The battle at the margin is about wealth taxes and families

President Barack Obama will propose raising $238bn by levying a one-off tax on the cash piles held by US companies overseas to repair the US’s crumbling roads and bridges.

The measure, a key plank of the president’s budget to be outlined on Monday, would impose a 14 per cent “transition” tax on the estimated $2tn in earnings US companies have amassed overseas, the White House said on Sunday.

The FT story is here, Vox is here.  Part of the plan also involves replacing the 35 percent rate — which many large corporations avoid — with a 19 percent flat rate which would apply to foreign earnings as well.

And what might these taxes eventually go to pay for?  Matt Yglesias reports:

…there’s an emerging Democratic consensus over what’s next — children and family policy. There are a few different threads to this, including early childhood education, special tax benefits for working moms, child care subsidies, and paid sick leave and maternity leave.

Comments

"Early Childhood Education"

So what are schools suppose to teach these kids at age 4 that they are not learning the other 13 years plus 4 recommended years that they have them?

I guess you've not been near an elementary school in a long time.

Most schools around here are teaching kindergarteners the letters, and to count to 10. The private schools? We know the parents have already taught all of that stuff to their kids, so the kids are working on reading. You'll be hard pressed to find a kid in a good school that starts K without knowing at least some words. Some can read, add, and count into the millions.

So early education, if nothing else, could help balance out this major differences.

Yes it's so unfair some people have better parents. Society must even that out. We must have a Brave New World.

Sick broken socialist thieves.

I don't see anything too heinous about trying to help those children that don't have very involved or intelligent parents.

If the not-very-involved and unintelligent are having kids and trying to lateral them to the taxpayer, then the taxpayer is justified in asking why it is his or her responsibility to provide for the education of other peoples' children.

I understand that, but it's also not the child's fault that it's been born to bad parents. If you buy into public education at all, then I don't see why you wouldn't buy into high-quality early childhood programs.

Because it costs me money that I'd rather spend on paying for my kids' education, that's why.

How has 'helping' bad parents worked so far?

Any evidence that subsidizing failure has done anything other than produce more failure?

If it worked, I'd be perfectly happy to pay for universal pre-K. If it worked.

Yes, obviously proof of efficacy is needed.

Because it costs me money that I’d rather spend on incarcerating their parents, that’s why.

If the government can confiscate money to pay for the education of kids with bad parents why can't they just confiscate the kids and put them in high quality orphanages?

I am trying to figure out the reasoning behind the "don't help the poor" arguments. Do we think helping poor people is an incentive to be poor? I have a hard time believing that because the idea is so far from my way of thinking. Since I want to be rich the incentives for the poor are irrelevant. Also since I do not want to interact with the poor it seems like the easiest way to avoid them is to give them money to stay away from me. My view of aid to the poor is it will help the ones who are motivated to more quickly become useful members of society. And it will keep the unmotivated ones away from me.

Why should I? They are not my kids. Hopefully Darwin will roll along and they won't reproduce as much.

That's a pretty nasty comment. You don't feel for people with bad parents? Just screw'em I guess?

Obviously subsidizing the production and maintenance of children with bad parents is going to lower the number of children with bad parents.

Are you being sarcastic or not? Because it actually probably will lower the number of kids with bad parents. Because these kids will be less likely to grow up to be bad parents themselves.

No, it won't. It's a government-funded babysitting service, nothing more or less.

Yes, exactly. Screw 'em.

You are deeply, deeply confused.

1. The basis of libertarianism is voluntary consent. Being born into a poor family involves neither.

2. RE 'Brave New World': Slippery slope. Try again.

3. RE: 'Socialist theives'. Taxation cannot be theft if you agree to pay it.

I do not get to choose what I can and cannot be taxed on. Due to a 'majority rules' policy, I end up getting taxed for programs that I never agreed to pay for.

It's Harrison Bergeron, not Brave New World, you philistine!

Great idea. But it will end up being a very expensive day care service for the middle class. The young born into dysfunctional families will continue to do poorly.

Plenty of successful people have/had dysfunctional families

The plural of anecdote is not data.

"You’ll be hard pressed to find a kid in a good school that starts K without knowing at least some words. Some can read, add, and count into the millions."

You know low income earners might find that statement insulting.

It's not really about "education". That's just the cover. The point is to socialize more of basic child-rearing activities. The point is to take taxpayer money and warm bodies to watch other people's kids.

