presented in "slides." The narrative content at the prior site is better by far.
• Average individual effective federal tax rates by income bracket -- I realize these are just federal taxes (income and payroll), but looking that them, it's plain to see that there's a long way to go to get to "most" people paying at an effective total tax rate of 50%.
• Average effective corporate tax rates -- Again, this is re: federal taxes, but the same reasoning caveat applies.

I'm not of a mind that no company or individual pays at such a high total tax rate. It's that not enough, as a percentage of the respective populations, do; thus I don't see fixing that problem as a priority, or even something worth worrying over or fixing. I think that such individuals/entities can, like I and other relatively high earners do, fix the problem on their own with some competent tax planning.

Like it makes a difference to those paying.

I agree that whether the sum is deemed a fee or a tax doesn't really matter in the scheme of summing up one's non-discretionary disbursements to governments. That said, a fee is distinguished from a tax by the frequency of its assessment and whether it's absolutely avoidable. For instance, one can avoid any registration fee by not engaging in/performing the activity that triggers one's having to pay the fee. A fine one pays for speeding is a fee, as is the court cost paid to contest the ticket, and yes, the money is paid to a government. Does that make the sums be taxes? No.

Anyone living in NYC would disagree.

If you say so. I would not know or be able to predict what "anyone living in NYC would say." Those individuals do not however account for most of the country, but there are many people living in NYC. Here is an illustration from three years ago of one modestly paid individual who lived in NYC. Her total tax burden could not have even come close to being 50%. I guess she, or others like her, was not among the "anyones" you had in mind?

I do know some people who live in NYC, and I know they do not have a total effective tax rate of 50%.

I found a source from 2014 that notes that it's possible certain high earners could face a total tax effective rate of 50% or higher. That said, we're still talking about people earning in excess of $400K/per year. As I noted before, there just aren't that many (on a percentage of the population basis) such people. Thus, I stand by what I wrote earlier.

I will agree that "many" individuals/entities may pay [50%+ in total taxes], but only because the U.S. population and quantity of companies are large enough for even a small percentage of the totality that experience a total effective tax rate at 50% (or anything over 40%, for that matter) may still be a "big number."....Am I particularly concerned, from a tax equity standpoint, that such people may have a total tax burden at 50% or so? No...such individuals/entities can, like I and other relatively high earners do, fix the problem on their own with some competent tax planning.

 

[Markle]

No, they do not pay 38.9%. They pay their rate minus the 20% they already paid. There is no double tax. You people keep spreading lies among yourselves so you don't know what you're talking about.

As you know, ObamaCare increased the Corporate tax rate. You really need to catch up.
United States Corporate Tax Rate 2000-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar
The Corporate Tax Rate in the United States stands at 38.90 percent. Corporate Tax Rate in the United States averaged 39.21 percent from 2000 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 39.30 percent in 2001 and a record low of 38.90 percent in 2016.

Read more: United States Corporate Tax Rate | 2000-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

If you will read my example, I deducted the tax paid in the hypothetical Faunland of 20 percent before calculating the tax of 38.90%

Perhaps you can find someone to read and explain it to you.

 

[ColonelAngus]

See that. We agree.

Apple's EBITDA for 2016 was about $70 B.

15% of that would be $10.5 billion,

Seems reasonable to me.

Apple's EBITDA for 2016 was about $70 B.

15% of that would be $10.5 billion, Seems reasonable to me.

In all honestly, the specific tax rate and resulting sums paid from applying that rate to income (EBITDA) isn't something over which I'm all that fussed. So long as the totality of earnings are "captured" and the tax rate applied to them, I'm good. You an others can "carry on" about the rate and sums collected/paid.

FWIW, however, yes, 15% seems like a reasonable tax rate to me, but then so does 10%, 20% or even 25% because the effective rate of only a relatively few individuals exceeds 25%; thus it's seems appropriate that corporations should, seeing as they have "person status" in law, pay at a rate roughly comparable to that paid by similarly earning individuals.

I feel you.

When you add up all the taxes paid, many individuals and corporations pay over 50% to Fed, state, and local governments.

