| > |
> > It could be a simple situation where a company decides to manufacturer their products in another country, then sell the products to the US. Example: Chrysler builds cars in china and sells them in the US, whereas they use to just manufacture and sell them in the US.
> You were talking about corporate tax rates for hypothetical corporate relocation. This is another beast altogether - the manufacturing level jobs have been steadily farmed out for decades, and it has nothing to do with taxes. Rather, it has to do with finding countries that accept money in return for allowing the exploitation of their citizens - long days, insufficient safety and health considerations, 25 cent/hour pay rates.
I was talking about the general corporate environment, of which corporate tax rates are part of.
Manufacturing jobs leaving have something to do with the taxes, it's all connected.
And to those countries, it's not exploitation. You can go to pretty much any factory, and see people willing to work. The jobs there are much better than any other job they can find. People think that 14 year old girls working in a factory is bad for them, but the alternative is that they go into prostitution.
| > So I'm not sure what you think this says about the USA - that its human rights standards are too high, maybe?|
That the American worker is inefficient, not worth the money that they are given.
| > > Or they could sell off part of or all of their company to a company from another country. Example: Anheiser Busch was bought by InBev, a Brazilian/Belgian company.|
> Which is an example that doesn't actually speak to your point about relocating due to corporate tax levels.
Again, it's all connected. InBev had an advantage over Anheiser Busch, because they paid a lower corporate tax.
| > > But the current result is that US companies would rather invest overseas than in the US. |
> I'm not sure you can blame this one on taxes. Especially when the American market is heavily developed and difficult to break into with new ventures, whereas Coca-Cola can (and has) dropped in anchor in countries where there is no soft drink market and buy the right to a monopoly. They invest overseas because they can create a market where one doesn't exist, rather than risk failing in one here that's already over-crowded.
Let's use Coca Cola. When they sell cokes in Brazil, their profit is only taxed when they bring it back into the US. If they leave the money in Brazil, the money isn't taxed. So this can be blamed on taxes.
| > > It's the same reason why companies move their headquarters from NYC to a much more favorable location. |
| > And yet it's unlikely that we'll see NYC unseated as the world's (much less the country's) financial hub in this century. For every established company that moves out to save some pennies, an upstart company with something to prove and legitimacy to be gained will move in.|
I was simply using an example of how companies move their headquarters to different locations for favorable reasons. Now just expand that thought from across the country, into another country.
| > > But since they did it, it wasn't just an empty threat. |
> I'm talking systemic threats here, not anecdotal ones. There's no threat that a significant number of American corporations will relocate - for tax reasons or otherwise. You found a link that lists 10 that have moved out of the USA - you could have just as easily found documents that describe foreign corporations that move in the opposite direction. (I mean, just Google it.) But 10 out of thousands is hardly a trend worth presenting as evidence.
So you are making a prediction without any facts? How many examples would you need in order to believe it? Rhetorical of course.
I was simply pointing out that companies do move overseas for tax reasons, something you denied.
Any barriers for a country not to move overseas are slowly being torn down. The rest of the world is catching up to America. Communication, travel, the acceptance of English as the primary language for business, etc are all reasons why a company can now relocate.
| > > So you are using the two of the richest people as an example? |
> If your logic is as sound - as wholly determinant - as you think, then the richest people should be the most likely to leave the country. But they don't - and, in fact, people with loads of money continue to emigrate to the United States. Within your stated logic, that shouldn't happen. So you've obviously missed something. It should be clear by now that I think it's a huge mistake to look at corporate tax rates in isolation. (And I'm also skeptical about the methodology being employed by the people from whom you get your numbers. Are they looking at the rates alone, or are they accounting for the various rebates and incentives that are inevitably foisted upon corporations to make sure they stay put?)
No, because people are individuals and you have to realize that they don't always make the best decisions for them financially. There are other factors in play here, like perhaps they are patriotic, don't wnat to move their families, love where they live, etc.
I'm not looking at corporate tax rates in isolation, I'm looking at the overall impact the US government has on US corporations.
I pointed out that unless corporations have a reason to stay, they will leave. You said that was wrong, Pretty sure I adaquetly proved why a corporation would leave, and gave examples of some that did. Not sure what else I need to say here.