# Burger King joins a long list of companies



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Already in Galt's Gulch

McDermott International
Helen of Troy
Triton Energy
Chicago Bridge & Iron (CBI)
Tyco International
Santa Fe International
Fruit of the Loom
Gold Reserve
Playstar Corp.
Transocean
White Mountain Insurance
Xoma Corp.
PXRE Group
Trenwick Group
Applied Power
Everest Reinsurance
Seagate Technology
R&B Falcon
Global Santa Fe Corp.
Foster Wheeler
Accenture
Global Marine
Noble Corp.
Cooper Industries
Nabor Industries
Weatherford International
Ingersoll-Rand
PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting
Herbalife International
Luna Gold Corp
Lincoln Gold Group
Western Goldfields
Star Maritime Acquisition Grp
Argonaut Group
Fluid Media Networks
Tyco Electronics
Foster Wheeler
Covidien
Patch International Inc
Arcade Acquisition Group
Energy Infrastructure Acquisition Group
Ascend Acquisition Group
ENSCO International
Tim Hortons Inc
Hungarian Telephone & Cable Corp.
Alpha Security Group
Alyst Acquisition Group
2020 ChinaCap Acquirco
Ideation Acquisition Grp
InterAmerican Acquisition Grp
Vantage Energy Services
Plastinum Polymer Tech Corp.
Valient Biovail
Pride International
Global Indemnity
Alkermes, Inc.
TE Connectivity
Pentair
Rowan Companies
AON
Tronox Inc
Jazz Pharmaceuticals / Azur Pharma
D.E. Master Blenders
Stratasys
Eaton/Cooper
Endo Health Solutions
Liberty Global PLC
Actavis / Warner Chilcott
Perrigo/Elan
Cadence Pharmaceuticals
Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals
Chiquita Brands
Medtronic


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Not an exhaustive list but it shows the companies that relocated their headquarters overseas to lower their tax rate.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Not an exhaustive list but it shows the companies that relocated their headquarters overseas to lower their tax rate.


 Thanks for the list, now I know which companies to never support. What a bunch of ungrateful selfish people. They want all the good stuff America has to offer, all the protections of the best military and justice systems in the world,world class infrastructure, yet don't want to pay for it. Yep, have fun in Galt Gulch, i do hope it comes back to bite ya in the behind.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Thanks for the list, now I know which companies to never support. What a bunch of ungrateful selfish people. They want all the good stuff America has to offer, all the protections of the best military and justice systems in the world,world class infrastructure, yet don't want to pay for it. Yep, have fun in Galt Gulch, i do hope it comes back to bite ya in the behind.


Just go on and ignore that the good ole USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Just go on and ignore that the good ole USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.


 Yeah, those ballistic missile submarines and aircraft carriers aren't going to buy themselves.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Just go on and ignore that the good ole USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.


Don't even suggest cutting taxes because it drives liberals crazy. Burger King will still pay US taxes on its US profits. Seems perfectly fair to me. Why should they pay high US taxes on profits earned overseas when the US government has absolutely nothing to do with helping them earn those profits? Who in their right mind would pay 35% taxes when they can only pay 15% in Canada? The simple answer is, our tax rate is too high. Our monstrous US government is sucking up every last nickel it can from any source and still running massive deficits. That alone tells you all you need to know.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Yeah, those ballistic missile submarines and aircraft carriers aren't going to buy themselves.


Don't worry, you still get to contribute your fair share...


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Yeah, those ballistic missile submarines and aircraft carriers aren't going to buy themselves.


Yep, they are expensive. But, ya know what? Defending the country is the primary constitutional role of the federal government. Perhaps if the feds would get their nose out of scores of things that should be state issues, they wouldn't need so much income.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Thanks for the list, now I know which companies to never support. What a bunch of ungrateful selfish people. They want all the good stuff America has to offer, all the protections of the best military and justice systems in the world,world class infrastructure, yet don't want to pay for it. Yep, have fun in Galt Gulch, i do hope it comes back to bite ya in the behind.


Hey Greg - you can pay 35% corporate tax then 25% state tax on top of that for crap this administration is doing to the greatest nation in the world. 

This is the same reason companies are moving out of NY & Calif. Liberal states want to tax companies 'till they bleed to give the money to the unwashed undeserved. And let me tell ya' it's all in the name of politics.
If you understood economics, you'd realize that companies - especially the smaller ones - are being taxed to death. That's why they go outside the US. 

BTW:The US no longer has the best in everything - go look up your own statistics from school ranking to whatever.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes more and more companies will be doing just that. Until the US gets to be a tax haven instead of a high tax country we see this happening more and more. 
We need The FairTax that not only gets rid of there IRS but does away with the 16th amendment and the biggest gain of all it gets rid of Corporate taxes once and for all.~


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Unkle has it all backwards, and the rich still aren't happy.. . Unkle keeps stealing from the little guys, and gives it back to the big guys... Did Robinhood have an ugly step sister? 

Anyway, I don't blame BK.. I'd do the same if I could afford to... I'm tired of paying for things I"m not interested in receiving.. like a "safe" place to live...


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I don't think anybody would be against a tax rate reduction, not just for Corporate America but for everybody. But you have to get the government to slow down the runaway spending long enough. Good luck with that!

And, to some degree, you get what you pay for. These corporations became 900 pound gorillas in America, the whole time paying the going rate for taxes. If they were little startups on the beaches of the Caiman Islands, how far would they have gotten?? Now, they go looking for a tax shelter, but why didn't they cut and run when they were still on the way up? So, there has to be more to it than taxes. Don't give away the store on some knee jerk reaction.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> I don't think anybody would be against a tax rate reduction, not just for Corporate America but for everybody. But you have to get the government to slow down the runaway spending long enough. Good luck with that!
> 
> And, to some degree, you get what you pay for. These corporations became 900 pound gorillas in America, the whole time paying the going rate for taxes. If they were little startups on the beaches of the Caiman Islands, how far would they have gotten?? Now, they go looking for a tax shelter, but why didn't they cut and run when they were still on the way up? So, there *has to be more to it than taxes.* Don't give away the store on some knee jerk reaction.


Believe me, its taxes..


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Wolf mom said:


> Hey Greg - you can pay 35% corporate tax then 25% state tax on top of that for crap this administration is doing to the greatest nation in the world.
> 
> This is the same reason companies are moving out of NY & Calif. Liberal states want to tax companies 'till they bleed to give the money to the unwashed undeserved. And let me tell ya' it's all in the name of politics.
> If you understood economics, you'd realize that companies - especially the smaller ones - are being taxed to death. That's why they go outside the US.
> ...


That's why I moved my main manufacturing plant to Arizona! !! California is unquestionably the worst state to do business in!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Obama's buddy Buffet is the money man behind this merger....3 billion he's putting up. Kinda threw this administration under the bus!!!! Good for him!! ound:


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

greg273 said:


> Thanks for the list, now I know which companies to never support. What a bunch of ungrateful selfish people. They want all the good stuff America has to offer, all the protections of the best military and justice systems in the world,world class infrastructure, yet don't want to pay for it. Yep, have fun in Galt Gulch, i do hope it comes back to bite ya in the behind.