Here's a good synopsis of the current Leftwing point of view:

MSNBC host - Melissa Harris-Perry:

"We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we have this private notion of children. 'Your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility.' We haven't had a very collective notion of 'these are our children.' So part of it is to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.

"Once it's everybody's responsibility, and not just the household's, then we start making better investments." \

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/08/is-this-the-creepiest-show-promo-msnbc-h

If the kid belongs to the 'community', then I should get some say in how that child is raised, what it is taught, fed, bathed, etc.

Most of the evidence has found that in the long run early childhood education has little in the way of positive effects. The things that are taught in preschool and kindergarten will be eventually learned by even the dimmest of children, and the "head start" quickly wears off. Personally, I don't see it as very "irresponsible" for working class parents to leave education to the schools, no real harm has been showed by it.

As Bob said, this isn't really about "education." It's about Jobs for the Boys and Girls and free daycare for poor people and NAMs, to encourage more child rearing.

$238 B sounds like not that much money; the education funding seems like a waste. Remember the "Poll Tax" which felled the Thatcher government was also supposed to be one-off and it was extremely unpopular, though I don't see shareholders rioting in the streets due to this proposed law.

Wrong as usual. The poll tax was not supposed to be a one-off, but a permanent replacement for local property taxes.
Stick to your areas of expertise.

Hookers and chess!

Yo AB, you're right, I should have checked Wikipedia.

Reduce the incentive to be a tax cheat, but don't reward tax cheaters. Seems like a reasonable solution. Of course, those who wish to starve the beast will accept nothing less than nothing (i.e., a zero rate of tax). What's often overlooked is that if Apple can evade US tax, somebody else's taxes must go up - that somebody being you (or me); when Republicans greet Apple executives as heroes for evading US tax, they are, in effect, voting to increase your taxes. Apple appreciates your generosity.

In a world where the amount of government spending was determined in some non-arbitrary way, the government didn't borrow massive sums every year, and it had no central bank to buy up bonds, you would be right. So, yeah, you're not.

The optimal rate of corporate taxes is zero.

"Reduce the incentive to be a tax cheat, but don’t reward tax cheaters. ... executives as heroes for evading US tax"

This isn't about "tax cheaters". It's ridiculous to claim that a company not voluntarily subjecting itself to a higher tax rate is guilty of "tax evasion".

It seems pretty darn clear that a lot of companies, including Apple, are gaming the tax system and falsely reporting income in tax havens. From an economic point of view those profits are truly earned in the United States or Europe or Japan and should be taxed there. Reforming the tax codes to address transfer pricing schemes is long overdue.

"...including Apple, are gaming the tax system and falsely reporting income in tax havens. "

Do you have a cite for a source that Apple is falsely reporting its income?

I am not saying what they are doing is necessarily illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-12/cash-abroad-rises-206-billion-as-apple-to-ibm-avoid-tax

"U.S. multinational companies reported earning 43 percent of their 2008 overseas profits in Bermuda, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland, more than five times the share of workers and investment they have in those jurisdictions, according to a 2013 Congressional Research Service report."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/business/apple-avoided-billions-in-taxes-congressional-panel-says.html?pagewanted=all

"I am not saying what they are doing is necessarily illegal."

Gotcha. You are saying what they are doing isn't illegal but it ought to be. Yeah, I empathize with you. But there is that whole Democracy & Law thing keeping us from sticking it to the other people. Maybe President Obama can just ignore the Democracy & Law aspects and just issue an executive order or something.

"Gotcha. You are saying what they are doing isn’t illegal but it ought to be."

How is that a gotcha? I don't know if there is anything technically illegal about what they are doing under the current laws - but it should be illegal. I fully expect that some of the companies that are reporting income in foreign jurisdictions are overstepping the boundaries.

I have every right to say that artificial transactions that move profit from sales in Germany to companies in Ireland should be illegal. There is nothing wrong or undemocratic in taking such a position and it is not an unconstitutional violation of private property.

Whether shifting profit from Germany to Bermuda should be illegal or not, either way it has no impact on US revenue.

"How is that a gotcha?"

I meant that as "I gotcha", as in I understand where you are coming from.

"I have every right to say that artificial transactions that move profit from sales in Germany to companies in Ireland should be illegal."

Yes you have every right to say it, or even lobby for it. But declaring that companies are "falsely reporting income in tax havens" without any evidence makes me think this is more of a mood affiliation than an actual legitimate concern.

I don't think it is mood affiliation. I'm a self made millionaire. I own shares in some of these companies. Rather, it is knowledge that transfer pricing is a real, and difficult, issue and the certain knowledge that when there is an incentive to cheat people will push the boundaries and sometimes cross the boundaries.