Property taxes, state sales tax, fees and taxes associated with driving or anything else. Local municipalities tax for many things. I love when they call them "FEES" instead of taxes. Like it makes a difference to those paying.

When you add up all the taxes paid, many individuals and corporations pay over 50% to Fed, state, and local governments.

I have seen no evidence that is so. Indeed, what I've seen indicates nothing remotely close to that is so. I will agree that "many" individuals/entities may pay more, but only because the U.S. population and quantity of companies are large enough for even a small percentage of the totality that experience a total effective tax rate at 50% (or anything over 40%, for that matter) may still be a "big number." I find it very hard to believe that three quarters or more, or even most (>50%), of country's individuals, or the same share of companies, realize an total effective tax rate of 50%. After all, some number lower than or near a million people earn enough to even be initially subject to (based on gross income) the top marginal rates. (See also: Tax Brackets in 2017 - Tax Foundation)

So, yes, there may be hundreds of thousands of folks who do pay something around 33% or more in total tax, and, yes, "hundreds of thousands" qualifies in my book as "many." Am I particularly concerned, from a tax equity standpoint, that such people may have a total tax burden at 50% or so? No. And I say that as one of those people and with regard to my own circumstances. (FWIW, my total effective tax rate isn't anything close to 50%; it's not even close to 40%.)

• The Best And Worst States For Taxes In 2016 -- The information here reflects effective rather than marginal rates
  
• Effective tax rates paid (on average) by state -- The linked page has a table which is easier to read than the same information which, at the prior site, is presented in "slides." The narrative content at the prior site is better by far.
• Average individual effective federal tax rates by income bracket -- I realize these are just federal taxes (income and payroll), but looking that them, it's plain to see that there's a long way to go to get to "most" people paying at an effective total tax rate of 50%.
• Average effective corporate tax rates -- Again, this is re: federal taxes, but the same reasoning caveat applies.

I'm not of a mind that no company or individual pays at such a high total tax rate. It's that not enough, as a percentage of the respective populations, do; thus I don't see fixing that problem as a priority, or even something worth worrying over or fixing. I think that such individuals/entities can, like I and other relatively high earners do, fix the problem on their own with some competent tax planning.

Like it makes a difference to those paying.

I agree that whether the sum is deemed a fee or a tax doesn't really matter in the scheme of summing up one's non-discretionary disbursements to governments. That said, a fee is distinguished from a tax by the frequency of its assessment and whether it's absolutely avoidable. For instance, one can avoid any registration fee by not engaging in/performing the activity that triggers one's having to pay the fee. A fine one pays for speeding is a fee, as is the court cost paid to contest the ticket, and yes, the money is paid to a government. Does that make the sums be taxes? No.

Anyone living in NYC would disagree.

If you say so. I would not know or be able to predict what "anyone living in NYC would say." Those individuals do not however account for most of the country, but there are many people living in NYC. Here is an illustration from three years ago of one modestly paid individual who lived in NYC. Her total tax burden could not have even come close to being 50%. I guess she, or others like her, was not among the "anyones" you had in mind?

I do know some people who live in NYC, and I know they do not have a total effective tax rate of 50%.

I found a source from 2014 that notes that it's possible certain high earners could face a total tax effective rate of 50% or higher. That said, we're still talking about people earning in excess of $400K/per year. As I noted before, there just aren't that many (on a percentage of the population basis) such people. Thus, I stand by what I wrote earlier.

I will agree that "many" individuals/entities may pay [50%+ in total taxes], but only because the U.S. population and quantity of companies are large enough for even a small percentage of the totality that experience a total effective tax rate at 50% (or anything over 40%, for that matter) may still be a "big number."....Am I particularly concerned, from a tax equity standpoint, that such people may have a total tax burden at 50% or so? No...such individuals/entities can, like I and other relatively high earners do, fix the problem on their own with some competent tax planning.

Why the need for tax planning in the first place? Taxes should be levied in a consistent basis that precludes the need for "planning".

 

[usmbguest5318]

In all honestly, the specific tax rate and resulting sums paid from applying that rate to income (EBITDA) isn't something over which I'm all that fussed. So long as the totality of earnings are "captured" and the tax rate applied to them, I'm good. You an others can "carry on" about the rate and sums collected/paid.