They still pay taxes on goods and services sold here. Emotional argument. Not a completely weak argument, though.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I feel like a Whooper is on the menu for tomorrows lunch. Yes thats the ticket.


----------



## hawgsquatch (May 11, 2014)

greg273 said:


> Thanks for the list, now I know which companies to never support. What a bunch of ungrateful selfish people. They want all the good stuff America has to offer, all the protections of the best military and justice systems in the world,world class infrastructure, yet don't want to pay for it. Yep, have fun in Galt Gulch, i do hope it comes back to bite ya in the behind.


The good stuff America has to offer? High taxes, frivolous litigation, over regulation and competing with the welfare state for a workforce. Hmmmmm yeah really bad idea for these companies to try and stay in business. You are right, they should just stay and go bankrupt. Better yet they could move their corporate headquarters to Detroit.


----------



## wally (Oct 9, 2007)

I can not think of a single company or organization that has been started not to make a return on investment. The same principle is true of the sole owner or a member of senior management of a large corp. Burger King is not a non profit company and its profits provide income to your and my investment portfolio. (401K and mutual funds). Yes I expect them to profit driven


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

greg273 said:


> Yeah, those ballistic missile submarines and aircraft carriers aren't going to buy themselves.



So you don't support the Dems, like Feinstein who resigned her Chair from MILCON when they found out that her husband's companies were awarded BILLIONS of dollars in DOD contracts. 
YUP those pesky anti war Dems who enrich themselves with Taxpayers dollars from Department of Defense Contracts creating and supplying the war machine... 

Typical hypocrisy of the left..Claim to be all anti war / anti war machine, but then put people into office that get rich from supplying the war machine with it's weapons..

Funny how that works and how gullible some truly are....


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I'm not much on fast food but think next time I get some I'll try a whopper


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

beowoulf90 said:


> So you don't support the Dems, like Feinstein who resigned her Chair from MILCON when they found out that her husband's companies were awarded BILLIONS of dollars in DOD contracts.
> YUP those pesky anti war Dems who enrich themselves with Taxpayers dollars from Department of Defense Contracts creating and supplying the war machine...
> 
> Typical hypocrisy of the left..Claim to be all anti war / anti war machine, but then put people into office that get rich from supplying the war machine with it's weapons..
> ...


I did not know she was married to Dick Cheney or are you saying deep blue Democrats profit from the war machine. I thought Dems were against both war and profit. I'm so confused.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I'm curious as to the source of the list. AFAIK, Tim Horton's has always been a Canadian country. And Fruit of the Loom remains HQ'ed in KY. 

Just a couple that jumped out at me. I don't have time to do an exhaustive search.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I did not know she was married to Dick Cheney or are you saying deep blue Democrats profit from the war machine. I thought Dems were against both war and profit. I'm so confused.



I'm clearly stating that deep blue dems are liars and are only anti war machine only if they can't profit from it..

Dem politicians will lie to their supporters while doing just that opposite of what they say..

Yet their supporters continue to back them even when the truth is shown..

So it shows the hypocrisy of their supporters as well...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> I'm curious as to the source of the list. AFAIK, Tim Horton's has always been a Canadian country. And Fruit of the Loom remains HQ'ed in KY.
> 
> Just a couple that jumped out at me. I don't have time to do an exhaustive search.


 
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/pa...mpanies-that-have-incorporated-overseas/1238/

From Tim's Website - 
Is Tim Hortons a U.S. company?
Tim Hortons is no longer owned by Wendy's and is a stand-alone public company trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange. Tim Hortons corporate head office is in Oakville, Ontario, Canada.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I did hear on Good Morning America that the Burger King main office will still be in Miami and pay American taxes.

Might be worth investigating further.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Using Congressional Budget Office&#8217;s (CBO&#8217;s) definition of income, in 2010 Buffett had a comprehensive income of close to $12 billion yet reported paying taxes of a little less than $7 million on reported adjusted gross income of a smidgeon under $40 million. *His effective tax rate was *_*a tiny fraction of 1%* _($7 million divided by $12 billion = 0.0006) versus the 17.4% he claims to have paid ($7 million divided by $40 million).

http://spectator.org/articles/60317/warren-buffett-uncle-sam-drop-dead
​


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

Am I missing something here? 
From what I have gathered, Burger King is buying out Tim Horton's and the plan was to move the main office to Canada. Your local Burger King will still be selling you food, they will continue to pay taxes to the local, state, and federal governments. But they will pay less taxes to the federal government.
And the problem is? :shrug:
Burger King is a company that is driven by profits (as ALL companys are). If they can save money, why shouldn't they do it?
Kind of like if you were going to vacation in Canada. You call your local travel agent and they give you a price of $300.00 / night for the hotel. You call the hotel direct in Canada - and you can get the same room for $175.00 / night. Who are you going to make the reservation with?

And I do understand that the Fed government needs tax money to provide the services they do. But do they have to provide millions of $'s to other countries?
But don't worry, if the loss of tax money from Burger King affects the government, they will just raise our taxes even more to cover it. And some here should be willing to hand their whole paycheck over to the government for the services they provide you to keep you safe.

I always thought a company was in business to make money. If they can make even more money (by paying less in taxes) and reward their shareholders, why shouldn't they? :shrug:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Michael W. Smith said:


> Am I missing something here?
> From what I have gathered, Burger King is buying out Tim Horton's and the plan was to move the main office to Canada. Your local Burger King will still be selling you food, they will continue to pay taxes to the local, state, and federal governments. But they will pay less taxes to the federal government.
> And the problem is? :shrug:
> Burger King is a company that is driven by profits (as ALL companys are). If they can save money, why shouldn't they do it?
> ...


Where's TG. POTD!!!:bow:


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

So everyone is ok with this, but not ok when companies outsource labor to other countries? After all, it's all about profit.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MDKatie said:


> So everyone is ok with this, but not ok when companies outsource labor to other countries? After all, it's all about profit.


Both are natural reactions to business conditions. 

I don't LIKE either of them.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

HDRider said:


>



It seems that few have caught the link between your picture and the topic..

That or they will ignore the facts again.. 

It seems their poster child is the one facilitating this Burger King / Horton deal.. That and he already owns companies the aren't paying their "fair share" (used loosely) in taxes and are facing criminal charges..

But as I said before; The facts don't matter to dem supporters, only what they say matters, even though it is a lie..


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Thanks for the list, now I know which companies to never support. What a bunch of ungrateful selfish people. They want all the good stuff America has to offer, all the protections of the best military and justice systems in the world,world class infrastructure, yet don't want to pay for it. Yep, have fun in Galt Gulch, i do hope it comes back to bite ya in the behind.


First off they still pay taxes on money earned in the US therefore.

Second its not all those cost they don't like paying. Its being forced to buy food, housing, phone, gas, et al for people who do nothing but suck on the government teat and vote for the guy who says he'll give them even more.

Third, don't worry about it. In a short while we won't have to worry about it because there's no way the US government can continue borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. Once it runs out of lenders and loses the ability to pay for 45+% of the stuff it is now it will fall apart.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I have been boycotting Burger King because their French fries are horrible.

