(04-06-2016 01:54 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 11:56 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Good for Ford.

Why don't you go with them.

Cute.

I don't blame Ford for going to a place where business is cheaper.

VW makes the Jetta in Mexico. From what I understand (heresey) they build three separate Jettas: one for the Mexico market, one for the USA market, and one for the Canadian market. Each is slightly different because of government regulations.

None of the versions of what are essentially the same car are legally permitted to be permanently imported to the other countries. Mexico cars have slightly more poor safety guidelines, Canada cars have different lighting requirements and are in KPH and kilometers, and USA cars are right in the middle.

Thanks, governments.

(04-06-2016 10:00 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 08:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Those were jobs that were going somewhere offshore in any event. NAFTA means they go to Mexico instead of somewhere else.
As long as our tax and regulatory policies put US companies at a disadvantage in global markets, what do you expect those companies to do?

Is it really our tax and regulatory policies or is it just that other countries have cheap labor?

We lose some jobs to other countries because of cheap labor, and some jobs to other countries because of our tax and regulatory policies. We could live with the former if it were not for the latter. The jobs that go for $2/day in countries with cheap labor would be minimum wage jobs of they stayed here. We're not going to build a middle class sewing up Nikes.

We lose far more jobs, and in particular good jobs, to countries with comparable labor costs than we do to countries with cheap labor.

Every time a new plant opens in Germany or Japan, or a host of other developed countries, those are jobs we lost to countries with comparable labor costs. Those are jobs that could have been here if we had different tax and regulatory policies.

(04-06-2016 09:25 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 08:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Those were jobs that were going somewhere offshore in any event. NAFTA means they go to Mexico instead of somewhere else.
As long as our tax and regulatory policies put US companies at a disadvantage in global markets, what do you expect those companies to do?

Just a quick question -- I saw something yesterday that said corporate after tax profits are still at record levels. How does that make them at a disadvantage? How much do they need to earn?
Sorry, more than one question.

How and why is their profitability relevant to the question of whether US tax and regulatory policies place them at a disadvantage? What difference does it make how much they "need" to earn?

They cope with that disadvantage by moving operations overseas to be taxed at lower overseas rates. Is that what we want?

To give you an idea, I'm working on a paper where one step we took was to look at effective tax rates for the 30 companies that make up the Dow-Jones Industrials. They paid an average effective tax rate of 27% in 2015. That is 8% less than the statutory 35% rate. How much of that difference was attributable to cheaper foreign tax rates? The entire 8%. Everything else was pretty much a wash.

(04-06-2016 06:47 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 01:54 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 11:56 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Good for Ford.

Why don't you go with them.

Cute.

I don't blame Ford for going to a place where business is cheaper.

I don't blame our gov't for penalizing the cars they try to sell here.

(04-06-2016 07:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 09:25 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 08:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Those were jobs that were going somewhere offshore in any event. NAFTA means they go to Mexico instead of somewhere else.
As long as our tax and regulatory policies put US companies at a disadvantage in global markets, what do you expect those companies to do?

Just a quick question -- I saw something yesterday that said corporate after tax profits are still at record levels. How does that make them at a disadvantage? How much do they need to earn?
Sorry, more than one question.

How is their profitability relevant to the question of whether US tax and regulatory policies place them at a disadvantage? And why is it relevant? What difference does it make how much they "need" to earn?

They cope with that disadvantage by moving operations overseas to be taxed at lower overseas rates. Is that what we want?

To give you an idea, I'm working on a paper where one step we took was to look at effective tax rates for the 30 companies that make up the Dow-Jones Industrials. They paid an average effective tax rate of 27% in 2015. That is 8% less than the statutory 35% rate. How much of that difference was attributable to cheaper foreign tax rates? The entire 8%. Everything else was pretty much a wash.

too many laws and 'why' the best bean counters are still employed....

is why I left corp 'murica....

this roller coaster only acknowledges gravity....