I believe some people are cheating because in my experience some people always do.

"I believe some people are cheating because in my experience some people always do."

So, if I said:

"Some people in the Obama administration are lying to Congress. I don't have any proof, but in my experience some people always do."

Would that be a reasonable statement in your mind?

JWatts:

I know that isn't addressed to me, but isn't it pretty obvious that the statement: “Some people in the X administration are lying to Congress. I don’t have any proof, but in my experience some people always do.” is always reasonable, for any value of X?

A one-time tax to finance what would become an ongoing expense if the proponents get their way. Cool!

-dk

I would suggest that fiscal room be found for a much higher Earned Income Tax Credit.

Not much love in those proposals for two-parent single-income families.

Everybody standing in line with their hand out. Did one get missed?

Well they don't vote democratic, so why not some social engineering to shrink the demographic.

Indeed, Obama is targeting the pork towards his own base. No surprise here.

What's to stop companies that don't want to pay the tax from moving somewhere else? Presumably US subsidiaries of e.g. Lenovo pay the US corporate income tax on their operations here, but there's no way USG could make Lenovo itself cough up money for its operations in China. I mean, I have an idea of how this could work, but something tells me that if the US starts using financial-monitoring schemes it set up to Fight Terrorism to tax businesses in other countries those countries (some of whom have "don't pay the US corporate income tax" as substantial parts of their "business model") are suddenly going to find a lot of reasons to stop cooperating.

ivvenailis: Assuming you have foreign operations and are willing to park your IP assets in Ireland or Luxembourg, you don't have to move. Sweet deal. You get US infrastructure, not Chinese, you get research universities nearby and an trained workforce, and you don't have to pay for it. Why move when the deal is so great...moreover, you get to compete against some small business slob down the street who pays the high taxes you don't.

The other part of the story is that EU and other countries are, through the OECD, will be looking into these practices, so building your model on tax minimization without considering real efficiencies, is a short term proposition.

So? Chinese (or whatever) companies get US infrastructure, universities, etc *for their US subsidiaries* but they don't have USG trying to go after money they make in other countries. This proposal is about the US trying to go after money corporations hold in other countries. How? I don't understand either how the IRS is going to differentiate between "Irish company with US subsidiary" and "US company with Irish subsidiary", and if there is a difference, I'd imagine avoiding a 19% tax rate on global profits is going to motivate transnational corporations to get on the right side of that difference real quick. I also don't fully understand, although like I said I have some idea, of how the US is even going to locate and physically obtain money held by Irish or Bermudan companies, in foreign banks, for operations conducted in foreign countries. Like I said, the enforcement plan probably assumes total cooperation between these governments and the IRS. Right now, such cooperation probably exists because of SWIFT and related efforts. But I don't think assuming this cooperation will continue when the US is trying to levy taxes on their territory. I mean, wtf?

USG could refuse to do business with companies that don't cooperate with their global tax scheme. I'm sure for some corporations (e.g. defense contractors) they make more from government contracts than they'd save by avoiding a global corporate tax. But there's no way that's true for everyone, and it's possible that at the margin this could backfire as some contractors either stop doing business with the government on a cost-benefit basis or charge more because they're paying more taxes.

"The other part of the story is that EU and other countries are, through the OECD, will be looking into these practices, so building your model on tax minimization without considering real efficiencies, is a short term proposition."
So? There's a massive incentive for countries to defect from such a cartel scheme. If EU mandates cooperation with the IRS, Ireland can tell them to shove it and continue its current model. What the hell do they get out of allowing the IRS to tax Irish companies? Not to mention that fact that EU/OECD doesn't encompass the entire planet. I'm sure there are plenty of Asian countries that would be willing to take Ireland's place even if Brussels does have compromising pictures of the Irish prime minister or whatever.

Inveeralis: First, you have the wrong premise: these companies do not even pay taxes for the US operations, or sales; look up last years Senate Finance hearings and the Hearings by the Senate Government Oversight Committee.. So, before going further, I suggest you read the Senate Government Oversight hearings and reports by Senators Levin, Coburn and McCain on this subject. Go to Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee and search under the term Multinational tax.

Second, some of the other comments really don't relate to international taxation or corporate subsidiary taxation so I can't respond to them as they are premised on violations of other laws like money laundering.. And, this doesn't have to do with SWIFT, since most multinationals have independent auditors Moreover, some of your other points don't make sense either given that we have tax treaties with other countries.