FWIW, however, yes, 15% seems like a reasonable tax rate to me, but then so does 10%, 20% or even 25% because the effective rate of only a relatively few individuals exceeds 25%; thus it's seems appropriate that corporations should, seeing as they have "person status" in law, pay at a rate roughly comparable to that paid by similarly earning individuals.

I feel you.

When you add up all the taxes paid, many individuals and corporations pay over 50% to Fed, state, and local governments.

Property taxes, state sales tax, fees and taxes associated with driving or anything else. Local municipalities tax for many things. I love when they call them "FEES" instead of taxes. Like it makes a difference to those paying.

When you add up all the taxes paid, many individuals and corporations pay over 50% to Fed, state, and local governments.

I have seen no evidence that is so. Indeed, what I've seen indicates nothing remotely close to that is so. I will agree that "many" individuals/entities may pay more, but only because the U.S. population and quantity of companies are large enough for even a small percentage of the totality that experience a total effective tax rate at 50% (or anything over 40%, for that matter) may still be a "big number." I find it very hard to believe that three quarters or more, or even most (>50%), of country's individuals, or the same share of companies, realize an total effective tax rate of 50%. After all, some number lower than or near a million people earn enough to even be initially subject to (based on gross income) the top marginal rates. (See also: Tax Brackets in 2017 - Tax Foundation)

So, yes, there may be hundreds of thousands of folks who do pay something around 33% or more in total tax, and, yes, "hundreds of thousands" qualifies in my book as "many." Am I particularly concerned, from a tax equity standpoint, that such people may have a total tax burden at 50% or so? No. And I say that as one of those people and with regard to my own circumstances. (FWIW, my total effective tax rate isn't anything close to 50%; it's not even close to 40%.)

• The Best And Worst States For Taxes In 2016 -- The information here reflects effective rather than marginal rates
  
• Effective tax rates paid (on average) by state -- The linked page has a table which is easier to read than the same information which, at the prior site, is presented in "slides." The narrative content at the prior site is better by far.
• Average individual effective federal tax rates by income bracket -- I realize these are just federal taxes (income and payroll), but looking that them, it's plain to see that there's a long way to go to get to "most" people paying at an effective total tax rate of 50%.
• Average effective corporate tax rates -- Again, this is re: federal taxes, but the same reasoning caveat applies.

I'm not of a mind that no company or individual pays at such a high total tax rate. It's that not enough, as a percentage of the respective populations, do; thus I don't see fixing that problem as a priority, or even something worth worrying over or fixing. I think that such individuals/entities can, like I and other relatively high earners do, fix the problem on their own with some competent tax planning.

Like it makes a difference to those paying.

I agree that whether the sum is deemed a fee or a tax doesn't really matter in the scheme of summing up one's non-discretionary disbursements to governments. That said, a fee is distinguished from a tax by the frequency of its assessment and whether it's absolutely avoidable. For instance, one can avoid any registration fee by not engaging in/performing the activity that triggers one's having to pay the fee. A fine one pays for speeding is a fee, as is the court cost paid to contest the ticket, and yes, the money is paid to a government. Does that make the sums be taxes? No.

Anyone living in NYC would disagree.

If you say so. I would not know or be able to predict what "anyone living in NYC would say." Those individuals do not however account for most of the country, but there are many people living in NYC. Here is an illustration from three years ago of one modestly paid individual who lived in NYC. Her total tax burden could not have even come close to being 50%. I guess she, or others like her, was not among the "anyones" you had in mind?

I do know some people who live in NYC, and I know they do not have a total effective tax rate of 50%.

I found a source from 2014 that notes that it's possible certain high earners could face a total tax effective rate of 50% or higher. That said, we're still talking about people earning in excess of $400K/per year. As I noted before, there just aren't that many (on a percentage of the population basis) such people. Thus, I stand by what I wrote earlier.

