Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (132720)	10/9/2001 3:15:29 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

>>Congress voted to change our domestic laws because an international body told us to do so<< congress voted to... congress might have made a poor decision, but our sovereignty is intact. europe didn't vote to... rather, congress voted to... all rhetoric aside... our sovereignty is intact. quality decision making in congress is another issue... >>Our FSC rules simply allow U.S. corporations to exempt a small portion of income earned abroad from taxes.<< since it was so small, nobody will miss it, right? -lol- >>No "subsidy" is involved;<< definition of subsidy... dictionary.com >>no tax dollars are given to FSCs<< ok, let's get hypertechnical. why? b/c we need to. are home mortgages subsidized? of course. does the govt actually pay for home mortgages? no. the exempt some of the expense from tax that ordinarily would be paid. groups.google.com shows that AMERICAN people CLEARLY see that not paying taxes is a subsidy. this guy is just grinding an axe. >>The Constitution clearly vests the power to regulate trade solely with Congress,<< >>and Congress cannot cede with mandates in areas such as environmental protections, worker rights, and trade policy.<< ok, please show me where congress can't review policy b/c a trading partner requests it? where is that in the constitution? it would have been nice to cite it in the article, but no such luck. >"As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules,"<< of course the black helicopter people will refuse to allowthe US out of the wto if a serious issue arises... right??? a "small" (not my word!) "subsidy" (my word b/c the author was being absurd!) will not be deemed worth causing major problems. someone ought to look into the tax practices of other nations if they don't tax foreign income. however, i can't take this guy's word b/c he so clearly butchered the reasonable meaning of subsidy to make his "point." not that he isn't right, i just don't believe him since i can't believe him to properly define subsidy when it is in his self interest to abscufate the meaning. >>If we want to help American businesses, we should simply stop taxing their foreign income.<< sounds like a plan. >>The FSC measure will not appease the Europeans; the EU already has indicated that the changes are unsatisfactory to them. << hold on, i thought the eu controlled us? you mean they don't? ;-) >>What will happen when the Europeans object to another area of our tax laws? Will we change the way we tax individuals also? Perhaps the Europeans will object to our relatively liberal immigration laws,<< hypotheticals constitute meaningless rhetoric at this point. wait until it happens. >>because they resent losing their talented citizens to America.<< hey, they are just looking out for thir self interest right? i thought that was a good thing? -vbg- >>Americans who care about sovereignty have every reason to be outraged.<< and americans who care about sovereignty but don't have a political axe to grind don't need to get huffy over an admittedly "small" issue. i pick my battles, i don't everything that comes down the pike.