Where do you get these ideas, Bill? I thought I was at least vaguely familiar with all the parts of the nutosphere.

Careless, Your comment says a lot. I didn't know you considered McCain or Coburn nuts. But, if all you can do is call people names, well, that's all you know.

Bill, there's not much to it. If you think these companies aren't paying tax on their US income, you're nuts, and I'm curious as to where you think you learned that. If McCain or Coburn thinks that, then they're nuts. But more probably, your reading impairment has caused you problems once again.

Careless, Why don't you read the materials from the Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee on US corporate tax rates. ivvenaiis was kind enough to link to them for you to read below. Enjoy.

Bill, I'm quite familiar with the information in those, and they do not say what you suggested they would. They pay taxes. It's right there in the title of the link.

I assume these are what you're talking about, right?

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/levin-coburn-release-gao-report-finding-profitable-us-corporations-pay-an-average-effective-tax-rate-of-126-percent

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/subcommittee-exposes-caterpillar-offshore-profit-shifting

Both of these discuss, without going into details, that multinational corporations use various means to transfer earnings from the US into countries with more favorable tax environments. The Vox article goes into detail, for instance the US branch of a corporation pays as much as possible to license patents held by an Irish or Swiss or whatever branch, greatly reducing its taxable profits without reducing the corporation's global profits, as discussed in the Vox article.

If these tactics are a violation of money laundering laws, why doesn't the federal government file charges? They aren't even trying to pass a law allowing them to tax payments being made to foreign subsidiaries. Instead, unless all of the information posted has been wrong, Obama wants to levy a tax on assets held overseas. I brought up SWIFT because it demonstrates that USG has the capability to monitor financial assets and transactions outside its borders en masse and at will; this is not a trivial capability and I can hardly see why it's irrelevant when USG is trying to levy taxes on assets outside its borders.

Tax treaties: So what? Switzerland charges Caterpillar a 5% corporate income tax, which Caterpillar goes out of its way to pay instead of USG's 35%(!) tax. USG "only" ends up with about 12% of Caterpillar's reported profits, Switzerland gets another 5%, and Caterpillar still ends up paying less than they would by bending over for the IRS. If USG starts trying to tax Caterpillar's Swiss holdings, why on Earth would the Swiss cooperate? If USG manages to kill the advantages of Caterpillar paying money to the Swiss, the Swiss are now getting a lot less money. Again, why would any of the tax shelter countries cooperate? There is no talk in either article about enforcement. How will this work?

Ivven, These are not violations of money laundering laws as I explained before.

Why on earth would anyone trust Obama with more money, when they have not shown any skill in wisely spending the boatloads they have already run through? Governments, federal, state and local, perennially complain that they need more money for infrastructure. Isn't the maintenance of roads, bridges, etc, considered one of the primary functions of government, that we are told cannot be done by private entities?

I recall Obama praising his new SecDef as a person who is not afraid to cancel a weapons program that it is not needed or doesn't work. Recently he indicated that he was changing our policy on Cuba because it had been in place for 50 years and had not worked. Why not the same attitude to massive government waste/failures like Head Start and the war on poverty? There is no process in place to evaluate government programs and kill them when they have not proven to be worth the cost. As Voegeli detailed in his book, Never Enough, liberals always want more for their purposes. The federal government should have its budget reduced instead of increased. Let them learn to do with less.

Buying a fewer F-35s would probably pay for a lot of roads and bridges too.

You know what else would? The already existing transportation budget which is as large as it has ever been.

Perhaps. What does all that money do?

It buys a lot of donuts.

Early education ... because it's never too early to train small humans how to be obedient drones.

It's a one-off tax so I'm assuming the spending will also be one-off and the respective budgets returning to this years levels the following year or is that too hopeful?

I think the battle at the margin is whether corporations should begin paying for infrastructure improvements.

Why should we be building or modernizing ports, improving airports, building stadiums if those that use them are unwilling to pay for them. Let GE pay taxes for roads, for energy projects it supports. Maybe GE should be purchasing wind energy. Let a medical device manufacturer that "goes overseas" by reincorporating in Ireland pay a surtax for medical device research that it benefits from.

Taxes can come in other forms, too. And, maybe some refinery executive should be forced to live downwind from a refinery if they are against abating air pollution; and maybe some water polluter should be required to take a swim downstream from the pulp mill.

We need to look at what is infrastructure and give the bill to those that use it. So, if that heavy bottom truck tears up the road, maybe we need to raise taxes on diesel. God knows the company itself might find a way to avoid paying taxes at all.

