Free Markets, Free People

One simple chart explains why corporations are looking overseas

Let’s see … if I’m a CEO and I can cut my corporate taxes by about 14% by moving overseas, why wouldn’t I?

Feel free to answer that question.  And when you do, then perhaps you can figure out one thing that the politicos could have done a loooong time ago to keep corporations here and to spur business expansion and create jobs but haven’t?



Twitter: McQandO

Facebook: QandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

8 Responses to One simple chart explains why corporations are looking overseas

  • Moving overseas is RAAAAACIST!
    Sorry, don’t know what came over me…fell asleep with MSNBC on and had very scary dreams.

  • Golly, ya mean those enterprizes are NOT nailed to the USA…!?!?  You mean people CAN take their ball and leave…!?!?
    Look for a push to pass a new law.

  • Why wouldn’t I.   Well, baring some new law that will find a way to punish my business worse than if I stayed, and assuming I can get in a foreign land what I get here (safe civic environment, supportive infrastructure, useful employees, a ‘button’ from Staples).
    But of course, since I’m NOT in business to make money, and since I AM in business just to create jobs for Americans no matter what impact it has on the wealth I have available, the whole tax thing doesn’t mean anything to me.  I am a progressive you see, and I’m soooooo willing to sacrifice my wealth for others.  This can be witnessed as I pay extra taxes when I don’t have to, every year, twice on leap years.

  • All that and a much more insidious tax, that of regulation. Malignant regulation.
    IIUC, Hong Kong’s regulations, for example, in their entirety, entails less regulation than ObamaCare alone.
    Add EPA, SEC, OSHA and the A-Z alphabet soup and it’s no small wonder the US has the 75% of the worlds lawyers for our 25% of the worlds production.
    But, hey; the political/management class, bureaucratic Apparatchiks, and cultural elite get to skim whatever cream IS produced.

    • I believe their tax code is 11 pages long.
      I recently listened to a CATO podcast on the corporate tax rate, and CANADA, under both parties has lowered their rates.
      Seriously, when Canadians of all stripes can manage to lower the corporate tax rate, and we cannot, there is a problem.
      My suspicion is that the Democrats might agree to lower the rate, but they cannot give it up by itself and must keep it as a concession for some huge over-arching “deal.” I think this is our problem now: everything must be part of some 3,000 page “deal.”
      The compromise should be able to stand alone. Both parties agree on such and such, just pass a simple law on that. Leave contentious items aside. But the dems must think that would anger their base, or they think they can never achieve what they really, really want without GOP cover, so they deny these basic reforms.
      Oh, and the Dems were STUPID not to slash the corporate rate back in 2009. They would have looked like heroes and have helped the economy a lot. But they have other plans that are more important I suppose.

      • Canada has a ton of payroll taxes.  They could get away with it because their dollar was 60-70 cents on the US dollar.  But they fixed their debt and there dollar is more on par.   They now have the most expensive labor (or should I say labour) in the world.  They are losing jobs because of it.  Never thought corporate taxes were the stranglehold there to begin with.  Its the operational taxes and fees that were the killer.
        When you have a lot of international based companies, they can just profit-shift to other more tax favorable countries and avoid taxes anyway.  So profit based corporate taxes was never their main way of taxing corporations.  I’m sure lowering the corporate rate matters, but its less of a landscape change than it sounds.

      • When y sister-in-law was a risk/safety analyst for an insurance company that provided coverage for employers Workmans Comp., she told of many stories of companies that had adopted (under coersion) OSHA regulations without much, if any, success.
        When she and her cohort would go to a company, tell management how to improve their situations, they’d slash accidents to near ZERO. One, for example, a building supply company, cut it’s serious accidents from one every six months to one in 14 months. They did that for FREE. Actually, they did it for more than free, they cut their premiums.
        OSHA, OTOH, came up with costly and largely ineffectual mandates.
        EPA is much more egregious example of high cost/no-improvement.
        Add SEC, FCC, DoE, and on and on.