Tell me why we can't neuter certain people?

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Number51

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Welfare is a net giveaway of money. The government is not giving away any money to the alcohol industry. The writer goes further and explains that he doesn't believe that business should be allowed to account for business expenses. Are we to now tax them on revenues and not profit?

How silly.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Number51
"Welfare Queens? Welfare Kings Rule the Land
Big corporations take the cake (and everything else) when it comes to welfare."

U.S. News & World Report

"Since "welfare queens" and the idea of "givers versus takers" are the topics "du jour" again, let's look at the forgotten takers: the "welfare kings" on the corporate side."

If you want to complain about Social Welfare and have any credibility, you should mention the much more expensive Corporate Welfare. Stop pretending to care about tax dollars and ignore the fact that the Billionaires are much more expensive and corrupt than poor people.

---

---

Yes, the U.S. News & World Report is well known for their silliness.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: wispitfire
Is it not welfare that companies are now able to take the revenue earned here overseas to not pay taxes on it?

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote

---

Originally posted by: wispitfire
Is it not welfare that companies are now able to take the revenue earned here overseas to not pay taxes on it?

---

DonDiego is presently under a self-imposed restriction on stating his opinion on such matters as tax policy.

However, he is permitted to address statements of fact. In that regard poor old DonDiego questions the proposition that domestic revenue [or, more likely "domestic profits"] of domestic corporations may be moved overseas to avoid domestic [i.e. USA] taxes.
In fact, the US tax code requires US corporations overseas to pay US income-taxes on foreign income, or at least the difference between the foreign income-tax already paid and the usually higher US income-tax, when/if that income is repatriated.

Ref: Tax Foundation

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Bingo! Which is why Congress will often grant tax amnesty to those corporations if they think they can get away with it. It happened in the last administration and there is a massive lobbying effort to do it in this administration.

Of course, thats only a tiny part of corporate welfare. We have a 10,000 page tax book that outlines thousands upon thousnads of other examples.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote

---

Originally posted by: wispitfire
Is it not welfare that companies are now able to take the revenue earned here overseas to not pay taxes on it?

---

DonDiego is presently under a self-imposed restriction on stating his opinion on such matters as tax policy.

However, he is permitted to address statements of fact. In that regard poor old DonDiego questions the proposition that domestic revenue [or, more likely "domestic profits"] of domestic corporations may be moved overseas to avoid domestic [i.e. USA] taxes.
In fact, the US tax code requires US corporations overseas to pay US income-taxes on foreign income, or at least the difference between the foreign income-tax already paid and the usually higher US income-tax, when/if that income is repatriated.

Ref: Tax Foundation

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Bingo! Which is why Congress will often grant tax amnesty to those corporations if they think they can get away with it. It happened in the last administration and there is a massive lobbying effort to do it in this administration.

Of course, thats only a tiny part of corporate welfare. We have a 10,000 page tax book that outlines thousands upon thousnads of other examples.

---

Definition: amnesty : (LAW), an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.

Umm, . . . DonDiego is not trying to be dense, but amnesty for what, . . . and to whom? [An example would be good.]

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote

---

Originally posted by: wispitfire
Is it not welfare that companies are now able to take the revenue earned here overseas to not pay taxes on it?

---

DonDiego is presently under a self-imposed restriction on stating his opinion on such matters as tax policy.

However, he is permitted to address statements of fact. In that regard poor old DonDiego questions the proposition that domestic revenue [or, more likely "domestic profits"] of domestic corporations may be moved overseas to avoid domestic [i.e. USA] taxes.
In fact, the US tax code requires US corporations overseas to pay US income-taxes on foreign income, or at least the difference between the foreign income-tax already paid and the usually higher US income-tax, when/if that income is repatriated.

Ref: Tax Foundation

---

As malibber understands it here is how it works. You set up and IBC in a country that has no income tax. Typically this runs $1,200 or less and is a onetime fee. Once you have your IBC you hire a group of people to act as your board of directors typically this will run you $1,200 a year or so. The board opens a bank account for you in the name of your IBC with an international bank that does business in the host country. You redirect all of your incoming revenue to the IBC which has a 0% taxation rate and doesn't even require any accounting records. You only pay taxes when the IBC makes out a check to you personally and your bring it into the U.S. All the other money the IBC has sits there growing tax free. You can open investment accounts and do anything you would with the money you would in the U.S.

You also get ATM/ Debit Card access to your money here in the U.S. whenever you want or need it.

Then you simply wait for the next republican president to declare a tax holiday on overseas money and you bring it all back into the us tax free.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber2

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote

---

Originally posted by: wispitfire
Is it not welfare that companies are now able to take the revenue earned here overseas to not pay taxes on it?

---

DonDiego is presently under a self-imposed restriction on stating his opinion on such matters as tax policy.

However, he is permitted to address statements of fact. In that regard poor old DonDiego questions the proposition that domestic revenue [or, more likely "domestic profits"] of domestic corporations may be moved overseas to avoid domestic [i.e. USA] taxes.
In fact, the US tax code requires US corporations overseas to pay US income-taxes on foreign income, or at least the difference between the foreign income-tax already paid and the usually higher US income-tax, when/if that income is repatriated.

Ref: Tax Foundation

---

As malibber understands it here is how it works. You set up and IBC in a country that has no income tax. Typically this runs $1,200 or less and is a onetime fee. Once you have your IBC you hire a group of people to act as your board of directors typically this will run you $1,200 a year or so. The board opens a bank account for you in the name of your IBC with an international bank that does business in the host country. You redirect all of your incoming revenue to the IBC which has a 0% taxation rate and doesn't even require any accounting records. You only pay taxes when the IBC makes out a check to you personally and your bring it into the U.S. All the other money the IBC has sits there growing tax free. You can open investment accounts and do anything you would with the money you would in the U.S.

You also get ATM/ Debit Card access to your money here in the U.S. whenever you want or need it.

Then you simply wait for the next republican president to declare a tax holiday on overseas money and you bring it all back into the us tax free.

---