Perhaps they'll get some tips on making better ones from some of those folks in Quebec.

Then, I might be able to start boycotting them because they are tax-dodging weasels.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

They are just making a profit for their share holders, Nothing more nothing less, just trying to their best ability to make a Profit in a down turned economy.
I clapp for them for doing so if I had stock in the company.
Even the company I worked for that had upward of 8600 folks in three states, is now down to around 1K in MN and 500 or less at the plant I worked at in WI. They are now making those tiny computer hard drive parts in Thailand WHERE ALL THE Computer Drive manufacturers are. Well not all in Thailand but in China Japan etc.
Can't blame them one bit as 100% of what they made in the USA were SHIPPED overseas and put in the different HHD Companies.
It is A GLOBAL Market place and these USA companies MUST under ALL Circumstances Make a Profit for their Share Owners. And until the USA Wakes UP and gets more aggressive to either lower the corporate tax rate, or eliminate it all together and make the USA a Tax Haven, this will happen more and more as the Global Market gets tighter and tighter.
Period. End Of Story 
And it is now lunch time and a Whooper is calling my name. LOL


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

It just isn't as simple as some are making it out to be. What I am reading from some, if we dropped the corporate tax rates to zero tomorrow, all our troubles would be over. Well, dream on.

These big companies who are seeking tax havens, how did they get to be big companies? Could they have grown and prospered like they did if they were not in the US in the first place? And isn't it amazing, they paid all that horrible corporate tax rate the whole time they were growing, gobbling up other companies, and becoming the 900 lb gorillas that they are today. But when they run out of fresh ideas for more profits, all of a sudden tax rates are this huge issue and they have to expatriate? Come on, recognize a con game when you see one. Corporate tax rates have been dropping since the 1960s. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf 

I'm not opposed to lower taxes, I think everybody pays too much. But it would be irresponsible to slash taxes without matching cuts in spending, and our current brain trust in Washington doesn't seem to be capable of that. 

Heck yes, the climate for doing business in America has become increasingly more difficult over the years. But that didn't stop Facebook and GoPro and a lot of other newer companies from moving on up to the big leagues.

The leftist position seems to be that corporations are evil because they only exist for profit. So the right, in order to be the opposite of the left, worships big corporations. I believe the smart money lies somewhere in the middle. We need just enough regulation to keep them from desecrating the environment and exploiting workers, no more no less. Then start cutting corporate rates and individual rates equally, with matching spending cuts, and I'm in!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> It just isn't as simple as some are making it out to be. What I am reading from some, if we dropped the corporate tax rates to zero tomorrow, all our troubles would be over. Well, dream on.
> 
> These big companies who are seeking tax havens, how did they get to be big companies? Could they have grown and prospered like they did if they were not in the US in the first place? And isn't it amazing, they paid all that horrible corporate tax rate the whole time they were growing, gobbling up other companies, and becoming the 900 lb gorillas that they are today. But when they run out of fresh ideas for more profits, all of a sudden tax rates are this huge issue and they have to expatriate? Come on, recognize a con game when you see one. Corporate tax rates have been dropping since the 1960s. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf
> 
> ...


Your generalizations are too general.


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

Do you know how many hundreds of companies have moved entire factories from Canada to the US under CUSFTA and now NAFTA? Many because they were given absolute sweetheart deals by US towns or states that we couldn't hope to match? (One that comes to mind got a guarantee of no state or local taxes for 30 years and electrical prices capped at 2000 levels for the same period). The whining over Burger King going the other way is unbelievable.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Aren't Conservatives the one's who push for free-market Capitalism?

Looks like we are getting it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Aren't Conservatives the one's who push for free-market Capitalism?
> 
> Looks like we are getting it.


I may be wrong, but this might be the first time I agreed with you.

That said, I do not know where within the convent of the conservative, a goal or even there a desire to see jobs and whole companies relocate abroad.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I think NAFTA has a lot to do with jobs moving outside the us.

And that was done when Carter was President.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Just go on and ignore that the good ole USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.


So, should we have the lowest corporate tax rate in the world?

Seems even if the U.S. rate was 10% and it was 8% somewhere else, why wouldn't these Corporations move anyway?

Many on the list are already international corporations.

Looks like they do just that.



> In October 2002, shareholders voted to move the company's incorporation to Bermuda to capitalize on the savings on U.S. corporate income taxes on products sold overseas. Moving the company on paper cost only US$27,000 per year with a tax savings estimated at US$40 million.[_citation needed_] Ingersoll Rand announced in March 2009 its intention to relocate its offices from Bermuda to Ireland, a decision which shareholders approved in a vote.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingersoll_Rand#Corporate_affairs


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Aren't Conservatives the one's who push for free-market Capitalism?
> 
> Looks like we are getting it.


You may be right. I'm one of those conservatives and I have no problem with it at all. As in the rest of the economy, let government compete for those businesses. Our government does not want to compete, they just want to take.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> I may be wrong, but this might be the first time I agreed with you.
> 
> That said, I do not know where within the convent of the conservative, a goal or even there a desire to see jobs and whole companies relocate abroad.


I don't like seeing them go either, but it is the reality of the global world, we are forced to live in.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

poppy said:


> You may be right. I'm one of those conservatives and I have no problem with it at all. As in the rest of the economy, let government compete for those businesses. Our government does not want to compete, they just want to take.


The problem is tax revenue.

The Government needs it, they are going to get it and If the government cannot get it from Corporations, they are going to get it from you and I.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> The problem is tax revenue..


NO it is NOT a TAX Revenue Problem it IS however a Spending Problem. Simple as that. WAAY too much money going to worthless causes, and not managed at all on the Home Front. Washington DC.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> So, should we have the lowest corporate tax rate in the world?
> 
> Seems even if the U.S. rate was 10% and it was 8% somewhere else, why wouldn't these Corporations move anyway?
> 
> ...


Yes..

And change things so Buffett and like are taxed in line with rates of the middle class.

The list goes back to 1990ish.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> NO it is NOT a TAX Revenue Problem it IS however a Spending Problem. Simple as that. WAAY too much money going to worthless causes, and not managed at all on the Home Front. Washington DC.


I'd say it's both.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> NO it is NOT a TAX Revenue Problem it IS however a Spending Problem. Simple as that. WAAY too much money going to worthless causes, and not managed at all on the Home Front. Washington DC.


If the Government runs low on money, they are not going to cut spending accordingly.

That just a fact of the world we live in.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> It just isn't as simple as some are making it out to be. What I am reading from some, if we dropped the corporate tax rates to zero tomorrow, all our troubles would be over. Well, dream on.
> 
> These big companies who are seeking tax havens, how did they get to be big companies? Could they have grown and prospered like they did if they were not in the US in the first place? And isn't it amazing, they paid all that horrible corporate tax rate the whole time they were growing, gobbling up other companies, and becoming the 900 lb gorillas that they are today. But when they run out of fresh ideas for more profits, all of a sudden tax rates are this huge issue and they have to expatriate? Come on, recognize a con game when you see one. Corporate tax rates have been dropping since the 1960s. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf
> 
> ...