I will agree that "many" individuals/entities may pay [50%+ in total taxes], but only because the U.S. population and quantity of companies are large enough for even a small percentage of the totality that experience a total effective tax rate at 50% (or anything over 40%, for that matter) may still be a "big number."....Am I particularly concerned, from a tax equity standpoint, that such people may have a total tax burden at 50% or so? No...such individuals/entities can, like I and other relatively high earners do, fix the problem on their own with some competent tax planning.

Why the need for tax planning in the first place? Taxes should be levied in a consistent basis that precludes the need for "planning".

I would love to see a tax code that obviates the need for tax planning. At the moment, we haven't such a tax code, thus the need for tax planning, unless, of course, one is indifferent about minimizing one's tax burden. One may, as far as I'm concerned, be so glib at one's discretion.

 

[Markle]

Umm... there are plenty of "we citizens" who want the current laws enforced. You don't speak for all Americans. As far as them bringing their money back to create jobs, history is not on your side. This was allowed before under that ruse and it failed miserably. And why would you want to get be tax breaks to some of the wealthier folks in America while we're running a $1.4 trillion deficit and while you can't get a tax break?

Specifically what current laws do you want to be enforced that would force corporations to bring money they earned in other countries back to the United States.

More important is our debt. Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama left us an unconsciousnable $20 TRILLION DEBT. Shameful, just shameful.

 

[Markle]

It's been shown many, many times that the US does not have the highest taxes in the world. The corporate propaganda mills would like you to believe that so they can get people to allow them to pay less.

You're right, the United Arab Emirates has a top corporate tax rate of 55 percent and Puerto Rico has a rate of 39 percent which is WAY ABOVE our maximum of 38.9 percent. Everyone else in the world drops down below that rate.

 

[August West]

Make all earnings taxable. Overseas and here at home. Earnings held overseas taxed at a much higher rate.

That's a great way to attract foreign investment

Mexico is paying for the wall. How much more foreign investment do we need? They are paying aren`t they?

There will be one hell of a lot less money going back to Mexico. That is helping pay for it.

Snowflakes should just think of building the wall as shovel ready government jobs.

Your silly suggestion won`t pay one nickel towards building your wall to cower behind and you know it. You`ve been had and I can hear that slob laughing at you all the way from 12th tee in Florida. Did you notice that Agent Orange doesn`t like to work very often? I know steelworkers that voted for him because he said China was "raping" us. After a meeting last week with the Chinese he announced that it will be business as usual with China. Don`t feel bad, he`s laughing at steelworkers and coal miners too. Remember this! "Day one (1) we`re going to repeal and replace Obamacare". That was a good one too!

 

[Markle]

The income tax rate that you've quoted doesn't take into account the deductions that are typical. As for updated information, here's a chart that shows it's only gone down since 2000-2005. Also, despite all those concessions, the employment rate hasn't improved.

For some odd reason, people simply don't realize the difference between marginal and effective tax rates. One would think after Mitt Romney released his taxes that people would understand that difference, but, sure as God made little green apples, many appear not to.

Simply put, if one's marginal tax rate is, say 25% and one's deductions and exemptions allow one to actually pay tax such that one's effective rate is 15%, with no change other than a reduction in one's marginal tax rate from 25% to 15%, one will pay the same sum of money in taxes.

OT:
That chart may be among the best one's I've seen recently that illustrates the lie that is one of the main supply siders' mantras: cutting corporate taxes increases job growth.

15% across the board, no deductions. That's what I would like to see for all Federal Income tax.

Better would be the Fair Tax.

 

[August West]

Umm... there are plenty of "we citizens" who want the current laws enforced. You don't speak for all Americans. As far as them bringing their money back to create jobs, history is not on your side. This was allowed before under that ruse and it failed miserably. And why would you want to get be tax breaks to some of the wealthier folks in America while we're running a $1.4 trillion deficit and while you can't get a tax break?

Specifically what current laws do you want to be enforced that would force corporations to bring money they earned in other countries back to the United States.

More important is our debt. Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama left us an unconsciousnable $20 TRILLION DEBT. Shameful, just shameful.