So the US has seen a multiple decade offshoring trend and you want to make it even more expensive to locate business in the US?

Brilliant I say. Just brilliant.

derek, Your comment indicates how little you know. I suggest you read the material from the Senate Permanent Investigations committee. When Apple pays zero taxes for foreign transactions, it also is paying zero in the US through transfer pricing. So, why does Apple still stay in California...if you knew about how these schemes work, you would be able to answer that question. By the way, corporate tax reform reduces rates so that if you close these loopholes, rates for domestic firms drop.

Why should we be building or modernizing ports, improving airports, building stadiums if those that use them are unwilling to pay for them -

I don't know. Why are you unwilling to pay for them?

User fees. Why use general revenue?

The funny thing about this whole post, by the way, is how Tyler framed it as taxes for pre-school, etc.

The truth is that the tax changes are being proposed to fund infrastructure: here is a WSJ article on it:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-proposes-one-time-14-tax-on-overseas-earnings-1422802103?tesla=y

You're unwilling to pay them because "user fees"? That does not really make sense.

Careless, If corporate America (Apple, GE, et al) are unwilling to pay users fees or taxes, that is what really doesn't make sense if they use the infrastructure.

I'm all for user fees, but why should government be building stadiums at all? Also seems to me that ports and airports should be privatized. As for things like roads, I think paying a mileage tax or increased use of tolls seems to be the way to go. And mass transit should be self-supporting.

there’s an emerging Democratic consensus over what’s next — children and family policy. There are a few different threads to this, including early childhood education, special tax benefits for working moms, child care subsidies, and paid sick leave and maternity leave.

Consider two Families:

Family A: Man makes $100K per year, wife stays at home with children.

Family B: Husband and wife make $50K each, they hire help for $30K a year (daycare, childcare, housekeeper, whatever)

Strictly speaking, it would appear the case of A would be that the wife's labor is valued at about $30K per year, which the husband is willing to 'pay' since it presumably enables him to make an extra $20K. Granted it is hard to say since we are trying to use the market prices other people pay to apply to family A, but if the wife was able to make much more than $30K then it would make sense for her to do so and spend $30K to hire help.

Yet are these couples treated equally by the tax code? Couple B will no doubt pay payroll taxes on those they hire in house, if they use another business taxes will be figured into the prices they are charged. Yet Family A doesn't have to pay payroll taxes on the hypothetical earnings of $30K the wife is making from her husband. This would seem to lead to an argument that Couple B should get tax deductions and credits to offset their added taxes since there's no pratical way to tax income in A's case.

This 'double taxation' argument sounds much more plausible to me than the arguments made against capital gains taxes or dividends made by Republicans in the past.

Yet are these couples treated equally by the tax code? -

People with much different behaviors are treated differently? Nooooooooo

Indeed but we have a couple of values coming into conflict here. On one hand we have the reality that the nuclear family model (working husband, stay at home mom) is not the norm upon which society can or will be based. It was probably an outlier of the post WWII baby boom. Most families will be working families now and in the future.

On the other hand, we have general demographic concerns over people having fewer children thereby increasing pressure on retirement plans (public and private).

Both of these themes seem to favor the Democratic party which would address both problems by directly supporting parents and immigration which increases the labor supply.

The GOP answer still appears to be a retred of the 80's and 90's....promote rewards to capital owners via tax cuts and assume this will unleash a slew of high paying jobs that will either let couples recreate the 50's and 60's with one income households OR purchase such services in two income ones (think the idealized 80's yuppie power couple). This seems less and less plausible to voters who are not occupying nursing home based housing.

I see this as a good thing.

"Couple B will no doubt pay payroll taxes on those they hire in house"

It is distinctly possible that hiring a nanny directly on a cash under-the-table basis, (rather than through an agency) is the most common way to provide in-house childcare. Do you have reliable data that tells us how many of these in house daycare workers are actually paid through an agency and how many are hired directly? Thanks.

No doubt, but you're not going to be able to pull that off with daycare centers, school programs, services and so on. It seems you are saying a lot of parents already sense the inequality here in the tax code and attempt to compensate by going under the table.

I would phrase it this way: a lot of parents have found a way to pay less in taxes by violating tax law, with little risk of being caught by the IRS.

You mean a bit less in taxes. It is unlikely that many couples in case B achieve the same tax result as A.

President Barack Obama will propose raising $238bn by levying a one-off tax on the cash piles held by US companies overseas to repair the US’s crumbling roads and bridges.