As long as we keep corp taxes high companies will continue to shy away from using the US as their world headquarters which means billions upon billions of dollars are going to stay off shore. Think about it which is better 15% of those billions or 0% of them?

Ever notice how a business gets more business? Do they raise the cost of doing business with them? Or do they cut the cost in order to get more business?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DaleK said:


> Do you know how many hundreds of companies have moved entire factories from Canada to the US under CUSFTA and now NAFTA? Many because they were given absolute sweetheart deals by US towns or states that we couldn't hope to match? (One that comes to mind got a guarantee of no state or local taxes for 30 years and electrical prices capped at 2000 levels for the same period). The whining over Burger King going the other way is unbelievable.


Not the same. BK isn't really moving anything, well maybe a few people. All they are doing it changing where their 'headquarters' is. By changing the return address on a few envelopes they will be cutting the taxes they pay on income earned outside the US from, IIRC, 45% to 16%. If you could cut your car payment by 1/3 just by moving your mail box across the street would you?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> So, should we have the lowest corporate tax rate in the world?
> 
> Seems even if the U.S. rate was 10% and it was 8% somewhere else, why wouldn't these Corporations move anyway?
> 
> ...


There's a lot of difference between trying to save 2% and 29%. If you could save 29% on half of your groceries by buying half of them at a store across the street the odds are you'd make the effort, correct? But if the savings was only 2% you'd probably think the effort isn't worth the savings.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> The problem is tax revenue.
> 
> The Government needs it, they are going to get it and If the government cannot get it from Corporations, they are going to get it from you and I.


Ahh. . .just where do you think the corporations get it from?


----------



## hawgsquatch (May 11, 2014)

MO_cows said:


> It just isn't as simple as some are making it out to be. What I am reading from some, if we dropped the corporate tax rates to zero tomorrow, all our troubles would be over. Well, dream on.
> 
> These big companies who are seeking tax havens, how did they get to be big companies? Could they have grown and prospered like they did if they were not in the US in the first place? And isn't it amazing, they paid all that horrible corporate tax rate the whole time they were growing, gobbling up other companies, and becoming the 900 lb gorillas that they are today. But when they run out of fresh ideas for more profits, all of a sudden tax rates are this huge issue and they have to expatriate? Come on, recognize a con game when you see one. Corporate tax rates have been dropping since the 1960s. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf
> 
> ...


The biggest and greediest corporations in America are in healthcare and insurance.....who panders to them?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

simi-steading said:


> Unkle has it all backwards, and the rich still aren't happy.. . Unkle keeps stealing from the little guys, and gives it back to the big guys... Did Robinhood have an ugly step sister?
> 
> Anyway, I don't blame BK.. I'd do the same if I could afford to... I'm tired of paying for things I"m not interested in receiving.. like a "safe" place to live...


Have you ever lived in a place that wasnt safe.... like say maybe Somalia? most any country in Europe during the world wars? I have no problem paying for defense of our nation and keeping it safe... my problem is with paying for all the very things that will ultimately destroy our nation. It really bugs me to have to pay the hangman to tie a rope around my own neck!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> I'm curious as to the source of the list. AFAIK, Tim Horton's has always been a Canadian country. And Fruit of the Loom remains HQ'ed in KY.
> 
> Just a couple that jumped out at me. I don't have time to do an exhaustive search.


Yeppers, last time I was in Bowling Green fruity was still there... of course most of their factories have long since found cheaper labor elsewhere in far away lands, but the main office is still there in BG.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Ahh. . .just where do you think the corporations get it from?


Corporate welfare?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Not the same. BK isn't really moving anything, well maybe a few people. All they are doing it changing where their 'headquarters' is. By changing the return address on a few envelopes they will be cutting the taxes they pay on income earned outside the US from, IIRC, 45% to 16%. *If you could cut your car payment by 1/3 just by moving your mail box across the street would you?*


Of course not, they are far to patriotic to do that! never mind that they are probably making those payments on a foreign car to begin with.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> There's a lot of difference between trying to save 2% and 29%. If you could save 29% on half of your groceries by buying half of them at a store across the street the odds are you'd make the effort, correct? But if the savings was only 2% you'd probably think the effort isn't worth the savings.



What can I say?

Ingersol-Rand moved their operations from the *U.S*. to *Bermuda* and then moved them to *Ireland*.

Maybe 2% is indeed 2%.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Ahh. . .just where do you think the corporations get it from?


What difference does it make? It's corporate revenue.

If they are no longer paying the taxes, someone else is going to have to pay. 

This "someone" will be us.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> What can I say?
> 
> Ingersol-Rand moved their operations from the *U.S*. to *Bermuda* and then moved them to *Ireland*.
> 
> Maybe 2% is indeed 2%.


Roughly $240M.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Corporate welfare?


If so where does the government get the money to give them?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> What difference does it make? It's corporate revenue.
> 
> If they are no longer paying the taxes, someone else is going to have to pay.
> 
> This "someone" will be us.


Us is already pay it it because they get their money from us when us buy their products. 

In the end all the 'money' comes from an individual's labors and all the tax dollars come put of individual's pockets.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> If so where does the government get the money to give them?


Same place the get all of the money to give anyone... they create it out of thin air! Then once they have it all created, they print it up and distribute it to the banks and the people... funny thing is, you dont hear about them sending very much to corporations.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Us is already pay it it because they get their money from us when us buy their products.
> 
> In the end all the 'money' comes from an individual's labors and all the tax dollars come put of individual's pockets.



Seriously?

If Ingersoll Rand saves 29% taxes by moving to Ireland, they are going to lower the price of your power tools accordingly?

If they don't have to pay the 29%, someone else is going to have to make up the difference.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Seriously?
> 
> If Ingersoll Rand saves 29% taxes by moving to Ireland, they are going to lower the price of your power tools accordingly?
> 
> If they don't have to pay the 29%, someone else is going to have to make up the difference.


Well thats one way to look at it. But having been in business for myself, getting someone else to make up the difference may sound nice... but it dont always work that way. You have a couple choices, entice someone to make up that difference by doing business with you, or cutting back on your own spending habits. Free enterprise being what it is, its kinda tricky to force someone to do business with you... they have the option of packing up their things and going elsewhere... someplace like Canada... or Mexico or some other place that doesnt try to bite their hand every time they feed them. This is exactly what is happening here.... our government gouges these companies to raise their revenues... the companies get tired of that and they pick up their toys and move to a more business friendly place. I know here in my state, the politicos offer enticements, things like reduced tax rates, building infrastructure to make it easier for a company to set up shop, and companies like that sorta thing.... they move here instead of Detroit! Nearly all the manufacturing in the St. Louis area happens on the west side of the river... and East St. Louis looks like a bombed out war zone... Why? there is only a river between the two. And of course the state line. Missouri offers a more realistic tax structure than Illinois does... therefor... East St Louis cant collect enough tax money to keep the water system up and running, much less build infrastructure to attract business back or offer fire and police protection. The result? St Louis has a thriving growing economy.... E. St Louis is floundering and dying in its own waste.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Weird. I thought Medtronic was still here in Minnesota. Editing to add that they are: World Headquarters
710 Medtronic Parkway
Minneapolis, MN 55432-5604


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Jax-mom said:


> Weird. I thought Medtronic was still here in Minnesota. Editing to add that they are: World Headquarters
> 710 Medtronic Parkway
> Minneapolis, MN 55432-5604


To avoid this hit, many U.S. multinationals have parked billions of dollars overseas, unused. Meanwhile, a small but growing cadre is seeking to acquire companies in foreign countries with much lower tax rates, then invert their ownership. Examples include medical device maker Medtronic, pharmaceutical company AbbVie and even the drugstore chain Walgreens.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-taxes-inversions-20140720-story.html


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

AngieM2 said:


> I think NAFTA has a lot to do with jobs moving outside the us.
> 
> And that was done when Carter was President.


