Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bucco
I am going to ask some stupid questions here so keep your snickers and giggles to yourself but I am not sufficiently informed onthis stuff...so here goes...
1. Corporations that do not pay income taxes need to have "deductions" or credits to make that happen, and in most cases those deductions and/or credits have been allowed because they,on the surface, are good for the country(economy, etc). IS THIS TRUE ?
2. If it is true, the report does not delve into that. Does that not make the report a bit skewed ?
While I generally agree with most comments by STEVEZ and VILLAGE KAHUNA, I find it (the report) to be too much "black and white".
Thanks to whomever takes the time to educate me  |
A while back I worked for a Swiss company. The company wanted to place a manufacturing operation in the U.S., but got hung up with the government on two issues: 1) paying duty on subsystems manufactured outside the US, but which would be integrated into the final product; and 2) efficiently moving a number of foreign engineers who were integral to the development of the product and establishment of the manufacturing criteria (the visa system was too cumbersome timewise for business reality).
Despite considerable negotiation and concessions (by the company), the final decision was to place the operation in Canada (NAFTA being a consideration).
The end result is the product (with a North American initla market, and later a world market) manufacture ended up on Canadian soil because that government was open to the investment, job creation, and long-term tax benefits to the region.
Until we stop looking at corporations as monsters, but in fact are the catalyst for regional growth, stability and economic dynamics, we are destined for more movement of decent-paying jobs from U.S. soil.