Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > victorylee0516 > Shy Asian Girl |
|
Obama's 'Patriot' Act 請評論. 謝謝. Obama's 'Patriot' Act February 27, 2008; Page A16 Wall Street Journal No, we're not talking about Barack Obama's opposition to the post-9/11 antiterror law. We're referring to the Senator's support for something called the Patriot Employer Act, which deserves more attention as an indicator of his economic agenda. Along with Democratic co-sponsors Sherrod Brown and Dick Durbin, Mr. Obama introduced the bill in the Senate in August 2007. Recently in Janesville, Wis., he repeated his intention to make it a priority as President: "We will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America." Mr. Obama's proposal would designate certain companies as "patriot employers" and favor them over other, presumably not so patriotic, businesses. The legislation takes four pages to define "patriotic" companies as those that: "pay at least 60 percent of each employee's health care premiums"; have a position of "neutrality in employee [union] organizing drives"; "maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in the United States relative to the number of full-time workers outside of the United States"; pay a salary to each employee "not less than an amount equal to the federal poverty level"; and provide a pension plan. In other words, a patriotic employer is one which fulfills the fondest Big Labor agenda, regardless of the competitive implications. The proposal ignores the marketplace reality that businesses hire a work force they can afford to pay and still make money. Coercing companies into raising wages and benefits above market rates may only lead to fewer workers getting hired in the first place. Under Mr. Obama's plan, "patriot employers" qualify for a 1% tax credit on their profits. To finance this tax break, American companies with subsidiaries abroad would have to pay the U.S. corporate tax on profits earned abroad, rather than the corporate tax of the host country where they are earned. Since the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%, while most of the world has a lower rate, this amounts to a big tax increase on earnings owned abroad. Put another way, U.S. companies would suddenly have to pay a higher tax rate than their Chinese, Japanese and European competitors. According to research by Peter Merrill, an international tax expert at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, this change would "raise the cost of capital of U.S. multinationals and cause them to lose market share to foreign rivals." Apparently Mr. Obama believes that by making U.S. companies less profitable and less competitive world-wide, they will somehow be able to create more jobs in America. He has it backwards: The offshore activities of U.S. companies tend to increase rather than reduce domestic business. A 2005 National Bureau of Economic Research study by economists from Harvard and the University of Michigan found that more foreign investment by U.S. companies leads to greater domestic investment, and that U.S. firms' hiring of more offshore workers is positively, not negatively, associated with the number of American workers they hire. That's in part because often what is produced overseas by subsidiaries are component parts to final, higher-value-added products manufactured here. Mr. Obama is also proposing to raise tax rates on affluent individuals, as well as on capital gains and dividends. This would also lead to more capital and jobs leaving the U.S. The after-tax return on U.S. investment would fall appreciably if these tax hikes were adopted, and no amount of tax-credit subsidy will keep capital from fleeing to lower tax jurisdictions. If the U.S. didn't impose the second highest corporate income tax rate in the world, companies would have less incentive to move jobs overseas. Rather than giving politically correct companies a 1% tax credit, it makes more sense to reduce the U.S. corporate tax rate for everyone -- by at least 10 percentage points to the global average. Economists have long understood that companies don't really pay taxes; they merely collect them. A study by the American Enterprise Institute has shown that U.S. workers bear the cost of the corporate income tax in lower wages and salaries. To borrow Mr. Obama's language, what's really unpatriotic is the 35% U.S. corporate tax rate. |
|||
2/28/2008 6:42 am |
I love the outourcing angle. my hugest gripe with US government policy is immigration related. instead of trying to have the US succeed by attracting and keeping the best and the brightest in the world, we increasingly want to keep people out. so bright hardworking people come here for uni or grad school, and then instead of giving them a green card or visa to stay here and work or start a company here, we send them home. so, to take advantage of their talents, we need to outsource or import. Then we complain about that. Duh. And then for poorer/less educated immigrants, who want to come here and work hard for limited money, well thats bad too - i mean what could be better for the economy than a growing pool of hardworking low cost workers? Instead, we can pay higher prices for the same thing, or again turn to imports. 2nd dumbest government policy - agitating for exchange rate change with China. Great plan - we will never be cost competitive anyway, so lets keep buying just as much stuff, but pay more for it. What a great solution. Sounds like Obama won't be the solution. Why use common sense, when we can construct complex policies that no one can understand, have unanticipated negative effects, and keep the full employment act for lawyers rolling.
| ||
|
世界在变,潮流在变,人心在变,改朝“Q代,在所难免! 替天行道
| ||
2/27/2008 10:17 am |
you don`t look shy at all. I might be bold in my statments but I'm really a shy Asian girl in real life. VICKY
| ||
2/27/2008 10:15 am |
The San Francisco City requirement for us to pay more in health benefits, as well as lack of security where we had our business is what forced us out of San Francisco. We used to have over 200 people working for us in San Francisco but now only have the design staff in California, and the sales staff in USA. Rest of the operations are in China and will move soon to Vietnam. The business of business is to make money, not provide welfare for our workers. Our workers are paid well compared to the same work done in other companies. It's the "extras" we are forced to pay that that we cannot afffort since if we have to pass on the "extras" to the customer then they will not buy our products. Yes, we are well aware of the Fairtax and support it. VICKY
| ||
2/27/2008 5:30 am |
oh and I agree you do not look shy at all.
| ||
2/27/2008 5:29 am |
I have found that those that support the Democrat agenda do so from the heart. Your sound logic will go without consideration. The process of making policy decisions from the heart is much more compelling in thier minds than any logic you can present to move them into a different position. Keep up the good work.
| ||
2/27/2008 3:53 am |
you don`t look shy at all.
|
