Obama drops the hammer

Yeah, I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. Peter Parker, Tallen?

To be honest I'm not sure if Obama really has a say in it. Off shore tax havens are exactly that... Off shore.

Although saying that I think the Swiss are actually quite keen on this and most of the International community are getting behind it. Some might need a little convincing...

The Guardian wrote: Swiss ministers said the government caved in after learning the country was going to be included this month on a ­blacklist of uncooperative tax havens drawn up by the Organisation for ­Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Having agreed to sign up to the OECD protocol on tax, Switzerland will hand over information on account ­holders suspected of tax evasion by another country.

Alot of folk are saying the poorer countries will benefit aswell. And tbh I find it hard to oppose anything that'll do that. But like you guys I've not actually looked into this a great deal and have no idea why it's good for them.

merc wrote: ive been saying tax breaks for companies in the US/small buisness and tax the hell out of imports... gubment needs to stop trying to stick there hands in everyones pockets... IF goods come into the states, tax um. if goods are manufactured in the states tax them less and let them make jobs (getting people off welfare and lowering the tax burden)

Unfortunately protectionism leads to a complete withdraw of foreign imports which then hurts the economy even more.

It's a double-edged sword and the effect it will have on our country won't be seen until well after Obama is long out of office.

On the "pro" side of things. It will give incentive to companies already here in the US to "keep everything in the kitchen" in the sense that they can't re-locate their HQ somewhere else and get a tax break out of it.

The "cons" far outweigh the pros when it comes to the survival of said companies in a global marketplace. Remaining in the US means that they have to pay for a higher standard of living for their employees. This means higher costs from the CEO on down to the lowest of the toilet scrubbers. HQ's tend to physically move off-shore to be closer to the point of production (India, China, and Vietnam right now) get a bit of a tax break, and reduce overhead for their plant and property that don't produce income for them. A headquarters never generates any kind of revenue, it only takes from the revenue stream. So lowering costs as much as possible for the HQ is simple business sense. If this means incorporating in Bangalore India, then that's what it takes. Now, I understand that what Obama is trying to do is eliminate the Cayman and Swiss shelters that many individuals and companies use to hide their funds and avoid higher taxes. That's all well and good, but write the tax code so it affects those trying to circumvent the laws, not as punishment for global corporations doing what is necessary to survive.

The tax code is probably the worst written document in HISTORY. I've seen book reports from autistic midgets that make better sense.

tallen702 wrote: The tax code is probably the worst written document in HISTORY. I've seen book reports from autistic midgets that make better sense.

Are midgets bad writers?

ParielIsBack wrote: tallen702 wrote: The tax code is probably the worst written document in HISTORY. I've seen book reports from autistic midgets that make better sense. Are midgets bad writers?

Just their cursive and manuscript, it's those stubby little fingers....

I though that Obama had shot MC Hammer.

Peter Parker wrote: Separately - I disagree completely that the IRC is poorly drafted.  To the contrary, the IRC is one of the best-drafted laws we have.  Along with the Bankruptcy Code and the UCC, the IRC is an example of code drafted  by the actual experts in the field instead of elected amateurs.  It is extremely complex and difficult to understand, but it is very exact, non-contradictory, and in general excellent.

Well, almost everyone I see making statements about the IRC comments about how convoluted it is and how reform is so necessary. In fact I don't think I have EVER seen anyone praise the code.

Peter Parker wrote: Separately - I disagree completely that the IRC is poorly drafted.  To the contrary, the IRC is one of the best-drafted laws we have.  Along with the Bankruptcy Code and the UCC, the IRC is an example of code drafted  by the actual experts in the field instead of elected amateurs.  It is extremely complex and difficult to understand, but it is very exact, non-contradictory, and in general excellent.

The main reason it is completely unintelligible to the average American. I understand that this stuff is supposed to be complicated, but honestly, they can do way better.

Peter Parker wrote: ParielIsBack wrote: Peter Parker wrote: Separately - I disagree completely that the IRC is poorly drafted.  To the contrary, the IRC is one of the best-drafted laws we have.  Along with the Bankruptcy Code and the UCC, the IRC is an example of code drafted  by the actual experts in the field instead of elected amateurs.  It is extremely complex and difficult to understand, but it is very exact, non-contradictory, and in general excellent. The main reason it is completely unintelligible to the average American. I understand that this stuff is supposed to be complicated, but honestly, they can do way better.   How is it important, or even relevant, that the average American understand the Code?  It does not exist for reading entertainment.  You might as well criticize computer code for being hard to read to the average American.   The code does a far better job of accomplishing its purpose than most laws.

Average Americans don't have to rewrite computer code.  They do, on the other hand, have to fill out their taxes.

I understand you're on a higher level of understanding than the rest of the population of this country, but the tax code is literally not understandable to people without significant education in regard to it.  Complicated things in general are not efficient, and the fact that it has actually created an industry says more than enough for its complication.