The debt is your baby. Those 2 wars started by Gomer Bush were put on the credit card and the bills came due. Any Jr. High student learns that increased spending combined with tax cuts is foolish.
The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits

 

[Markle]

Here is an illustration from three years ago of one modestly paid individual who lived in NYC. Her total tax burden could not have even come close to being 50%. I guess she, or others like her, was not among the "anyones" you had in mind?

I do know some people who live in NYC, and I know they do not have a total effective tax rate of 50%.

I found a source from 2014 that notes that it's possible certain high earners could face a total tax effective rate of 50% or higher. That said, we're still talking about people earning in excess of $400K/per year. As I noted before, there just aren't that many (on a percentage of the population basis) such people. Thus, I stand by what I wrote earlier.

Please carefully. She says her total tax burden is close to 50%. Upper-income people/households in NYC pay more than 50 percent when Federal Income Taxes, state taxes, and local NYC taxes are totaled.

People with the ability have moved out of NYC to states with far lower taxes and no income taxes.

 

[Markle]

For a brief explanation of the Fair Tax and why it is superior to our current tax system and the Flat Tax.

How FAIRtax Works | FAIRtax.org

 

[ColonelAngus]

Umm... there are plenty of "we citizens" who want the current laws enforced. You don't speak for all Americans. As far as them bringing their money back to create jobs, history is not on your side. This was allowed before under that ruse and it failed miserably. And why would you want to get be tax breaks to some of the wealthier folks in America while we're running a $1.4 trillion deficit and while you can't get a tax break?

Specifically what current laws do you want to be enforced that would force corporations to bring money they earned in other countries back to the United States.

More important is our debt. Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama left us an unconsciousnable $20 TRILLION DEBT. Shameful, just shameful.

The debt is your baby. Those 2 wars started by Gomer Bush were put on the credit card and the bills came due. Any Jr. High student learns that increased spending combined with tax cuts is foolish.
The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits

Yes, its a lot less expensive to ignore a problem and let the next admin deal with it.

From 1993 to when Clinton left office, UBL was not handled.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The income tax rate that you've quoted doesn't take into account the deductions that are typical. As for updated information, here's a chart that shows it's only gone down since 2000-2005. Also, despite all those concessions, the employment rate hasn't improved.

For some odd reason, people simply don't realize the difference between marginal and effective tax rates. One would think after Mitt Romney released his taxes that people would understand that difference, but, sure as God made little green apples, many appear not to.

Simply put, if one's marginal tax rate is, say 25% and one's deductions and exemptions allow one to actually pay tax such that one's effective rate is 15%, with no change other than a reduction in one's marginal tax rate from 25% to 15%, one will pay the same sum of money in taxes.

OT:
That chart may be among the best one's I've seen recently that illustrates the lie that is one of the main supply siders' mantras: cutting corporate taxes increases job growth.

15% across the board, no deductions. That's what I would like to see for all Federal Income tax.

Better would be the Fair Tax.

No,

Keep the tax system the way it is and raise tariffs on any manufacturing outside this country...Make it uneconomic to bring it back in hence forcing the businesses to stay in the country.

Keep the science, infrastructure and common sense investment flowing.

 

[Boss]

Here is the problem; Most of that $5 trillion is either invested or sitting in a bank overseas where it was originally earned. Taxes were paid to the host country at the time it was earned. Due to the US Tax Code, if they repatriate that wealth it becomes US taxable earnings and is taxed AGAIN. Those who possess this wealth don't need it here when they can continue to use it to make money there.

Some will argue that what you need to do is simply eliminate the double taxation, don't require them to pay taxes on the repatriated wealth. That's a good idea but there's another issue involved. The banks and countries where the wealth resides aren't crazy about all that wealth leaving their country. They may offer incentives to keep the wealth there and they may also apply penalties for taking the money out.

So what you must have is a plan that is so attractive the wealth owner can't resist. I would offer a moratorium on any US taxation for 10 years, as well as tax credits to offset any penalty imposed for the withdrawal of wealth from abroad, applied to any repatriated wealth used for the purpose of business expansion, creating new jobs, upgrading equipment and technology or creating new business. The 10-year moratorium would give businessmen time to construct viable plans of action.