NAFTA was clintons mess. here is a story on it.http://www.rense.com/general76/cclle.htm


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Call it self-preservation, call it smart capitalism, just don't call it patriotic.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Call it self-preservation, call it smart capitalism, just don't call it patriotic.


Hint... people dont go into business to provide jobs or to provide health insurance to all the little workers, or to be patriotic... they go into business to make money. Any of the good things that come of that goal are secondary... kinda like the bad things that are often associated with new drugs... side affects. Hopefully in most cases the good will outweigh the bad.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You got that right take buying a cap from the Army sure is not made in the uSA.
Nope Companies making a profit for their shareholders has nothing to do with patriotism.
They do that in other ways. A many do in this country.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

So, I don't like their fries.

Their chicken sandwich is a grease bomb.

Their burgers are nothing special.

I think that their mascot is irritating.

They aren't an American company.

Anytime I see a Burger King, there are usually three or four fast-food options nearby.

I rarely eat fast-food, anyway, but, when I might, why on Earth would I choose Burger King?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

And yet both Burger King and Tim Horton's went to war in Afghanistan - and certainly did not make a profit for their service there. Tim's was there for 5 years serving 2.5 million customers - soldiers from 37 nations - on the Kandahar base (Canadian) and Burger King only left because they were told to.


----------



## hawgsquatch (May 11, 2014)

My combined state and federal tax rate is 55 percent. Then if I add mandatory health insurance and use taxes in licenses and fees I get up to about 75 percent. If I chose to sit on my butt, collect disability, food stamps, section 8 housing, free tuition, free medical care, I could live better. Its just not me. I pay my own way but I am not feeling so patriotic. The problem is that anyone with any get up and go is getting up and going. Plenty of other countries are seeing that economic freedom breeds prosperity. America also no longer has the market on freedom cornered. We imprison more people than any other state and we are becoming a post constitutional dictatorship. Argentina, Ireland, Canada, And many Asian countries are starting to pick up on old Reagan style capitalism and as long as we try to be "fair" and "green" we are going to lose and lose big. What happens when we send all of our productive industry elsewhere? Can't write those welfare checks on credit forever can we?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Same place the get all of the money to give anyone... they create it out of thin air! Then once they have it all created, they print it up and distribute it to the banks and the people... funny thing is, you dont hear about them sending very much to corporations.


Not quite. They either take it from you directly via taxes or from your children and grandchildren via borrowing it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Not quite. They either take it from you directly via taxes or from your children and grandchildren via borrowing it.


They may take a little bit back through taxes, but until I see "in Watcher we trust" printed on those bills, I am going with my original theory that the government itself creates and distributes every piece of currency we see in circulation. IE, you wouldnt have it to tax if the government hadnt created it, printed it and put it into circulation to start with.


----------



## JoeMerchant (Aug 27, 2014)

greg273 said:


> Thanks for the list, now I know which companies to never support. What a bunch of ungrateful selfish people. They want all the good stuff America has to offer, all the protections of the best military and justice systems in the world,world class infrastructure, yet don't want to pay for it. Yep, have fun in Galt Gulch, i do hope it comes back to bite ya in the behind.


DITTO :hair , I've gotta print this list out, thanks OP


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Not an exhaustive list but it shows the companies that relocated their headquarters overseas to lower their tax rate.


Cool. They made very god business decisions in a global market place. Seagate is one of the largest Hard Drive Manufacturers, many computers have their HD in them. The company I used to work for made parts for them to go inside those HDDs.
Just a reminder that I will continue to go to BK and others that are on that list and many own things that a person may not even know they own, so there is really no way to make 100% certainly that one can go without buying or patronizing them which is a cop out in the first place.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> They may take a little bit back through taxes, but until I see "in Watcher we trust" printed on those bills, I am going with my original theory that the government itself creates and distributes every piece of currency we see in circulation. IE, you wouldnt have it to tax if the government hadnt created it, printed it and put it into circulation to start with.


You actually believe that? I thought you were joking before. You don't know how money is created?

You actually think when the government needs more money they just print some more? You must be meaning something here and not saying it.

If that was the case, and again I have to think you are implying some larger meaning in your nonsensical statement,; Why does the government tax citizens or tax anything? Why does the government borrow money in the form of bonds? Why not just print the money they need to buy guns and cheese and monuments and pay bureaucrats and on and on?

I just cannot fathom the meaning of your statement.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> Cool. They made very god business decisions in a global market place. Seagate is one of the largest Hard Drive Manufacturers, many computers have their HD in them. The company I used to work for made parts for them to go inside those HDDs.
> Just a reminder that I will continue to go to BK and others that are on that list and many own things that a person may not even know they own, so there is really no way to make 100% certainly that one can go without buying or patronizing them which is a cop out in the first place.


AK and all,
Don't get me wrong. I did not post this because I think these companies are in the wrong. Not at all.

I posted this as a warning, just like in THE BOOK, the payers will only pay until they feel they are paying too much and see others simply taking and taking and taking. A person or a company will only give so much. Then they move and go to Galt's Gultch. These companies went there.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I feel the need to add to what I said above. When these companies move or do not bring revenue back to the US bad things happen to Americans and it sets in motion events that further deteriorate our quality of life and the type and quantity of jobs here in America. It feeds on itself until nothing and I meaning nothing but misery reigns.

Too gloom and doom for you? Maybe I am overstating things? Maybe I am simply just wrong? Nope, not wrong. It is happening now. It moves slow. I don't know if it can be reversed. Most Americans are idiots and either don't care or are too ignorant to see it.

Quite simply, when companies keep money off shore they ultimately spend it overseas. 

Why should you care?

They build things there, not here. Jobs there, not here.
They consume things there. Jobs there, not here.
They do R&D there. Good jobs there, not here.
They fund education there. Good jobs there, not here.
They fund governments other than our own. Jobs there, not here and so much more.


----------



## wally (Oct 9, 2007)

HD Rider, I believe you are correct in post #83. The next question we must answer is why these companies relocate to other countries. They relocate because they are over taxed ,over supervised,over regulated and over charged for hiring employees...Now who does all this to our companies ?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wally said:


> HD Rider, I believe you are correct in post #83. The next question we must answer is why these companies relocate to other countries. They relocate because they are *over taxed ,over supervised,over regulated and over charged *for hiring employees...Now who does all this to our companies ?


