If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
This could be one of the greatest upheavels in British political history...might see one of the two major parties going away entirely.
It sure could. Michael Gove, Britain's Justice Secretary, has some very illuminating comments. He was/is one of the small minority of elected officials wanting to "Leave". First, there was the question of liberty - surrendering freedoms (lower case 'f') to the EU. Then there is the unappealable edicts from Brussels and all the pan-european regulations that may in fact be detrimental to certain markets. Finally there's disgust with politicians that are not in touch with their constituents. Gove had one great comment: that Britain should act like the Americans - take their independence and never look back.
Wish I had a link for all his commentary. The Guardian, the Telegraph, and the BBC were my main sources.
“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx
Yeah but if they still want access to the European markets those are all false choices. It's either influence those decisions from within or leave and just be subject to them without input. I do agree that this is a pretty huge moment for the UK. Definitive.
If you care about shrinking the DC-funded trough to the largest extent, then you have to address corporate welfare before anything else. And probably the defense sector first and foremost, where there isn't even the competitive environment a marketplace is supposed to provide.
I agree totally. I have no idea how much we are talking about in a social welfare vs. corporate welfare debate, but waste is waste. Much of corporate waste is "accomplished" through the tax code. It seems to me that lowering the corporate rate (to 20% has been proposed) in exchange for "simplification" is low fruit, but everything depends on the drafting of the law. I'd simply eliminate any tax provision that can be identified with one industry or one company. That would be like timber depletion and oil depletion allowances. So much of depreciation is just silliness too.
I once got into an argument with a professor who said that overspending with Boeing by a million dollars was marginally better than overspending the same amount with a welfare queen because it created a larger multiplier. You get a plane instead of kids in the first cycle, was his point. My point was "waste is waste", and government has to take the money from someone in order to have the money in the first place.
And no, Stan, I don't have the address of that welfare queen.
George Will leaves the Republican Party. I tell you again: there is something in the air in the Acela Zone that turns your brain to mush. Just read his columns for the last several years if you don't believe me.
IMO a massive question is going to be whether American corporate income not repatriated is going to be taxed, like American citizen income earned abroad. Or whether there's an amnesty. Either way, the entities globalization works best for are the MNCs and the tax havens/secrecy jurisdictions that have blossomed alongside them.
Yeah but if they still want access to the European markets those are all false choices. It's either influence those decisions from within or leave and just be subject to them without input. I do agree that this is a pretty huge moment for the UK. Definitive.
Fareed Zakaria made some great points this morning, one of them being that the balance of Britian’s nuclear arsenal is in Scotland, which might very well be an entirely separate nation in a year, or less. Strange times.
He was also somber on the effect Brexit will have US-EU relations, making the point that the UK was “America’s voice” in Brussels. He anticipates that Germany will be calling the shots, and their approach to EU intervention in foreign affairs will be different. As such, we cannot be as reliant as we have been for EU support of sanction regimes against the likes of Iran and Russia in recent years. Uncertainty abounds.
George Will leaves the Republican Party. I tell you again: there is something in the air in the Acela Zone that turns your brain to mush. Just read his columns for the last several years if you don't believe me.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. But the shine on the NC Trophy is embarrassingly wearing off. It's M B-Ball ..... or hockey or volley ball or name your college sport favorite time ...... until next year.
IMO a massive question is going to be whether American corporate income not repatriated is going to be taxed, like American citizen income earned abroad.
American citizens are considered to be domiciled in the US. My understanding of the corporate code is that US corporations owe both the corporate tax in the country of origin and in the US. This is offset by a tax credit for the amount paid overseas.
So, for income earned in Ireland, the calculation of total corporate tax is (Irish tax)+(US tax)= amount owed, with a credit for (Irish tax paid). But the US tax is not due until the money is repatriated. The amount owed is calculated into the budget as a credit with an "accrued FIT" debit offset.
This "slight of hand" on the balance sheet creates a problem with any amnesty in the taxation of repatriated funds. For example, if a corporation has $ 1 million of profit overseas that is repatriated under a "we will tax you only 10% on the amount repatriated for the next 6 months" plan, then the cash the government gets is $ 100,000. But the balance sheet has to show a net loss in taxes accrued of $ 250,000.The government shows a deficit of $ 250,000 in the year of repatriation. This is where the concepts of "tax saving" or "tax expenditures" arise. My example is an example of a "tax expenditure", and the Government would view amnesty as having a "cost" of $ 250,000 in my example.
An amnesty would cause a large drop in reported income to the government, offsetting the overly optimistic reporting of an accrual as income in the past.
Politicians are concerned U.S. companies are trying to dodge their fair share of taxes. But the real problem is the outdated tax code. Here's a cheat sheet for sounding smart at your next Washington cocktail party.
Last edited by Da Geezer; June 27, 2016, 11:55 AM.
Lone wolf jihadists should target white Americans so no one mistakes their terror attacks for hate crimes unrelated to the cause of radical Islam, Al Qaeda writes in the latest edition of its online magazine.
Target whites..
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has published a guide urging jihadis to carry out more ‘lone wolf’ operations in the U.S. following the deadly terror attack in Orlando earlier this month and to set their sights on the targeting of white Americans. The publication, “Inspire guide: Orlando operation,” which seeks to capitalize on
The original article
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
So Geezer you're saying that repatriating that income allows the corporation to, legally, display a loss that further reduced declared profits? If I follow your logic, anything paid would be offset at home anyways?
Tweet
Comment