 

[Faun]

No, they do not pay 38.9%. They pay their rate minus the 20% they already paid. There is no double tax. You people keep spreading lies among yourselves so you don't know what you're talking about.

As you know, ObamaCare increased the Corporate tax rate. You really need to catch up.
United States Corporate Tax Rate 2000-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar
The Corporate Tax Rate in the United States stands at 38.90 percent. Corporate Tax Rate in the United States averaged 39.21 percent from 2000 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 39.30 percent in 2001 and a record low of 38.90 percent in 2016.

Read more: United States Corporate Tax Rate | 2000-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

If you will read my example, I deducted the tax paid in the hypothetical Faunland of 20 percent before calculating the tax of 38.90%

Perhaps you can find someone to read and explain it to you.

I can't help you're to demented to follow along. Your claim was that corporations are taxed at whatever rate based on the country they owe taxes -- and that they're taxed again at 38.9% when they bring their money back into the U.S..

You're insane. Such people are not taxed like that. They are not taxed twice. In most cases, the IRS credits such monies the percentage they paid to the foreign nation. They are not double taxed. They are taxed at the same rate as if they conducted their business here in the U.S..

 

[Faun]

Here is the problem; Most of that $5 trillion is either invested or sitting in a bank overseas where it was originally earned. Taxes were paid to the host country at the time it was earned. Due to the US Tax Code, if they repatriate that wealth it becomes US taxable earnings and is taxed AGAIN. Those who possess this wealth don't need it here when they can continue to use it to make money there.

Some will argue that what you need to do is simply eliminate the double taxation, don't require them to pay taxes on the repatriated wealth. That's a good idea but there's another issue involved. The banks and countries where the wealth resides aren't crazy about all that wealth leaving their country. They may offer incentives to keep the wealth there and they may also apply penalties for taking the money out.

So what you must have is a plan that is so attractive the wealth owner can't resist. I would offer a moratorium on any US taxation for 10 years, as well as tax credits to offset any penalty imposed for the withdrawal of wealth from abroad, applied to any repatriated wealth used for the purpose of business expansion, creating new jobs, upgrading equipment and technology or creating new business. The 10-year moratorium would give businessmen time to construct viable plans of action.

You rightards are simply fucking nuts. There is no other explanation. No matter how many times this is explained, y'all still can't grasp it.

Foreign Tax Credit

If you paid or accrued foreign taxes to a foreign country or U.S. possession and are subject to U.S. tax on the same income, you may be able to take either a credit or an itemized deduction for those taxes.​

 

[Boss]

Here is the problem; Most of that $5 trillion is either invested or sitting in a bank overseas where it was originally earned. Taxes were paid to the host country at the time it was earned. Due to the US Tax Code, if they repatriate that wealth it becomes US taxable earnings and is taxed AGAIN. Those who possess this wealth don't need it here when they can continue to use it to make money there.

Some will argue that what you need to do is simply eliminate the double taxation, don't require them to pay taxes on the repatriated wealth. That's a good idea but there's another issue involved. The banks and countries where the wealth resides aren't crazy about all that wealth leaving their country. They may offer incentives to keep the wealth there and they may also apply penalties for taking the money out.

So what you must have is a plan that is so attractive the wealth owner can't resist. I would offer a moratorium on any US taxation for 10 years, as well as tax credits to offset any penalty imposed for the withdrawal of wealth from abroad, applied to any repatriated wealth used for the purpose of business expansion, creating new jobs, upgrading equipment and technology or creating new business. The 10-year moratorium would give businessmen time to construct viable plans of action.

You rightards are simply fucking nuts. There is no other explanation. No matter how many times this is explained, y'all still can't grasp it.

Foreign Tax Credit

If you paid or accrued foreign taxes to a foreign country or U.S. possession and are subject to U.S. tax on the same income, you may be able to take either a credit or an itemized deduction for those taxes.​

Sorry but this is a very complex issue you know nothing about, obviously. Yes, there ARE SOME situations in which you can reduce tax liability by claiming a foreign tax credit on income you receive from foreign sources. However, that doesn't apply to repatriated wealth that was taxed years ago when earned. It also doesn't apply to countries where the US doesn't have a tax treaty to cover double taxation.