In some respects the loss of corporations is a diversion of the bigger issue in respect to the the things you mention. The same things can be said of America's productive citizens. That is the bigger issue.

When are we going to start moving to Galt's Gulch?

Those companies are not the bad guys as 0bama and his minions paint them as unpatriotic. The government wants us focused on the companies and not the plight of the productive citizenry.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> When are we going to start moving to Galt's Gulch?


Already there, buddy!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> Already there, buddy!


Not sure where "Dysfunction Junction" is, but by your comment I assume you are outside US taxing jurisdiction? Canada?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

No, we are in the U.S., but have arranged our lives and finances so that we live pretty well without having to make much money. And the government only taxes you on what you earn ... 

There's a great line in "Atlas Shrugged" wherein Dagny Taggart -- having crashed her plane into Galt's Gulch -- asks Eliot Wyatt where the market for his product is in their tightly-knit community. He says, "Market? I'm working for my own benefit now ..." or some such. 

When I milk our cow, I'm not selling her milk for a profit, but she supplies us with the equivalent of $14 worth of organic milk every day, which we turn into cheese, butter and yogurt, and we do not pay a penny in taxes for it. 

Likewise with the garden ... hundreds of lbs. of fresh produce which becomes preserved produce with the purchase of only a few canning jar lids and a little electricity. I'm not obliged to earn money to buy it at the store, and pay a price that is inflated by the necessity of reimbursing the taxes that were paid by the farmer who grew it, the trucker who hauled it, the grocer who sold it ... etc. 

Firewood ... etc.

Now, I could take all the energy I put into my lifestyle and sell it to a conventional employer, probably for a pretty nice price, and be taxed out the wazoo, like Hawgsquatch, but why should I? I prefer to work for my own benefit, thanks ...


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> No, we are in the U.S., but have arranged our lives and finances so that we live pretty well without having to make much money. And the government only taxes you on what you earn ...
> 
> There's a great line in "Atlas Shrugged" wherein Dagny Taggart -- having crashed her plane into Galt's Gulch -- asks Eliot Wyatt where the market for his product is in their tightly-knit community. He says, "Market? I'm working for my own benefit now ..." or some such.
> 
> ...


Very astute. This is very similar to why my family started down the homesteading path. It was not completely to lower our income demands so as to lower the tax rate, but also to provide the buffer against retail sales. For instance the price of propane goes up, I change the percentage of my heating to use wood. If the price of pork increases I add a couple more hogs to the pen. It helps me regulate the impact of external forces on my families life.

Oddly enough when we were starting out 12 years ago I crunched the numbers to see if I still needed income from outside the homestead. We felt at that time we did, mainly due to having a young child and the desire for more placed health insurance as a high priority. Running the numbers now I could quit my job, not see a very significant decline in my quality of life, and have the government pick up my insurance through the ACA.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> No, we are in the U.S., but have arranged our lives and finances so that we live pretty well without having to make much money. And the government only taxes you on what you earn ...
> 
> There's a great line in "Atlas Shrugged" wherein Dagny Taggart -- having crashed her plane into Galt's Gulch -- asks Eliot Wyatt where the market for his product is in their tightly-knit community. He says, "Market? I'm working for my own benefit now ..." or some such.
> 
> ...


I did not want to assume too much. That said, I expected that to be your answer. I am with you. I am about a year away from taking a very similar path as yourself.

I suspect many to move toward a cash existence, quasi-legally. Beyond that, I expect many to "drop out", so to speak, in a way that provides for their well being, but not being such a tax target each creating our own little "Galt's Gulch.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

The ACA definitely has made this lifestyle less risky! The fact that the government is paying for most of my insurance may allow me to nearly zero out what I pay in federal taxes. (I won't know for sure until the end of the year.)

I still work, but I'm partly self-employed, and have a lot of flexibility. And I like what I do, so I don't mind, but my life doesn't revolve around earning a paycheck anymore. It doesn't have to.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> You actually believe that? I thought you were joking before. You don't know how money is created?


I think its obvious that one or the other of us doesnt know how our currency is created and by whom. I am still going with the US mint. There are a few cases where Joe Schmoe has printed up some in his basement, but that was illegal last I heard, and it carries some pretty stiff penalties.

Lets hear your theory.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think its obvious that one or the other of us doesnt know how our currency is created and by whom. I am still going with the US mint. There are a few cases where Joe Schmoe has printed up some in his basement, but that was illegal last I heard, and it carries some pretty stiff penalties.
> 
> Lets hear your theory.


I am not arguing the physical creation of currency, but how it derives its value.

Its value is not magically created when it is printed.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I am not arguing the physical creation of currency, but how it derives its value.
> 
> Its value is not magically created when it is printed.


This is very true, but the Federal Government can certainly print money with no value to back it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I am not arguing the physical creation of currency, but how it derives its value.
> 
> Its value is not magically created when it is printed.


And what exactly is it that establishes this "value" assuming any exists? 

As an aside, the government taxes the citizens in order to redistribute the wealth. if they didnt we would have a handful of really rich guys and the rest would be broke.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I recall as a child being put to work by my parents.... something about needing to learn the value of a dollar... all I learned was that shovel handles produce blisters. The value of the dollar remains somewhat elusive to this day! The trend seems to be its value diminishes from one day to the next.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And what exactly is it that establishes this "value" assuming any exists?
> 
> As an aside, t*he government taxes the citizens in order to redistribute the wealth.* if they didnt we would have a handful of really rich guys and the rest would be broke.


Thinking that way, you and me are too far apart to discuss anything. You are a socialist pure and simple. No insult, just putting name to it. I am the opposite,, whatever label you might want to put on it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nate_in_IN said:


> This is very true, but the Federal Government can certainly print money with no value to back it.


Creating an overabundance in the money supply definitely diminishes its value. No doubt.

There will always be an argument how much currency should be in circulation. I'd say we have too much now, and they are creating more. That is the argument against Federal debt.

There was approximately $1.29 trillion in circulation as of July 2, 2014, of which $1.24 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes. Those notes make the currency of value, and the debt is purchased with the expectation it will be repaid, by taxes.

There is how it works..


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> They may take a little bit back through taxes, but until I see "in Watcher we trust" printed on those bills, I am going with my original theory that the government itself creates and distributes every piece of currency we see in circulation. IE, you wouldnt have it to tax if the government hadnt created it, printed it and put it into circulation to start with.


I think I see the problem. You are confusing currency with 'money'.

Last night I spent a hunk of 'money' to fill my fuel tank on my truck. Did the government create that 'money'? Seeing as how my 'money' is put into my bank account via a computer and I paid the bill via computer, i.e. debit card, there wasn't a single piece of currency used. Therefore your theory that government creates all the money if flawed.

The same thing applies on the few occasions when I write a check for payment. There is no currency exchanged.

The 'money' to pay for the goods I got was created by me trading my labor to someone who wanted it. They could have paid me in paper dollars, electronic dollars or I'd even been willing to be paid with specific livestock, tools or a stock trailer. 