I take it no one employed by the Financial Times does any research nor are any of their American correspondents over the age of 25. "Crumbling infrastructure" is a trope that was already familiar by 1980 if not earlier (John Anderson made an issue of "the.LEAKY.water.mains") and resurfaces every six or seven years if not more frequently. The civil engineers' trade association is great about leveraging local infrastructure failures to advocate federal spending which would induce people to hire them. I also seem to recall something about 'shovel ready projects' a few years back, so maybe the Financial Times is now hiring stringers out of junior high schools.

We have these things called 'state and local governments' which do have taxing authority and receive intergovernmental revenue up the wazoo who are, among other things, responsible for repairing any roads or bridges not on federal landholdings (i.e. nearly all of it). The sources of their revenue are the same productive enterprises and households who serve as revenue sources for the federal government. Maybe the federal pols who insist on putting their sticky fingerprints on everything might just leave the state and local governments to do their jobs.

Of course, as with any Obama proposal, look for the Democratic Party client getting the candy.

Just to address one point: the city of Los Angeles has more than its fair share of crumbling infrastructure, especially streets, roads, and sidewalks.

"For Angelenos waiting for their street to be rebuilt, abandon all hope: There is a 60-year backlog of failed streets — meaning residents might not see them fixed in their lifetimes."

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/04/local/la-me-pavement-20130505

This is not to say that LA is free of responsibility for its own streets, but I doubt that even hard-core, deficit-hawk Republicans in Los Angeles (if there are any) would object if the federal government came in and repaved them all.

They've been laying a replacement for William Mulholland's 100 year old water main near my house for about 8 years now. That's several times longer than it took Mulholland to get it done using mules and pickaxes.

…there’s an emerging Democratic consensus over what’s next — children and family policy. There are a few different threads to this, including early childhood education, special tax benefits for working moms, child care subsidies, and paid sick leave and maternity leave.

Trashy single mothers: another Democratic Party client.

The GOP, just 4 or 5 years away from making peace with the Mary Taylor Moore show! But for those who want action today, they are totally onboard with that new color television technology.

What is so 'progressive' about single motherhood? It's a pretty significant marker for social pathology.

Most them go around spouting that 'God has a plan for me'.

Some of these "wealth taxes" aren't wealth taxes at all! They're taxes on good savers. People who are serial bankruptcy-declarers, who take on more debt than they can possibly pay back, and who saved nothing are given aid, while people who may have earned the same amount but saved diligently and lived frugally are being punished. This is disgusting and immoral. (So is President Obama.)

I know the real reason for the "children and family policies," to encourage more child-rearing among the poor and the NAMs. But I don't see that the corporations are much more honest.

The corporations and their republican boosters argue that they should be able to bring that capital back into the country so that it benefits America's economy. But how did the money get out of the country in the first place? Seems like making it easier to send capital out of the country would lead to more capital being sent out of the country in the long rum. A businessman investing X$ in an American investment for Y rate of return benefits the country more than an identical investment for an identical return in a foreign country. Our system should be biased against investment in foreign countries because investment in America brings a greater benefit to Americans. But benefiting Americans has never been a priority among corporatists. It's also "strange" that many of the most ardent supporters of "free trade" with countries like China are also neocons who tell us countries like China are our rivals.

"investment in America brings a greater benefit to Americans"

The purpose of investment, for most investors, is to bring greater benefits to that investor. Any ancillary benefit to others is coincidental, although a successful investment is usually beneficial to some. If government tax policy makes foreign investment more beneficial to the investor than domestic investment wouldn't it be more sensible for the government to change its tax policies to make it more competitive? Is it more important to exact maximum tax receipts from corporations than to allow corporate shareholders to enjoy the benefits of their ownership? And don't the shareholders pay taxes themselves?

President Barack Obama will propose raising $238bn by levying a one-off tax on the cash piles held by US companies overseas to repair the US’s crumbling roads and bridges.
The roads and bridges could be better but are not crumbling.

I'm quite sure there's some percentage of our roads and bridges that is actually crumbling.

No doubt Margin plays a massive role in success or loss especially when we talk about beginners but at the same time we must be very much careful with not trying to get greedy with using of margin or else it can means serious complications. I am trading with the best broker OctaFX, it gives an almost perfect condition that goes with low spread of just 0.2 pips, high leverage up to 1.500 and lastly the margin level is excellent which is 25% and also stop out level of just 15%.

Comments for this post are closed