Much of that $5 trillion the OP speaks of is actually invested in locked securities and can't be touched without paying heavy penalties and taxes. I know this because I happen to have such investments. I would LOVE to be able to bring that money back to the US so I could use it to open a business, invest in something or use it to create new jobs but I'm not about to do that if it means handing over 15...20... 25% off the top to the IRS, plus whatever penalties I face for pulling it out of where it's at. That would just be stupid for me to do.

However, if there were no tax liability and if I could claim the penalties as a deduction, I would be happy to bring that money home and create jobs with it. As it stands, I make about 2~3% per year on the wealth and it's rolled over in tax-free instruments until I claim it as income. My wealth continues to grow, albeit at a low rate, but I avoid it costing me a shit ton in taxation which lets me use the wealth as collateral.

 

[Faun]

Here is the problem; Most of that $5 trillion is either invested or sitting in a bank overseas where it was originally earned. Taxes were paid to the host country at the time it was earned. Due to the US Tax Code, if they repatriate that wealth it becomes US taxable earnings and is taxed AGAIN. Those who possess this wealth don't need it here when they can continue to use it to make money there.

Some will argue that what you need to do is simply eliminate the double taxation, don't require them to pay taxes on the repatriated wealth. That's a good idea but there's another issue involved. The banks and countries where the wealth resides aren't crazy about all that wealth leaving their country. They may offer incentives to keep the wealth there and they may also apply penalties for taking the money out.

So what you must have is a plan that is so attractive the wealth owner can't resist. I would offer a moratorium on any US taxation for 10 years, as well as tax credits to offset any penalty imposed for the withdrawal of wealth from abroad, applied to any repatriated wealth used for the purpose of business expansion, creating new jobs, upgrading equipment and technology or creating new business. The 10-year moratorium would give businessmen time to construct viable plans of action.

You rightards are simply fucking nuts. There is no other explanation. No matter how many times this is explained, y'all still can't grasp it.

Foreign Tax Credit

If you paid or accrued foreign taxes to a foreign country or U.S. possession and are subject to U.S. tax on the same income, you may be able to take either a credit or an itemized deduction for those taxes.​

Sorry but this is a very complex issue you know nothing about, obviously. Yes, there ARE SOME situations in which you can reduce tax liability by claiming a foreign tax credit on income you receive from foreign sources. However, that doesn't apply to repatriated wealth that was taxed years ago when earned. It also doesn't apply to countries where the US doesn't have a tax treaty to cover double taxation.

Much of that $5 trillion the OP speaks of is actually invested in locked securities and can't be touched without paying heavy penalties and taxes. I know this because I happen to have such investments. I would LOVE to be able to bring that money back to the US so I could use it to open a business, invest in something or use it to create new jobs but I'm not about to do that if it means handing over 15...20... 25% off the top to the IRS, plus whatever penalties I face for pulling it out of where it's at. That would just be stupid for me to do.

However, if there were no tax liability and if I could claim the penalties as a deduction, I would be happy to bring that money home and create jobs with it. As it stands, I make about 2~3% per year on the wealth and it's rolled over in tax-free instruments until I claim it as income. My wealth continues to grow, albeit at a low rate, but I avoid it costing me a shit ton in taxation which lets me use the wealth as collateral.

Your problem is you remain fucking demented.

Yes, repatriated money often qualifies. The link I posted lists all the qualifying factors. And when the IRS waives much of my taxes, I'll have a different opinion about others having some of theirs waived as well. Until then, we all pay our taxes. For those with money stranded overseas? Pay your taxes or leave your money there. There's no evidence letting them bring it back here during a tax holiday will do much, if anything, for the economy. That was tried before and it didn't result in the promises made by those who supported the idea.

 

[EverCurious]

And that idea, the idea that the left own /all/ money on the planet is why businesses won't invest in America. Leave it as it is with these folks being taxed 25-40% to bring it into the US then and you'll not see a fucking penny cause the money will stay in the country where it was made (or be moved to countries that would rather have the longer term investment in their economy than the short term tax pittance.)