I have discovered most people don't understand a dollar is nothing more than another "thing" people trade. Its easier to carry around a few dollars than a chicken or two.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I feel the need to add to what I said above. When these companies move or do not bring revenue back to the US bad things happen to Americans and it sets in motion events that further deteriorate our quality of life and the type and quantity of jobs here in America. It feeds on itself until nothing and I meaning nothing but misery reigns.
> 
> Too gloom and doom for you? Maybe I am overstating things? Maybe I am simply just wrong? Nope, not wrong. It is happening now. It moves slow. I don't know if it can be reversed. Most Americans are idiots and either don't care or are too ignorant to see it.
> 
> ...


Which is exactly why people should be up in arms about how governments treat businesses. Again if the tax rate wasn't 40+% do you think a lot of these companies would be leaving?

A while back I read an article about the population shift in NY. IIRC, the size of the population was steady to slightly growing but the tax revenues for the state were falling even with increasing tax rates. A study was done and it was discovered that the reason for this was although the rate of people leaving and the people coming were about equal the incomes of those leaving were MUCH higher than those arriving. 

IOW, the people the state was getting the most money from via higher tax rates were saying "Screw this" and moving to states where they would be able to keep more of THEIR money. I have to wonder how much money NY (the state and city) lost when Rush Limbaugh moved to FL (a state w/o an income tax). Not only did they lose the money directly from taxing his income they also loss the sales tax revenue from every dollar he spent there and the various taxes generated from his business. Now the income of everyone leaving NY isn't anywhere near Rush's but it still adds up.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> In some respects the loss of corporations is a diversion of the bigger issue in respect to the the things you mention. The same things can be said of America's productive citizens. That is the bigger issue.
> 
> When are we going to start moving to Galt's Gulch?
> 
> Those companies are not the bad guys as 0bama and his minions paint them as unpatriotic. The government wants us focused on the companies and not the plight of the productive citizenry.


I've been on the way there for a lot of year. I'm doing everything legally possible to reduce the amount of money the government gets from me. I earn and spend less today than almost any other time in my life.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

watcher said:


> Which is exactly *why people should be up in arms* about how governments treat businesses. Again if the tax rate wasn't 40+% do you think a lot of these companies would be leaving?
> 
> A while back I read an article about the population shift in NY. IIRC, the size of the population was steady to slightly growing but the tax revenues for the state were falling even with increasing tax rates. A study was done and it was discovered that the reason for this was although the rate of people leaving and the people coming were about equal the incomes of those leaving were MUCH higher than those arriving.
> 
> IOW, the people the state was getting the most money from via higher tax rates were saying "Screw this" and moving to states where they would be able to keep more of THEIR money. I have to wonder how much money NY (the state and city) lost when Rush Limbaugh moved to FL (a state w/o an income tax). Not only did they lose the money directly from taxing his income they also loss the sales tax revenue from every dollar he spent there and the various taxes generated from his business. Now the income of everyone leaving NY isn't anywhere near Rush's but it still adds up.


And how they treat us. That is the manifest tragedy.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Just got back from BK. 2 whopper Jr.s for me and 3 for the 3 dogs.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Thinking that way, you and me are too far apart to discuss anything. You are a socialist pure and simple. No insult, just putting name to it. I am the opposite,, whatever label you might want to put on it.


I am a socialist?!?! :bouncy: :hysterical:

Just because I recognize how our socialist government operates doesnt mean I approve of it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am a socialist?!?! :bouncy: :hysterical:
> 
> Just because I recognize how our socialist government operates doesnt mean I approve of it.


Welcome to the dark side. There's never been anyone I so disagreed with that I couldn't discuss things with. We might never have agreed but it has led to some spirited talks.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> I think I see the problem. You are confusing currency with 'money'.
> 
> Last night I spent a hunk of 'money' to fill my fuel tank on my truck. Did the government create that 'money'? Seeing as how my 'money' is put into my bank account via a computer and I paid the bill via computer, i.e. debit card, there wasn't a single piece of currency used. Therefore your theory that government creates all the money if flawed.
> 
> ...


I was using currency as a way to make a point. There are several ways the government gets "money" into the system, printed currency is only one of them. And accounts for the very smallest portion of it. The bulk of our money supply is "created" by banks. As to you comment about your labor creating any money, thats only partially so. Your labor can produce things of value, which you then can trade for money, which like you say folds up and is much easier and convenient than trying to pack around a flock of chickens. But our labor doesnt always produce anything of value. For example, lets say you fenced your farm, sewed your pasture in grass, and cut all the hay you would need and got it stored away for winter... but didnt bother to buy any cattle... how much value has your labor created at the end of the year? A lot of labor is lost every day in this country simply because of poor management. In order for our labor to be of any value, it has to be properly managed so the end product actually materializes, which then can be traded for "money".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Welcome to the dark side. There's never been anyone I so disagreed with that I couldn't discuss things with. We might never have agreed but it has led to some spirited talks.


Yeppers, I dont always agree with everyone myself... but its good to be able to discuss things and show them the flaws in their thinking.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Welcome to the dark side. There's never been anyone I so disagreed with that I couldn't discuss things with. We might never have agreed but it has led to some spirited talks.


I only have energy to do it a dozen or so times and then they are on there own. 

Planting seeds on a rock yields no return.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am a socialist?!?! :bouncy: :hysterical:
> 
> Just because I recognize how our socialist government operates doesnt mean I approve of it.


Your use of sarcasm is too subtle for me. Heck some on here believe what you said is the propose of our government. Hard to know who who thinks what. I am tired of wasting time with them.

At this point I am more interested in hearing from those with like minds than those wackos that buy into socialist BS and other deviations.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I was using currency as a way to make a point. There are several ways the government gets "money" into the system, printed currency is only one of them. And accounts for the very smallest portion of it. The bulk of our money supply is "created" by banks. As to you comment about your labor creating any money, thats only partially so. Your labor can produce things of value, which you then can trade for money, which like you say folds up and is much easier and convenient than trying to pack around a flock of chickens. But our labor doesnt always produce anything of value. For example, lets say you fenced your farm, sewed your pasture in grass, and cut all the hay you would need and got it stored away for winter... but didnt bother to buy any cattle... how much value has your labor created at the end of the year? A lot of labor is lost every day in this country simply because of poor management. In order for our labor to be of any value, it has to be properly managed so the end product actually materializes, which then can be traded for "money".


Banks DO NOT create money out of then air. Regular banks borrow from the Federal Reserve, which is backed by US debt, which is managed by the Treasury which is serviced by taxes.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Banks DO NOT create money out of then air. Regular banks borrow from the Federal Reserve, which is backed by US debt, which is managed by the Treasury which is serviced by taxes.


So the Federal Reserve which is neither Federal or has a reserve creates it out of thin air then loans it to the banks :thumb:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

sorry, double post


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Banks DO NOT create money out of then air. Regular banks borrow from the Federal Reserve, which is backed by US debt, which is managed by the Treasury which is serviced by taxes.


and you are free to believe that if you wish. heres the deal... lets say you go in and deposit your $1,000 bucks you just won in a poker game.... drop it in a savings account. Now the bank will loan $800 of it to Betty, (whose husband seemed to have lost his 1000 dollar paycheck in a poker game last night and she still has bills to pay)... who will also drop it in her checking account... to be spent with local merchants, (hopefully). Banks are required to hold 20% of your deposit but can loan out the other 80% which most will do. Now when Betty borrowed your 800 she put that back in the bank, or wrote checks on it to local merchants who deposit it right back into the bank... now the bank can loan 80 percent of it again.. or 640 bucks to John who once again repeats the cycle, then roll that around and loan another 512 to Fred. This cycle continues until the bank has loaned out 4000 bucks and still has your thousand in their deposits..... thats the 20 percent they are required to hang on to.... they have just "created" 4 grand out of thin air. Now, that four grand is pretty cool but its not going to be nearly enough to suit any self respecting banker, and they figure you probably arent going to win at poker every thursday and stick it in your savings... so yes, they borrow money from the federal reserve banks,,,, which then becomes part of their 20 percent in reserve.... and loan that all out too.... over and over.... creating even more money out of thin air! Lots more!! Billions every day!!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> and you are free to believe that if you wish. heres the deal... lets say you go in and deposit your $1,000 bucks you just won in a poker game.... drop it in a savings account. Now the bank will loan $800 of it to Betty, (whose husband seemed to have lost his 1000 dollar paycheck in a poker game last night and she still has bills to pay)... who will also drop it in her checking account... to be spent with local merchants, (hopefully). Banks are required to hold 20% of your deposit but can loan out the other 80% which most will do. Now when Betty borrowed your 800 she put that back in the bank, or wrote checks on it to local merchants who deposit it right back into the bank... now the bank can loan 80 percent of it again.. or 640 bucks to John who once again repeats the cycle, then roll that around and loan another 512 to Fred. This cycle continues until the bank has loaned out 4000 bucks and still has your thousand in their deposits..... thats the 20 percent they are required to hang on to.... they have just "created" 4 grand out of thin air. Now, that four grand is pretty cool but its not going to be nearly enough to suit any self respecting banker, and they figure you probably arent going to win at poker every thursday and stick it in your savings... so yes, they borrow money from the federal reserve banks,,,, which then becomes part of their 20 percent in reserve.... and loan that all out too.... over and over.... creating even more money out of thin air! Lots more!! Billions every day!!


You are correct. Banks create money by making loans that are secured by a capital reserve and pledged assets. That reserve is either loaned to them by the Fed or by deposits.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> *Banks DO NOT create money* out of then air.





HDRider said:


> *You are correct. Banks create money* by making loans that are secured by a capital reserve and pledged assets. That reserve is either loaned to them by the Fed or by deposits.


Thank you... glad I was able to help.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Sawmill Jim said:


> So the Federal Reserve which is neither Federal or has a reserve creates it out of thin air then loans it to the banks :thumb:


The Federal Reserve is a member organization used to loan money from the government and between other member banks.

All this stuff is not as mysterious or nefarious as many want to believe.

National Debt is the scary part and yet we fear some unnamed demons lurking in the shadows.

Debt that YH mentions is not the thing to fear, but national debt creates a larger and larger supply of money, making what money we hold and earn worth less and less, but making hard assets worth more and more (think house values or the cost of a John Deer tractor). National debt creates an insatiable appetite to tax and spend and tax some more and spend some more until finally it collapse under its own weight.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thank you... glad I was able to help.


I just thought that was so obvious it did not need explaining. And it is not out of thin air. Assets are involved. Real assets.

You don't try to help, you just hunt for an argument.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I just thought that was so obvious it did not need explaining. And it is not out of thin air. Assets are involved. Real assets.
> 
> You don't try to help, you just hunt for an argument.


Its been said that education is very helpful... when I see someone making errors, I try to educate. It is amazing how many people have no clue as to how the banks create money. As to the "not thin air" comment... in my example where do you think that 4 grand came from if not out of thin air... the first grand is the only part that existed prior to the bank making loans with money they dont have.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

What it's so easy a 12 year old gets it.[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx5Sc3vWefE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx5Sc3vWefE[/ame]


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

HDRider said:


> The Federal Reserve is a member organization used to loan money from the government and between other member banks.
> 
> I'll address one misconception at a time . They don't loan money from the Gov . The Gov borrows from them . The entire Constitution was tossed out the window when the Fed. R. act was put in effect .
> 
> ...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SJ,
Some of this is also in the source you offered. 

Federal Reserve Banks are required to hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Federal Reserve Bank puts into circulation. This collateral is chiefly held in the form of U.S. Treasury debt, federal agency, and government-sponsored enterprise securities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Treasury_security

*I guess you could say that the government borrows from the Federal reserve, but it is really borrowing the money pledged by US Treasury securities.*

The U.S. Government receives all of the system's annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained. In 2010, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $79 billion to the U.S. Treasury.

The Federal Reserve System's structure is composed of the presidentially appointed Board of Governors (or Federal Reserve Board), the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation, numerous privately owned U.S. member banks and various advisory councils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

*In other words, the Treasury issues bonds, promising the Fed it will pay an agreed interest. The Treasury (US Government) issues the debt and pledges that debt debt to the Federal Reserve and the Fed sell it on the open market. So one of the purposes of the Fed is to act as the administrator for our debt.

The government issues the debt and the Fed administers the debt. I guess you could say the government borrows from the Fed, but the debt is in the form of Treasury securities. Someone had to handle the debt. Congress created the Fed to do that.

On your last point we are saying the same thing. Assets are worth more dollars. Dollars are worth less compared to the assets.*


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Its been said that education is very helpful... when I see someone making errors, I try to educate. It is amazing how many people have no clue as to how the banks create money. As to the "not thin air" comment... in my example where do you think that 4 grand came from if not out of thin air... the first grand is the only part that existed prior to the bank making loans with money they dont have.


That four grand is a trade for the pledge of an asset. Is the asset "thin air"?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> That four grand is a trade for the pledge of an asset. Is the asset "thin air"?


Nope, the asset is quite real... its the four grand that magically appears out of thin air. It did NOT exist, anywhere,,, not in the bankers vault, not in my pocket, not under anyones mattress,,, Then all at once, like magic... now it does!


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Then the Fed buys those debt notes from the open market as purchaser of last resort making these debt notes as junk . Think other countries will wise up to the petro dollar scam


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Since 2003, more than thirty-five major American companies have moved their headquarters and reincorporated overseas. Rather than rail against such âinversionsâ as President Obama does or call for an economic boycott as Ohio's Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown does, we should figure out what is driving American companies beyond our borders. 

Here's a clue: the United States now has the highest corporate tax rate of any industrialized country, and the _Wall Street Journal_ reports the Obama administration is âeven now looking for ways it can unilaterally raise corporate taxes without going to Congress.â 

From:
http://spectator.org/articles/60350/republicans-can-learn-lot-burger-kings-move-canada


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Another snippet from the same article...

That underscores what savvy business everywhere have learned, namely, that the United States is an increasingly less attractive place to do business. âCanada has quietly and politely become, well, more AMERICAN than America,â says columnist Stephen Green.


----------

